Beyond Earth (ATWG) - Chapter 35 - The Past is not Sufficient as a Prolog by Hylan B. Lyon
From The Space Library
Chapter 35
The Past is Not Sufficient as a Prolog
By Hylan B. Lyon, Jr.
The necessary conditions for a successful enterprise or policy are often self evident, intuitively obvious, and compelling to a number of advocates. But the sufficient conditions that determine if success will be achieved are often virtually invisible due to blinders of attitude. By "necessary" I mean the absolutely essential elements that must be in place for success; by "sufficient" I mean that all elements are in place in the appropriate context, amount, and proportion. Necessity therefore addresses conditions from a minimalist perspective, and is regularly subject to distortion by policy makers who have an agenda to push, while sufficiency is pragmatic and realistic.
This is important because many of the more intractable problems facing society have sufficiency conditions that are far beyond the conception of those concerned with necessity, so let's reserve a name for those that seem to resist solution as Major Classical Problems, and let's us see what we already know about them and see if that knowledge can be converted to a new understanding. Why? Because the initiatives called for in this book will require solutions of the same character as many of these major classical problems, solutions that address sufficiency as well as necessity.
One of the characteristics of our culture is that the effort required to understand sufficiency conditions is suppressed as a consequence of "paralysis by analysis," "Pareto analysis," and "focus, focus, focus." These methods assume that sufficiency conditions will be confronted and solved as a solution is worked out. But major classical problems have proven that they are of a different class; unmet sufficiency conditions often stifle solutions or result in counterintuitive and counterproductive outcomes.
We don't lack for statements of the major classical problems the world has to solve. Lists abound in the literature of analysis, such as this one from 1976:
Arms negotiations
Joint space ventures
Law of the sea
Global health care
Nuclear safeguards
Regional development programs
Materials buffer stock network
Global food allocation and production enhancement
Brain drain
Regulation of Multi Nationals
Compiled by Franklyn P. Huddle, Congressional Research Service; "Science, Technology and Diplomacy in the Age of Interdependence" GPO, 1976.
This array of problems, authored by the wonderfully persistent student and scholar of public policy, Frank Huddle, was created nearly half way (1976) between the optimism expressed in the "Science the Endless Frontier" report (1945) and the present (2006). Thus we have a check-point as to whether the basic organizing precepts for the US science and technology policy are adequate for the problems we now face 60 years later. This chapter is presented in support of the argument that awareness of the necessary conditions for development of real solutions to major classical problems, even those in the midst of broad public debate, is not sufficient to bring about meaningful solutions or positive change.
Is There a Prolog?
Science, the Endless Frontier57 was commissioned by President Roosevelt on November 17, 1944 with this intent: "There is no reason why the lessons to be found in this experiment (the use of science during World War II) cannot be profitably employed in times of peace." The report concludes with ... "New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness and drive with which we have waged this war, we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment, and a fuller and more fruitful life."
And thus the US started down a road to managing Science and Technology for the good of society, a new and brave experiment to those of us who participated in or studied science policy history. The US model was emulated and copied worldwide, as in the genesis of the Indian Institute of Technology, or the continuation of the Marshall Plan through to OECD, and the International Energy Agency or many of the functions of the UN.
We took an unfortunate but necessary diversion during the cold war, when defense-oriented budgets, and even NASA funding, were qualitatively and quantitatively formulated in a rather distorted sense from the charter empowered by the "Endless Frontier. What is meant here is that the pure social objective of the Endless Frontier was not the rational for the funding of a great portion of science during the Cold War. In many cases the commercial spin off from research justified for Defense purposes was limited in its non-military applications because of Government policies.
In the early 1970s, Dennis and Donella Meadows published The Limits to Growth58 which alerted us that the complex nature of many of these problems is such that if current trends continue, major classical problems will continue to grow in their magnitude until a catastrophe awakens us to their true nature, at which time our response most likely will be too late and too weak. In the back of this book were scenarios of hope that could be implemented with a full understanding of the situation. But few of the detractors that I encountered had read that far.
In the mid 70s Mankind at the Turning Point59 by Mesarovic and Pestel presented the hope that the reactions of society to these now classic problems would not occur as a cataclysm. The book asserted that change would occur through learning between the different regions of the world, each in different states of progress, and that this would motivate effective action. This posited that the impact of the catastrophe of Somalia, for example, or starvation among the nations in Africa, would filter back to the other regions of the world, and that effective changes would be initiated.
In the mid 80s, Meadows returned with Groping in the Dark,60 and challenged us with the idea that mankind's self-destructive capacity would limit the quality and quantity of life on Earth before we ever reached the physical limits of natural resources.
And yet, today, if we look at the problem statement from the mid point, 1976, through to today, and if we address the role of space in the solution of mankind's problems, as in this book, we have to give ourselves a grade of ...? Or perhaps we can submit a list of excused absences. Regardless, the thesis of this chapter is that we don't have much of a prolog to evaluate; there is simply not enough history of humanity dealing successfully with major classical problems for us to know with certainty how to proceed. This is particularly the case as we address the scale of resource commitment that is required for the development of space, as discussed in this book.
The major classical problems shown in the list resist solution by present policy prescriptions or approaches. A more elegant phrase, "World Problematique,' is a concept created by the Club of Rome to describe the set of the crucial problems - political, social, economic, technological, environmental, psychological and cultural - facing humanity. http://www.clubofrome.org/.
The complexity of the world problematique lies in the high level of mutual interdependence of all these problems on the one hand, and in the long time it often takes until the impact of action and reaction in this complex system becomes evident.
A declaration of bias is necessary at this juncture, since the author of this section was a partial and imperfect replacement for Alexander King, the founder of the Club of Rome in the mid 70s, at OECD, and while I have not continuously participated in these high level discussions, except a foray into Pugwash and government advisory mechanisms, I have been a "bird on the perch" watching the machinations. It is this experience that led me to write this chapter.
What Can We Learn?
We have several examples that show how the existence of a particular technology, and a choir of advocates singing its praises, are not a sufficient condition for positive societal impact by that technology.
When you get involved in high level policy, one of the issues I believe any reasonable person struggles with is, "Why do we have to work so hard to make good things happen?" The answer, while often obvious in broad strokes of thought, requires details that open thickets of the mind which are almost impenetrable because of the multiple thorns that have to be overcome.
At a National Academy of Sciences workshop years ago on international trade, one of the Nobel laureate economists made an aside comment to me that has stuck with me over the years due to its simplicity and profoundness, and now with its relevance to this sufficiency argument.
If every participant in society shared equally in the benefits and bore their fair share of the costs there would be few obstacles to these policies.
What I took from that part of my past is that all public policy relies on some form of Robin Hood or reverse Robin Hood formula, take from some and give to others. Our government is designed to allow special interest politics to flourish, so if some compensatory amendments are not added to basic policy prescriptions as in the statement above, any project, no matter how meritorious, is probably dead or will die over time.
So now as we address the sufficiency issues, this simple and elegant statement of an almost unassailable wisdom provides us with some key questions to help us focus on understanding sufficiency conditions.
Question 1: Who are the beneficiaries of the initiative? Who pays the costs? And how will the equity be achieved? ... both in fact and in perception.
Question 2: What scale of constituency has to be engaged to provide the resources? And how will their perceptions change over the time it takes to achieve demonstrable results? How is the balance between benefits and costs reconciled within that constituency?
Looking at the Major Classical Problems may help us find the questions we need to ask, and then we can address the tools needed to go from the questions to the character and detail of the solutions.
While none of the examples relate directly to the process of building a space hotel, or a space industry to harvest materials from the moon, it is the premise of this chapter that we may at a minimum get a grasp on some of the questions society is going to ask, and the space advocacy community is going to have to answer.
Other examples in my memory are:
- Overcoming world hunger when we already produce enough food stocks.
- Reducing dependence on imported oil (for the 30th time).
- The introduction of High Speed rail between major population centers in Europe, and the failure of that approach in the US.
- The growth of alternative energy projects, each with a legacy of advocacy but several remaining technical and economic problems, and increasing stridency for "fund me." (example: biomass fuels)
- The evolution of the peaceful use of nuclear power.
- Overcoming the math and science illiteracy in the US education system, K through 12.
A cautionary note from my experience. The notion that you can pick winners in a government policy process (politics with a small p) is almost universally unsuccessful. In my experience in Europe, the most reasoned advocates for not "picking winners" were the same Ministers who were struggling to do it. The idea appears deceptively appealing, but the track record is not there to justify actually doing so.
I have declared above that we shouldn't get a grade on our performance with Major Classical Problems because we were absent from the Problematique class. Now we're going to try to start learning and catch up before we have the final exam. We passed our mid term test, the Cold War, and our term paper on "Managing Tsunamis, Terrorism, Global Energy Markets and Hurricanes" is being graded right now. But when we sneak a peak into the professor's office he has a frown in his face and there's already a lot of red ink on our paper. Humm.
During my career I've watched crisis management morph into catastrophe management. The only remnant of change due to managing crises is to ruin your daughter's birthday, as it takes a real big catastrophe to initiate change, which even then often has little to do with the cause of the catastrophe. It's an amazing phenomenon to observe.
The learning we (the royal "we") have to accomplish must enable us to take off the blinders, particularly as we make decisions about how to participate in changes in one nation among a global society. If we craft solutions with blinders on, i.e. with too many unexamined assumptions, then all we will do is empower the Law of Unintended Consequences. Under the workings of this law, we achieve the opposite of what we intend. If history is our guide, the attempt to "focus," simplify, and stress only the key points actually sets the initiative up to fail.
Are there more questions than the two proposed above? The answer is yes.
Next, we take the example of biomass as a source of energy for society. Will it move beyond a niche solution and become a major component of the energy equation in the US and world?
Case Study - Improved Use of Biomass; aka, the Expanded Use of Flex-fuel Vehicles
To examine the issue of sufficiency, this brief case study looks at the general background of biomass and ethanol 85 as an automobile fuel, auto use as a percentage of total energy consumption, the total stock of private vehicles in the US, and the infrastructure for distribution of ethanol 85 in the Washington DC area.
Biomass/ethanol technology has a heritage that goes as far back as I can remember, as biomass production of organic fuel precursors has been on the agenda during most of my career. The process of increasing awareness has been in place since the late 60s or early 70s. Today, it is mature enough to make a dent on the production and distribution of usable fuels for autos and trucks, but how big a dent?
Over the past three decades, Brazil has worked to create a viable alternative to gasoline, and with its sugarcane-based fuel the nation may become energy independent this year. Brazil's ethanol program, which originated in the 1970s in response to the uncertainties in the oil market, has enjoyed considerable success. Many Brazilians are driving "flexible fuel" cars that run on either ethanol or gasoline, and allow you to fill up with whichever option is cheaper, which is often ethanol. Countries with large fuel bills such as India and China are following Brazil's progress closely. A similar situation is emerging in China, where the development of the infrastructure in that rapidly emerging economy struggles with fluctuations in gasoline prices. Japan and Sweden, meanwhile, are importing ethanol from Brazil to help fulfill their environmental obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, as running cars on carbohydrates instead of fossil fuels may not be a new idea, and ethanol does have drawbacks, but it offers an increasingly attractive alternative as oil prices climb.61 One of the advantages of this system is that biomass is a carbon sink, and thus theoretically could provide a net-zero green house gas energy resource.
The US is taking small steps towards the use of ethanol, but the chemical process here, relying on corn, requires more steps and is more expensive. Will our blinders deny us the nuances that make Ethanol fuels effective in Brazil and possibly in other countries?
Biochemical Conversion
Biochemical technology can be used to convert cellulose and hemicellulose polymers that occur in biomass to their molecular building blocks, such as sugars and glycerides. Using hydrolysis, sugars can then be converted to liquid fuels. Thus, agricultural crops and residues, wood residues, trees and forest residues, grasses, and municipal waste can all be converted to fuel for "flex" fuel vehicles. Claims as to how many flex fuel vehicles exist in the nations inventory since their introduction in the late 80's and during the 90's differ in number, and it is hard to get one that satisfies. After market conversions also exist. Regardless of this, even the largest number is a small share of the total.
What we need are bio-refinery processes that convert corn-based biomass feedstocks into bio-based fuels.
2010 is a DOE milestone goal to finalize a biorefinery with the potential for three bio-based chemicals. By 2012 demonstrations that achieve a 5 - 20% increase in corn's fiber yield in ethanol plants are planned.
Table 35.1 Auto Use Within Total Energy Use
Given that we import 33.8 quadrillion BTU per year, a significant savings due to ethanol substitution, while good, is not going to eliminate the need to import energy.
This leads us to Question 3: Are the only effective solutions arrived at by the “thousand candles” approach of the market place? This is the notion that let a 1000 ideas be started and let the strong survive. If so, how do large infrastructure initiatives that have to begin during one generation but finish after the next generation get financed?
Table 35.2 Vehicle Stock
The production of flex fuel vehicles started in the late 1980s. Production in 2006 is estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of vehicles (a negligible quantity given the total stock of autos on the road).
Question 4: When society already has a solution in place, what level of change in cost, efficiency, or function is required to motivate the change?
Question 5: When demand for any particular option is driven by a volatile market price to the consumer, how do stop-start phenomena affect the building of infrastructure? Are there politically acceptable alternatives to this aspect of market dynamics?
Table 35.3 The Capacity to Distribute Flex-fuels to the Consumer
Data as of 2003, which obviously do not reflect recent changes due to higher fuel prices
And now the last straw: Where can you buy ethanol for your flex fuel car? Within 100 miles of Washington DC, a Department of Energy web site (http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/) offers the following options: an under-whelming grand total of four public and one private filling station.
Table 35.4 Ethanol Gas Stations — Washington, D.C.
The goal of this chapter has not been to place this text as a roadmap, but to stimulate the reader to form your own sense some thoughts about the sufficiency conditions of any roadmap. Ask yourself, Is the proposed solution in any respect at the same scale as the problem?
My "bird on the perch" experience is presented, with all of its warts and deficiencies, in the hope that somehow we can begin to understand the dimensions of due-diligence that society must apply to the maturation and social acceptance of any major change - space or terrestrial.
It is my goal to guide the reader to recognize the need for increased awareness across a larger slice of society concerning the importance of sufficiency conditions. The challenge then becomes building tools and processes for moving from "sufficiency awareness" to the crafting of policy settings that assure sufficiency, that is, success. Will this happen? ... certainly. But will it happen by present processes? My evaluation of history says no.
Leadership in this type of process not only has to galvanize action but has to comprehend the broad reaches of the sufficient conditions. With that awareness it has to convince the public involved of the true nature of the linkages that must be considered. And finally the leadership has to be stable to endure until the appropriate elements are identified, moved into action and changes implemented. We can do this with enlightened leadership that can influence and persuade across many different constituencies. The leader in a sense has to see what others can't see, and stimulate action where otherwise there would be no action.
Extracted from the book Beyond Earth - The Future of Humans in Space edited by Bob Krone ©2006 Apogee Books ISBN 978-1-894959-41-4
 Buy This Book Click here |
