Systems Community of Inquiry

Hello, David.

Here are my thoughts from Day 3 topics:

https://jischeu.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/day-3-thoughts/

Julie Scheu

@olli In your writing on Managing coevolutional relationships for more creative and sustainable system, you’ve gone to the heart of systems theory by combining Holling’s adaptive cycle with Two Species Population Interactions as described by Odum. The latter is something every biology student should know … but I didn’t even take the high school courses, in biology … and I don’t know about you.

You’ve demonstrated an appreciation of systems foundations by recognizing connectedness between parts in the sense of panarchy, and the relation to increased potential. The maximum potential occurs at the conservation (K) phase. That’s when there’s an opportunity for protocooperation or mutualism.

My feeling is that your ideas are headed in the right direction, although the writing towards the end of your article gets challenging. You may need the help of T.F.H. Allen to get that correct. If I read between the lines you’ve written, I think that you see mutualism as introducing dependence between parties in a relationship of complexity (reducing resilience), whereas protocompetition could be a lower energy complicated relationship. This could require some deeper thinking, as the question is whether the joint system is of a different type and scale than the two parts interacting in less formality. Let me try an example with computer technology: if we see the Internet as a bridge between computers, and the computers can operate independently when not connected, that would be a complicated (and more resilient) design; if however, the computers cannot operate independently (e.g. mobile phones without a network are extremely limited), then the system type and scale have changed (with a complex and less resilient design).

As you approach the final paper for CS0005, it might pay to use a concrete in applying the ideas on resilience and coevolution. I believe that your theoretical understanding is fundamentally correct, so it’s just a case of helping out the reader with theory that is abstract (and difficult)!

David,
I chose some lectures randomly… and although I did not understand some of them completely, I put a small comment for you to read.

http://systemic-thinking.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html

@piah By your choosing to review the 2006 article by Cumming, Cumming and Redman, on mismatches in scale, you’re deep into systems theory. The concept of scale is applicable in all types of systems, and the mismatches between the social and ecological can create issues.

Your question as to whether scale mismatches will lead to collapse, or resolution (e.g. through adaptation) are both situationally-dependent and time-dependent. Collapse is associated with rapid descent, whereas a decline can more gradual, so the rate of degradation and the resilience of the system at hand need to be understood.

The definitions for resilience provided by Stephen Carpenter are clear and concise. Resilience can be associated with learning, if the system either breaks up into its parts in a complicated structure of a lower gain regime, or is integrated into the containing supersystem as a higher gain regime. In the sense of the adaptive loop drawn in the writings of Gunderson and Holling, reorganization of an existing system through the four phases could be similar to plants that have roots cycle through an annual cycle, learning less than those plants who seeds are spread to the wind (potentially to greener pastures).

@gabuabdo In your three blog posts about Day Three, you’ve been reading some challenging content for novices to systems. Since CS0005 is an introductory course rather than a specialist’s course, getting the basic ideas provides some foundations should you want to pursue the content further.

You were challenged by the idea of entropy, which is the most basic idea in systems. Perhaps this would have been better if we had talked a little bit about it during the lectures. Maybe the definition of entropy in Wikipedia might help, or its history.

In any case, closed systems don’t practically exist, and a perspective that refers to architecture as a closed system would be a major criticism of ignorance of the world outside the system. Living and non-living systems both have environments. A building is a system, that has to be constructed to endure weather, that is part of its environment. The people living in the building probably shouldn’t be seen as subsystems or supersystems. The people and buildings could be seen as wholes that interact, potentially as parts of a greater containing whole (e.g. buildings and people in a city).

The relevance of symbiosis in the context of the Viable Systems Model requires a bit more stretching. The VSM is helpful in diagnosing dysfunctions, for which architecture, planning and urban design should be considered in the context with people. While the focus with VSM can be on a system in isolation, recognizing coevolution with other systems draws in ideas of symbiosis.

In your reflection of the reading on sustainability and sustainable development by Gallopin, you’ve hit a dilemma in the understanding, i.e. (i) a universal definition for people who prefer an objectivist stance, and (ii) the culturally-dependent definitions for those who prefer a subjectivist stance. While you cite Gallopin, your challenge of “sustainability of what, for whom, at what cost and for how long?” comes from T.F.H. Allen, which shows that you’ve been listening in class.

You’re asking the right questions, and trying to negotiate your way through some deep thinking. I expect that these ideas will ferment in your mind, and that a light will turn on sometime in the future when you’re not sitting in a class focused on systems.

Hello David,

here are my reflections for day 3:

http://eligerova.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/systemic-thinking-for-planners-and-designers-reflections-on-day-3/

Elitza

@cobregon22 Recognizing both the perspectives of the world at large, and local interests (in Colombia) raises questions about the scope of sustainability and sustainable development. I can see that Gallopin’s perspective resonates with you.

Since I’m at the Resilience 2011 meeting while I’m writing this response — I’ve seen Holling in presentations over the past few days — the question as to local versus global does figure large. The research and influence into action is local, although we can appreciate that the coordination across multiple locales contributes to and is involved in a larger whole. This certainly crosses the line from ecologists as scientists into ecologists as political influencers or advocates.