Have you ever wondered why one species on this planet, the so-called Sapiens—a Latin term meaning "wise" (which, by the way, is a self-assigned label)—tends to exhibit such intense addiction to intolerance of mythologies that are not their own, but absolute certainty about mythologies that are their own? What is going on?
You see, our global economy is a complex system. So are our planetary ecosystems. Both systems have countless interconnected components, similar to any systems that involve multiple moving parts. To grasp their intricacies, it's essential to recognize the interaction of numerous variables that influence their dynamics simultaneously. Truly understanding the extent of this complexity demands a high degree of intellectual humility that even the most intellectually arrogant find challenging, assuming they are honest with themselves. This essay will delve into the multifaceted nature of understanding our planetary systems, their complex systems dynamics, and the critical role of intellectual humility in managing them. No other aspect of human affairs has a stronger case for the need to prove the hypothesis that the higher the certainty, the greater the ignorance.
Let us borrow an example from nature. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a rule in quantum physics that says we can't know everything about a tiny particle, like an electron, simultaneously. (Please check out the equation above.) Specifically, it says that the more precisely we know where a particle is (its position), the less precisely we can know how fast it's moving and in what direction (its momentum), and vice versa. You might conclude, what does this have to do with my everyday life? If you think that, think again.
Think of it like trying to take a photo of a fast-moving car in the dark. If you use a camera flash to see exactly where the car is, the flash might blur your view of how fast it’s going. If you focus on measuring the car's speed, you might not know its exact location at that moment. Speed is motion. Position is zero-motion. The two cannot be measured simultaneously.
This principle isn't due to bad tools or intellectual mistakes; it's just how nature works. Like it or not, it tells us there's a limit to how much we can know about things at once. In this example, the relationship highlights a fundamental limit to how precisely you can simultaneously measure the position and momentum of a particle. As we increase the certainty in one, the uncertainty in the other simultaneously increases.
In physics, a "quantum" is the smallest discrete unit of energy or matter that can exist independently in a system. By analogy, a "quantum of thought" would represent the smallest discrete, self-contained unit of cognition or mental activity. This could be interpreted as a single, indivisible concept, idea, or mental representation that contributes to more complex chains of reasoning, emotions, or creativity.
Viewing a single thought as a "quantum of thought" is a useful metaphor for exploring the structure and dynamics of human cognition. While it may not be a perfect fit due to the complexity and continuity of thought, it provides a framework for understanding mental processes as composed of fundamental units, much like physical systems in quantum mechanics. This thesis could inform debates on the nature of consciousness, such as whether it is continuous or composed of discrete experiences. Remember your high school classroom discussions on the "wave-particle" duality dilemma.
Notwithstanding the potential limitations of the hypothesis, such as the following: Thoughts may not function as independent units but rather as emergent phenomena arising from the interaction of multiple underlying processes (e.g., memory, perception, and context). The meaning of a single thought often depends on its context. Without a broader framework, a single "quantum of thought" might lack significance. Unlike quantum particles, thoughts may not always be strictly discrete. Cognitive processes often involve a fluid and continuous interplay of ideas. For instance, emotions or complex reasoning might blur the lines between individual "quanta."
In human behavior, the principle of dogmatism inherently contrasts with the principle of dynamism, as the two operate on fundamentally opposing paradigms. Dogmatism is marked by a steadfast rigidity, an unyielding immutability, and an unwavering certainty. It reflects an adherence to fixed beliefs or doctrines that resist change or adaptation, regardless of context or new information. Remember your high school classroom discussions on the concept of Bayesian reasoning.
Dogmatism, marked by its steadfast rigidity and unchanging beliefs, fundamentally opposes the adaptive nature of Bayesian reasoning. While dogmatism clings to certainty, Bayesianism thrives on uncertainty, using evidence to continuously refine its understanding. This contrast reveals that dogmatism disregards one of the most powerful aspects of rational thought: the ability to grow and evolve in response to new information. Ask yourself this: in a world with billions of parts moving simultaneously, how rational are you to hold rigid points of view?
On the other hand, pragmatism embodies the essence of dynamism. It is characterized by adaptability, fluidity, and a willingness to embrace uncertainty. Pragmatism thrives in environments that demand change and flexibility, where outcomes are shaped by evolving circumstances rather than rigid adherence to predetermined notions.
In a universe governed by ephemeralism—where change and impermanence are the defining constants—the practice of dogmatism becomes paradoxical, even contradictory. A dynamic reality necessitates a dynamic response. To cling to dogmatic principles in such a context is to deny the very nature of existence, rendering the application of dogmatism fundamentally incongruous with the transient and ever-changing fabric of the universe.
However, it is important to balance this perspective with the recognition that some degree of certainty is necessary for decision-making and action. The relationship between certainty and ignorance is not absolute but contextual, depending on how certainty is derived and applied. Certainty informed by critical thinking and evidence does not inherently equate to ignorance, but certainty rooted in dogma or insularity often does.
Please consider this idea objectively: The global economy and the global ecosystem, like any complex system, are constantly changing. This means any certainty we feel about them is eventually disrupted by their ever-shifting variables. Often, claims of absolute knowledge in such areas are rooted in human tendencies, like the need for psychological comfort, a preference for predictability, or biases such as confirmation bias (favoring information that supports our beliefs) and choice-supportive bias (justifying poor past decisions). In some cases, these claims may also arise from deeper insecurities, like overestimating one's competence—an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which is common among those who choose to remain uninformed.
This highlights the limitations of absolute certainty in human decision-making and underscores the importance of critical thinking, open-mindedness, rationalism, pragmatism, and evidence-based reasoning over dogmatism. Decisions rooted in dogmatism can metaphorically invert Descartes' declaration from "Cogito, ergo sum" into "Non cogito, ergo non sum," (meaning: "I do not think, therefore I am not") suggesting an abdication of thoughtful inquiry. Consider this question: Does investing your valuable time and acknowledging proponents of dogmatic beliefs yield a positive return on investment?
At its core, the global economy and ecosystems operate as a network of interconnected systems, all moving simultaneously. These systems include financial markets, supply chains, labor markets, regulatory frameworks, technological advancements, biodiversity, and cultural influences. Each component interacts with the others, often in nonlinear and unpredictable ways.
For instance, consider the 2008 financial crisis, which began in the United States housing market but rapidly cascaded across global financial systems. The securitization of subprime mortgages, combined with the opaque nature of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), created a ripple effect that undermined financial institutions worldwide. So what is "securitization" anyway? It is a process where loans, like mortgages, are bundled together and turned into investment products that can be bought and sold. Think of it like taking a bunch of smaller items, packaging them up, and selling the package as a new product.
Here’s how it works in the context of subprime mortgages. Banks and lenders give out lots of mortgages, including to people with lower credit scores (called "subprime borrowers"). They then group these mortgages together. These bundled loans are transformed into financial products, like Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), which are sold to investors. The idea is that investors will get a steady stream of income from the mortgage payments.
Subprime mortgages were often given to people who might struggle to pay them back.
When these loans were packaged and sold, the risk of defaults was essentially "hidden" within the complex structure of the CDOs. This made it hard for investors and even experts to see how risky these products actually were. When too many below-average borrowers (subprime borrowers) couldn’t pay their mortgages, the whole system started to collapse. The investment products based on these loans lost their value, and since they were widely held by banks and financial institutions, it created a domino effect of financial instability around the world. In short, securitization allowed risky subprime loans to spread like wildfire through the financial system in a way that seemed safe but wasn’t, contributing to a major global financial crisis.
This example demonstrates how local problems can escalate into widespread crises, a characteristic of interconnected complex systems. How many people on this planet are aware, even today, of the factors that led to the "Great Recession"? Is it even necessary for them to know in order to lead successful lives? If not, then who should be accountable for steering the "ship of state" safely for all of us, the dogmatists or the pragmatists? Consider which choice is truly sensible for humanity: entrusting the controls of the "ship of state" to the dogmatists or the pragmatists?
A highly technical illustration of the interconnectedness of the global economic system is the occurrence of supply chain disruptions, like those triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Modern supply chains are intricately optimized for efficiency, relying on just-in-time manufacturing and global sourcing. When the pandemic forced factory closures in one part of the world, it created a domino effect. Semiconductor shortages, for instance, affected industries ranging from automotive to consumer electronics. The interdependence of suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors demonstrates how vulnerabilities in one link can compromise the entire chain. Humanity completely underestimated the complexity of the supply chain network that existed then and still exists today.
Take, for example, the interconnectedness of dry ice shortages, which highlights the ripple effects of supply chain disruptions across industries during that same period. Dry ice, essential for preserving perishable goods, became highly demanded during the vaccine rollout, as it was critical for maintaining the ultra-cold temperatures required to transport COVID-19 vaccines safely. This sudden surge in demand significantly reduced the availability of dry ice for other industries, including beer bars and breweries, which rely on it for carbonation and cooling. Without sufficient dry ice, bars faced challenges in serving beer at optimal quality, leading to inventory issues and dissatisfied customers.
This chain reaction demonstrates how a public health necessity can inadvertently strain unrelated sectors, revealing the fragility and interdependence of modern supply chains. Once again, how many people on this planet were aware of the underlying factors that led to such outcomes? Is it even necessary for them to know in order to lead successful lives? If not, then who should be accountable for steering the "ship of state" safely, the dogmatists or the pragmatists?
Another typical example of voluntary ignorance, where a seemingly harmless and straightforward daily habit among humans is causing harm now and will continue to affect future generations, is wood-burning. You see, wood-burning is commonly used for heating and cooking, particularly in rural and off-grid areas, but its environmental impact is significant. Burning wood releases particulate matter (PM2.5), black carbon, and other pollutants into the air, contributing to poor air quality and respiratory health issues. Additionally, black carbon, a potent climate pollutant, absorbs sunlight and accelerates the melting of ice and snow when deposited on these surfaces, creating a feedback loop that exacerbates heating our planet. Deforestation to supply wood further compounds the problem by reducing the Earth's capacity to absorb carbon dioxide, leading to a cycle of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.
There was a time in human history when wood was the most versatile and widely used material, with few alternatives available. At the time, human knowledge of the environmental consequences of its extensive use was limited. In the 21st century, however, technological advancements provide alternatives to wood, and a deeper understanding of ecological impacts exists. Yet, the challenges posed by a growing global population and increasing demand for economic growth continue to strain natural resources. Ask yourself, who is accountable for educating the average citizen of this planet if it is not self-motivation to learn? Voluntary ignorance is no longer a rationalization for doing harm to future generations. Addressing environmental damage and disrupting the feedback loops that contribute to climate instability is no longer an optional choice for humanity, despite the claims of those who choose to ignore the facts.
Without informed decision-making, we risk exacerbating systemic fragility, potentially leading to catastrophic failures in areas like climate destabilization, public health, and economic stability. Rising complexities demand sharp mental acuity, as informed and flexible thinking is essential to address the challenges posed by a rapidly changing world. Rising complexities can only be effectively managed by mental acuity, not mental vacuity.
The rise of voluntary ignorance globally should be seen as a major cause for concern for contemporary decision-making with deleterious consequences in the future. As the ecological, economic, political, and social aspects of planetary systems become more interconnected, their complexity also rises. Effective management of these systems requires a nuanced understanding of their dynamics, their interdependencies, and their vulnerabilities. Willful ignorance—an active rejection of knowledge—creates a mismatch between the challenges we face and our ability to address them.
The global economy is also characterized by feedback loops, both positive and negative. A positive feedback loop amplifies positive outcomes, while a negative feedback loop either stabilizes the system or destabilizes it. For example, technological innovation often triggers positive feedback. The proliferation of the internet and digital technologies in the late 20th century created new industries, boosted productivity, and reshaped consumer behavior.
Conversely, negative feedback mechanisms are evident in the internet and social media, which, while connecting people and disseminating information rapidly, also foster the spread of misinformation, polarization, and mental health issues. Algorithms amplify sensational or divisive content, creating echo chambers and reducing the diversity of perspectives. This negative feedback loop can degrade trust in institutions, intensify societal divides, and lead to adverse outcomes for individuals and communities. These feedback loops illustrate how small changes can have disproportionate consequences.
In the history of feedback loop mechanisms within system dynamics, a pivotal case study is a small event in Titusville, PA, in 1859. Few people are aware of this event, let alone understand the true cost-benefit of that single commercial activity. The Titusville event initiated a positive feedback loop of technological and societal progress of historical proportions while also starting a negative feedback loop that threatens the planet's habitability. The tragedy lies in humanity's simultaneous dependence on and destructive exploitation of that technology, the true cost-benefit of which remains unknown. While the discovery of oil has been central to human advancement, continuing to rely on it without addressing its consequences could lead to an ecological and societal collapse of unprecedented scale, putting humanity's survival at risk.
Ultimately, comprehending the global economy’s system dynamics requires not only technical expertise but also intellectual humility. The complexity of this system means that certainty is often elusive. From individuals to policymakers, business leaders, and analysts, no one can afford to ignore the criticality of objective introspection—analyzing their assumptions, biases, and limitations—to make informed decisions. This introspection is akin to the scientific method, where hypotheses are continually tested, refined, or discarded based on evidence. Without such humility, overconfidence can lead to misguided policies or strategies with far-reaching consequences.
Which then raises the big “elephant in the room” question: when scarcity becomes a global reality, and the epoch of abundance becomes a faint silhouette in our rearview mirrors, and inflation runs amok beyond the controls of the "wise" policymakers, and catastrophic system failures proliferate in "cascades" and empathy morphs into apathy, will altruism prevail among humans?
Think about it!