The Speculist

The Nonlinear the Better

Via Rand Simberg, here's an excellent essay by Arnold Kling on the subject of nonlinear thinking. Reflecting on his experiences at the recent Pop!tech conference, Kling notes that nonlinear thinking is hugely important for creating models of the future. He demonstrates how it can take us in one step from 85-year lifespans to (essentially) infinite lifespans and how it can get us past worrying about catastrophes that may destroy the planet when we realize that someday we won't need Earth.

Kling says:

My sense is that environmental radicals tend to be point people. This makes their long-term forecasts particularly suspect. For long-term forecasting, nonlinear thinking is best. Linear approximations may work well for forecasts one or two years ahead. Point-based thinking is rarely accurate for more than a few months in today's dynamic economy.

That is precisely the point I made in my discussion with Nina Paley last week. Nina's rejoinder was that problems, not just solutions, can hit us in a nonlinear fashion.

As a guy who publishes his fair share of predictions (more than 75 so far and counting), I was very interested in this:

The economist Robert Solow showed what was wrong with this type of thinking thirty years ago. At that time, the "Club of Rome" had what they claimed was a complex, nonlinear model which forecast environmental catastrophe. However, because their analysis took no account of prices, technical substitution, or technological change, it was no better than a point-based tool for forecasting. One of the speakers at this year's Pop!tech, Geoffrey Ballard, pointed out that every prediction made by the Club of Rome has been false.

Ouch. That's gotts sting. On the other hand, if even one of my predictions ever comes true, I can claim that The Speculist is more accurate than the prestigious Club of Rome.

Sweet!

Read the whole thing. Between this essay and what I've read elsewhere, I'm very much looking forward to going to Pop!tech next year.

Posted by Phil at October 24, 2003 10:31 AM | TrackBack