Black Boxes

Can we abstract complex science into a "black box" to emphasise actionable insights over the minutiae of debate ?

This week I participated in a Climate Fresk, a way to learn about the climate crisis by playing a live game, using cards and building a sort of mind-map on a tabletop as a group. This way of learning leans on the principles of systems thinking, an analytical approach that focuses on understanding how different parts of a whole interact with each other and how those interactions contribute to the overall behaviour and functionality of the system.

Without giving too much of the Climate Fresk game away (because I want you to experience it yourself), one observation our group made was that while the inputs (human activities) and outputs (flooding, drought, famine, population displacement...) are at least understandable and tangible, the centre of the system is a highly complex tangle of physics, chemistry, feedback loops and tipping points.?For most of us, it appears to be a large portion of very confusing spaghetti.

We Don't All Need To Understand All The Details

In the realm of complex systems, understanding every intricate detail is often less crucial than recognising the overall patterns of cause and effect. This idea is discussed in a story that I love - Daniel Dennett's thought experiment involving two mysterious black boxes. In Dennett's narrative, the focus shifts from the complexities of the system's internal mechanisms to the observable outcomes of specific actions.?

The thought experiment revolves around two black boxes, connected by a wire, that exhibit a straightforward causal relationship: pressing a button on one box triggers a light on the other. Despite the underlying complexity - a sophisticated dance of bits and computational processes - the observable pattern is clear and consistent. This simplicity in understanding cause and effect, abstracted from the complexity of the underlying system, is precisely where its power lies.

Can We Focus On Our Behaviours ?

Climate change, much like Dennett's black boxes, can be seen as a system where specific human actions have direct environmental outcomes. The burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and the release of greenhouse gas emissions can be thought of as inputs into the Earth's system, the buttons we are addicted to pushing, which then lead to warming temperatures, rising sea levels, and increased frequency of extreme weather events and beyond - the outputs. By framing the science of climate change as a black box, non-scientists can focus on these inputs and outputs, rather than getting entangled in the complexities of atmospheric physics or climate modelling.

Focusing on the black box of climate change simplifies the narrative: certain actions lead to harmful environmental consequences.

This approach sidesteps the often contentious and politicised debates surrounding climate science, bringing the discussion back to a fundamental level where consensus is more achievable. It's not about denying the importance or validity of climate science; it's about emphasising the urgency of action based on what we clearly understand: the links between our actions and their impacts on the planet.

So What ?

Dennett's work not only elucidates the causal relationships within complex systems but also highlights the ethical dimension of our engagement with these systems. When we see the direct line from cause to effect, the moral imperative to act becomes undeniable.

Abstracting the science of climate change into a black box isn’t intended to dismiss the science or stifle debate. It’s simply a recognition that the details might not matter as much as we think outside of the scientific community. We don't all need to be climate scientists to understand that certain behaviours lead to environmental degradation and that changing these behaviours is imperative for the planet's future.