The Speculist

Interestingly, many of the solutions we put in place for various problems create new problems. For example, the problem of having to endlessly track our food supply was eventually solved by the introduction of agriculture. But agriculture created myriad problems that had to be addressed. Who gets which parcel of land? What happens when a plot of land gets farmed out? How do we protect our herds and fields from nomadic humans who haven't invented agriculture yet?

Let's look at how each of these questions might be addressed.

Who gets which parcel of land?
This is human relations problem and it would be addressed by approach number 1. We would figure out rules to govern the question of who gets what and then we would enforce those rules.

What happens when a plot of land gets farmed out?
This is a problem that derives from our interaction with nature. Once you deplete the nutrients in the soil past a certain point, it's no longer going to be good for growing crops. Initially, the solution to this problem would probably have been migration. But eventually we got smarter (and the trappings of civilization got harder to move) and we figured out techniques for rotating crops. That solution, which comes from approach number 2, would probably have been enforced by rules or laws, approach number 1.

How do we protect our herds and fields from nomadic humans who haven't invented agriculture yet?
Here's where the two approaches really start building on each other. One solution to this problem is to create specialized divisions of labor that didn't exist before. So now we have soldiers who don't do any farming, and are ready to fight off those who would raid our crops. And we have artisans who build walls to protect the fields and weapons to better equip the soldiers. The problem is one of human relations, and the solution comes from approach number 1. But the consequences of this solution, both intended and othwerise, are very far-reaching. The division of labor creates all kinds of new problems around who gets what, to the extent that a full-blown government has to be put in place. But it also creates all kinds of new solutions. Not only do we get better walls and weapons, we get plows and harnesses and dams and millstones. There is an explosion of solutions representing both approaches 1 and 2. And each new solution brings with it consequences, some of which are unintended, some of which are problems, all of which will be addressed by new solutions of the first type, or the second, or both.

And keep in mind, not all unintended consequences are problems. The division of labor creates a priestly class, which eventually becomes (or gives birth to) a scholarly class. Artisans prepare the way for artists. An increase in wealth brings about an increase in leisure (for some), creating new classes of entertainers and athletes. The nomads who first got the idea of penning in a herd of animals rather than constantly having to chase them down weren't thinking about Shakespeare or the Louvre or Quantum Physics, but each of those is a result of their efforts.

Because of the way they add up, the unintended benefits of type-2 solutions tend to outweigh the unintended problems they raise. This is why we continue to make and use internal combustion engines, even though they pollute the atmosphere. The economic benefits those engines have brought about far outwiegh the damage they have caused (at least to humanity, at least so far.) Over the past century, we in the US have radically changed how and whether we burn coal — a type-2 solution to the problems of providing heat and locomotion — in part because we have developed alternatives (a type-2 solution) and in part because we have changed the rules (a type-1 solution) about whether and when it is acceptable to burn coal. Coal is still useful to us, but it has been replaced by and large by new technologies (solutions) that serve us better. Someday, we may be able to say the same thing about gasoline-powered cars.

Here's an interesting example of this principle at work:

A tin bath on the cliffs of northern Iceland, where locals take a dip to treat skin complaints, could help scientists give an early warning of big earthquakes and save thousands of lives.

People from the town of Husavik have long used the piping hot water, pumped up from 4,900 feet below the earth's surface, to treat diseases like psoriasis.

Scientists hope that measuring the changes in its chemical balance will provide a countdown to a quake, something thought impossible until now.

Whatever problems were created by setting up this bath (the article doesn't mention any, but you can rest assured that there were some) they surely pale in signficance compared to the benefits that will be brought about by the ability to predict earthquakes.

This is a story that we need to keep in mind when considering issues like Kyoto or any calls for "sustainable growth." Earthquakes are a natural problem for which we have always hoped there would be a type-2 solution. Even a type-2 method for predicting them would be pretty helpful. Now we may be on to one, thanks in part to a seemingly unrelated effort to help people with their skin problems.

With this example in mind, and thousands of others like it throughout history, how can anyone think that the solution to a major problem like environmental damage will come about primarily through type-1 solutions? There's no question that rules of engagement have a role to play, but the solution to pollution is...evolution. We need our current batch of type-2 solutions to stay in place until we can build new ones that avoid the problems or until new ones introduce themselves unexpectedly.

I can sympathize with someone who thinks that it's unrealistically optimistic to hope that we can "invent something" to correct pollution, or worse yet that a solution will just appear almost as if by magic. Educated people in the post-20th-century world tend to view that kind of unbridled optimism as vulgar and delusional. But vulgar or not, all of human history seems to argue that that is exactly what's going to happen.