Modelling the Dynamics of our Common Future Sustainability Simulation in the TERRA2000 Project

Modelling the Dynamics of our Modelling the Dynamics of our Common FutureCommon Future

Sustainability Simulation in the Sustainability Simulation in the TERRA2000 ProjectTERRA2000 Project

Presented by

Tom Tesch

Prepared by

Tom Tesch, Barry Hughes, Raoul Weiler and Pol T. Descamps

Modelling the Dynamics of our Common FutureModelling the Dynamics of our Common Future

IndexIndex

The TERRA-2000 projectThe Insight for TERRA (IfT) modelSome Simulation ResultsConclusions


The TERRA-2000 ProjectThe TERRA-2000 Project

Goal: Make policy recommendation concerning the transition to the GNKS

Type of project– multidisciplinary – international

Structure of TERRA 2000» Modelling-pillar

» Scenario-pillar

» Dissemination-pillar

http://www.terra-2000.orgIST-2000-26332


IndexIndex



Why Create Dynamic Models?Why Create Dynamic Models?

1. To understand the dynamics of complex system

2. To check coherence of

a. assumptions of causality

b. definitions of variables

3. To assess the future (threats & opportunities)

4. To evaluate policy alternatives

5. To communicate with others


Insight for TERRA: What?Insight for TERRA: What? A complement to the World3 model A global “simple” model - fitting in a multi-level modelling

framework Modelling of the transition to GNKS (Global Networked

Knowledge Society)– explicit representation of Networking

– explicit representation of Knowledge (& Knowledge Growth)

Sustainability indicators on all dimensions– economic

– social

– ecologic


A complement to World3: Why?A complement to World3: Why?

Insight for TERRA includes Representation of – Social Dimension– Governance– Networking

Further Development has to include– Regionalisation– Cultural Dimension


Dominant RelationsDominant Relations

Population

Economy

Quality of life

PhysicalCapital

EnvironmentalStress

Knowledge

Networking

Social Distribution

NaturalCapital

Human CapitalSocialCapital

Consumption Behaviour(Immaterialisation)

Technology

KnowledgeMastery

<Social Capital>

Values

<Technology>

<Economy>

<Technology>

Education

Dematerialisation


IndexIndex



Scenario 1: More R&DScenario 1: More R&D

Graph for Knowledge

40

30

20

10

0

1995 2026 2057 2088 2119 2150Time (Year)

Knowledge : Factor 10 in 50 years 1Knowledge : More education 1Knowledge : Faster rollout of networking 1Knowledge : More R&D 1Knowledge : Base case 1


Scenario 2: More NetworkingScenario 2: More Networking

Graph for Networking

1

0.75

0.5

0.25

0

1995 2026 2057 2088 2119 2150Time (Year)

Networking : Factor 10 in 50 years 1Networking : More education 1Networking : Faster rollout of networking 1Networking : More R&D 1Networking : Base case 1


Scenario 3: More EducationScenario 3: More Education

Graph for Average Education Level

40

30

20

10

0

1995 2026 2057 2088 2119 2150Time (Year)

Average Education Level : Factor 10 in 50 years YearAverage Education Level : More education YearAverage Education Level : Faster rollout of networking YearAverage Education Level : More R&D YearAverage Education Level : Base case Year


Scenario 4: Factor 10Scenario 4: Factor 10

Graph for Dematerialisation & Immaterialisation

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

1995 2026 2057 2088 2119 2150Time (Year)

"Dematerialisation & Immaterialisation" : Factor 10 in 50 years 1"Dematerialisation & Immaterialisation" : More education 1"Dematerialisation & Immaterialisation" : Faster rollout of networking 1"Dematerialisation & Immaterialisation" : More R&D 1"Dematerialisation & Immaterialisation" : Base case 1


Natural Capital Running outNatural Capital Running out

Graph for Accessible Natural Capital

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

1995 2026 2057 2088 2119 2150Time (Year)

Accessible Natural Capital : Base case Billion DollarAccessible Natural Capital : Factor 10 in 50 years Billion DollarAccessible Natural Capital : More education Billion DollarAccessible Natural Capital : Faster rollout of networking Billion DollarAccessible Natural Capital : More R&D Billion Dollar


Economic Growth RateEconomic Growth Rate

Graph for Economic Growth Rate

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Time (Year)

Economic Growth Rate : Factor 10 in 50 yearsEconomic Growth Rate : More educationEconomic Growth Rate : Faster rollout of networkingEconomic Growth Rate : More R&DEconomic Growth Rate : Base case


Economic Growth Rate (2)Economic Growth Rate (2)

Graph for Economic Growth Rate

0.06

-0.105

-0.27

-0.435

-0.6

1995 2026 2057 2088 2119 2150Time (Year)

Economic Growth Rate : Base caseEconomic Growth Rate : Factor 10 in 50 yearsEconomic Growth Rate : More educationEconomic Growth Rate : Faster rollout of networkingEconomic Growth Rate : More R&D


Factor 10: Needed,...Factor 10: Needed,...

Graph for Net Natural Capital Growth Rate

0

-0.005

-0.01

-0.015

-0.02

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Time (Year)

Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : Factor 10 in 50 years 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : More education 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : Faster rollout of networking 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : More R&D 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : Base case 1


… … but not sufficientbut not sufficient

Graph for Net Natural Capital Growth Rate

0.002

-0.0035

-0.009

-0.0145

-0.02

2100 2105 2110 2115 2120 2125 2130 2135 2140 2145 2150Time (Year)

Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : Base case 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : Factor 10 in 50 years 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : More education 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : Faster rollout of networking 1Net Natural Capital Growth Rate : More R&D 1


Further DevelopmentFurther Development

Splitting the economy into a number of sectors– agricultural sub-model finished (COSMOPAD)– others under way

Regionalisation - Gaming– COIs– Agents – Structural changes


IndexIndex

The TERRA-2000 projectThe Insight for TERRA (IfT) modelThe COSMOPAD modelling frameworkSome Simulation ResultsConclusions


ConclusionsConclusions

The model “works” There is a path for expanding the model

through sub-models

but, the Insight Model does not attempt to replace detailed models (like IFs)

Rigid structure Are we asking the right questions?


New QuestionsNew Questions Exact data does not always matter that much…

Problems are well identified… yet nothing

seems to happen:“environmental” schizophrenia

“yes I care about sustainability,…

but I am caught in a system”


New Questions about structural changesNew Questions about structural changes Abstract - Scientific

– New Science of Networking» Topological characteristics

» Contextual Random Boolean Networks

» Integrating time dynamics into the science of networks

– Self Organised Criticality

– Predictable Innovation (http://www.creax.com)

Practical policies– IPR

– Participation - Subsidiarity

– Closing the Economic Loop


The End...The End...

??in memoriam Dr. Ing. Robert Pestel

Documents

Modelling the Dynamics of our Common Future Sustainability Simulation in the TERRA2000 Project