1

Graham Conger

Prof. Laura Goodwin

DCS-300 (Public Problem Solving)

Reflection Paper 1

Systems Thinking: Buying Into The Butterfly Effect

Humanity loves control; from the time our ancient hunter gatherer ancestors ceased

migration and began the development of agriculture, our species has sought to master the world

around us. Cutting, tilling, paving; we have, for millennia, shaped our environment around us to

better suit our survival.

Until just the last century or so, the greater impacts of our development were never

considered. Admittedly, until the modern era, the effects of our actions were not necessarily

observable. Plus, for a great deal of time, the human population was small enough, and its

methods of production/technology unadvanced enough to where our adverse actions went

unnoticed, and overall consumption for the means of production was less than the sustainable

yield of the earth (Modern exceeded yield being 1.8 hectares per person)(Walker).

A major tipping point towards the current environmental situation was, without a doubt,

the industrial revolution. Since then, our production capabilities and population have skyrocketed

along with the adverse effects of our development and sheer number. Are starting to be observed

via the prevalence of pollution, deforestation, desertification, and most alarming of all, global

warming / climate change.

I outlined the scenario we face in regards to our ecosystem and how it was caused by

human action, because, as the name implies, it is a system of unfathomable complexity. There is
 2

no simple solution, no quick fix or linear step by step process to thwarting the impending

environmental disaster. The entire system as a whole, all of its subsystems and variables, must be

understood in order for any prospective interaction or intervention to have a positive effect or

any lasting effect at all.

This is the nature of systems thinking, like the butterfly effect, influence, alteration, or

attempted control, even seemingly minute, of a just single element can, and likely will, cause

unexpected and often unintended consequences. This applies to any and all forms of a system, be

it an economy, a community, or as mentioned previously, the ecosystem. They are all constructs

of complexity and resist the innate human drive to control through conventional methods.

Systems thinking vs. conventional methods:

Typically when faced with an issue, individuals take a linear or conventional approach to

address it. This way of thought is ideal for simple problems, such as when I cut my hand and

put a Bandaid to help the cut heal (Stroh) However with more complex matter/issues,

conventional methods are likely to achieve initial gains that are undermined by long term

impacts (Stroh). And unfortunately, typically, end up as efforts to address symptoms rather

than underlying problems(Stroh).

Systems thinking goes beyond conventional thought in that rather than trying to remedy a

problem by solving a single aspect, for example; in an effort to reduce the prevalence of crime

and repeat offenders, the introduction of intense no-nonsense prison sentences is used as a

deterrent. However, those that serve these sentences end up spending so much time in prison,

that they are hardened and made more dangerous by their time inside; furthermore, their

capability to exist within, and positively contribute to outside society gradually dwindles. Plus

imprisonment tears families apart and without parental guidance, leads to the growth of criminal
 3

tendencies in youth, subsequently leading to another generation of jail-birds. Even beyond that,

incarceration costs money that could be better spent elsewhere, perhaps upon rehabilitation

programs rather than cells.(Stroh) These are the unintended consequences that accompany

conventional approaches to problem solving.

A systems approach would take each and every one of these factors into account and seek

to understand the underlying cause of criminal activity within the greater system. And how

influencing factors could be altered to cause a beneficial shift in the system as a whole, rather

than perpetuating the current systemic cycle as a quick-fix conventional method would.

In conclusion: if real positive change is the desired outcome for an issue that is deemed in

need of solution, or at the very least improvement, then there is no option but to think of the

problem in the terms of a system. To consider all the influences that contribute to the problem

itself, and just how deeply complex the solution (if there even is is one) will be.
 4

Works Cited

Stroh, D. P. (2015). Systems thinking for social change: a practical guide to solving complex

problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results. White River

Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. A. (2006). Resilience thinking: sustaining ecosystems and people in a

changing world. Washington: Island Press.