Why the Analytical Approach
Is the Only Way That Will Work

As explained in the FAQ, an analytical approach is the use of an appropriate process to break a problem down into the elements necessary to solve it. Each element becomes a smaller and easier problem to solve. It follows that a non-analytical approach is just the opposite: the use of an inappropriate process, which is unable to break a problem down into the elements necessary to solve it. Because this is not done, the problem remains too big and complex to solve. That is one reason an analytical approach is the only way that will work on solving the global environmental sustianability problem, because that problem is too big and complex too solve any other way.

Let's take a longer approach to proving an analytical approach is not only a better way, it is the only way.

We will try to prove two things: (1) That the analytical approach is the only known approach that works consistently on difficult problems, and (2) That the global environmental sustainability problem is a difficult problem. If both propositions are true, then it follows that an analytical approach is the best way to solve the global environmental sustainability problem. Let's prove proposition (1), then (2), and finally conclude the argument.

Proposition 1

First we need to prove that the analytical approach is the only known approach that works consistently on difficult problems.

The analytical approach is the formal use of reason to solve problems. The first rules to formal reasoning were invented by Aristotle (384 to 322 BC). Reasoning correctly involves representing the constituent elements of a argument with premises, intermediate conclusions, and final conclusions.

An analytical approach takes a problem, breaks it down into its constituent elements so as to understand the problem, and then adds elements that represent a solution. These elements form the formal argument that this is the problem and this is the solution.

The reason an analytical approach is required for difficult problems is that all this becomes too complicated to do intuitively. Each element must be represented formally, such as with exact phrases in writing or with equations in a simulation model, so that the problem solver(s) can go over and over an evolving analysis to be certain it is correct. Complex problems have dozens or hundreds of elements, and hundreds or thousands of relationships between those elements. However the mind has only seven (plus or minus two) short term memory banks. This causes the mind to overload quickly on any but the simplest of problems, or problems it has encountered before and memorized the solution.

Before the invention of the Scientific Method in the 17th century, science was based on tradition and guesswork. Afterward it was based on an analytical approach. This momentous change caused science to shift into a whole new mode of thinking, one so productive it quickly led to the Industrial Revolution and all that science and technology have brought us today. Science knows of no other method that will work to produce reliable knowledge. This should be proof enough that an analytical approach is required to solve difficult problems.

To summarize, this is a difficult problem. Unlike simple problems, difficult problems require an analysis to solve them, because finding the correct solution requires a rigorous analysis. A correct analysis requires reliable knowledge. And the only known way to produce reliable knowledge, knowledge that you know is true, is the Scientific Method. Therefore, because the Scientific Method is an analytical approach, an analytical approach is the only known way to solve difficult problems.

Proposition 2 and the Characteristics of Simple and Complex Problems

Next we need to prove that the global environmental sustainability problem is a difficult problem.

Difficult environmental problems have characteristics making them inherently difficult to solve. By contrast, simple environmental problems have the following fundamental characteristics that make them fairly easy to solve:

A. They are caused primarily by a single type of behavior, such as the way acid rain is caused mostly by the burning of sulfur-containing coal, or the way a river may be mostly polluted by a single group of chemicals, such as agricultural runoff or factory waste.

B. There is solid proof of cause and effect, such as the way accumulation of heavy metals in animals higher up in the food chain causes health problems, reproductive problems, or death.

C. There is a short displacement in time and space. This makes cause and effect more obvious. Displacement is the "distance" from cause to effect. For time this may be anywhere from minutes to years to centuries. For space the displacement may be local, regional, or global.

D. The problem source involves a relatively small segment of society.

E. The solution is relatively cheap and easy.

Difficult problems are just the opposite. They usually have multiple types of behavior that cause them, tenuous proof of cause and effect, a long delay in time and space, the source involves a large segment of society, and the solution is relatively expensive and complicated. Each of these alone make a problem hard to solve. When combined they can make it close to impossible to even conceive of a solution that can be proven to have a high probability of working.

The combination of the factors also causes the emergent problem of what we call "resistance to solution adoption." This phenomenon occurs when people know what they should do, but they just don't want to do it. This is clearly present. An outstanding example occurred in 1999 when the US Senate voted 95 to zero against the Kyoto Protocol treaty on climate change. The treaty has not been brought back to the floor since.

An example of an easy problem was the ozone layer depletion problem. While it looked like a tremendously difficult problem at the time, it was not. It fit the pattern of easy environmental problems. It was caused mostly due to a single type of behavior: chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released into the atmosphere from air conditioners and refrigeration equipment. It had solid proof of cause and effect, after scientific studies were completed. The problem source involved a relatively small segment of society: the CFC manufacturing and use industry. And finally, it had a relatively easy and cheap solution: switch to a substitute.

There was a medium delay in time and a large delay in space, but because the other four factors were present, the ozone layer depletion problem fit the pattern of a simple problem, despite its apparent size and complexity. As a result, by the 1990s the ozone depletion problem was largely solved.

But it was the only difficult global problem that was. The rest, such as climate change, groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, deforestation, and abnormally high species extinction rates, remain unsolved. The reason is they do not fit the pattern of an easy problem, and so are beyond the capabilities of the conventional problem solving approach.

The global environmental sustainability problem falls into the difficult end of the spectrum for all five of these factors: (A) Almost every industrialized action we take to produce our food, go to work, generate the energy we consume, build our homes and offices and factories, and so on is a source. (B) Although proof we must change course to be sustainable is seen as solid by scientists, it is still seen as weak by society, because of arguments like new technology will solve the problem (technological optimism), as well as the way the very idea of unsustainability is inconceivable to many people (the cultural blindspot problem). (C) There is a long displacement in time and space. For example, climate change has a time displacement of centuries and a space displacement of global. (D) The problem source is nearly every person, corporation, and government on the planet. (E) The solution is very expensive and difficult. How do you get over six billion people to fundamentally change their entire life style to solve the entire problem in only a generation or two? No one knows. And how do you finance that change? Again, no one knows.

This proves proposition (2), that the global environmental sustainability problem is a difficult problem. In fact, it probably ranks as the most difficult one ever encountered by Homo sapiens in his short 200,000 years of existence.

Argument Conclusion

Let's recap our argument. We are trying to prove two things: (1) That the analytical approach is the only known approach that works consistently on difficult problems, and (2) That the global environmental sustainability problem is a difficult problem. If both propositions are true, then it follows that an analytical approach is the best way to solve the global environmental sustainability problem.

Now we can complete the argument. The above has proven (1) and (2) to be true. Therefore it follows that an analytical approach is the best way for the environmental movement to solve the global environmental sustainability problem. Because this is so radically different from the present approach, it qualifies as a new paradigm.

The particular analytical approach we recommend is Analytical Activism.

(This is one of the many articles at Thwink.org.)