Chapter 12 Chapter 9 The Way of Complexity

We start by recruiting the best talent and sparking a spark of knowledge.I think the community we have built is unique in its breadth and quality.I have never seen a combination like this in any scientific organization in history. Shortly before Christmas 1989, Arthur drove west from Santa Fe to his home in Stanford, a car full of books and clothes.It was dusk, and the magnificent sunset turned the New Mexico desert into a red land.I thought to myself: This sight is too bloody and romantic to be real.he said with a smile. After a year and a half at the Santa Fe Institute, I needed to go home and write and think and clear my mind.My head was full of ideas, and I learned more in one month in Santa Fe than I did in one year at Stanford.This experience is so rich, I am far away from love, I miss the passing time very much, and deeply feel the sadness of parting.The beautiful desert, sunset, and red land in front of me reminded me that this year and a half may be the climax of my academic career, and now everything is over.It’s hard to go back in time, and I know Santa Fe has successors, and I may go back to lead economic research projects in the next few years, but I guess Santa Fe will not be Santa Fe by then.How fortunate I was to be a part of the Santa Fe Institute during its golden age.Arthur said.

complex science revolution Three years later, Arthur, professor emeritus of the Stanford Graduate School of Population Studies and Economics, sat in his office overlooking Stanford's tree-lined lanes and admitted that he hadn't quite figured out what he had seen and heard in Santa Fe.As time goes on, the experience becomes more valuable to me, but I think the Santa Fe story continues to evolve.He said. Basically, the Santa Fe Institute is acting as a catalyst, Arthur said.Without Santa Fe, many things will still happen, but at a much slower pace.This is the case with the study of economics.Arthur said: Before 1985, it seemed that all economists began to look around, and they felt that the traditional neoclassical framework that dominated the past had reached its limit.In the past, neoclassical theory allowed economists to explore in detail economic issues that could be examined by static equilibrium analysis, but ignored issues related to process, evolution, and formation.In these problems there is no equilibrium, occasional surprises abound, historical context matters, and the process of adaptation and evolution may continue indefinitely.At that time, the development of economics stagnated, because the contemporary trend was that economic theory cannot be called economic theory if it cannot be fully expressed in mathematical equations, and economists only know how to work and analyze under equilibrium conditions.But some of the most eminent economists have felt that economics should go in other directions.

Santa Fe is functioning as a powerful catalyst.First-class talents like Hann and Arrow can interact with Hornan, Anderson and others in Santa Fe. After many exchanges, they understand, yes!We don't necessarily all use the deductive method, but the inductive method. We can quickly cut through the entanglement of equilibrium and look at the evolution process of openness, because other disciplines have dealt with many similar problems.Santa Fe provides the terminology, analogies, and expertise needed to get started in economics, and more importantly, Santa Fe legitimizes different perspectives in economics.When people start word of mouth: even Arrow, Hahn, Sargent, and other first-class scholars start writing this kind of paper, then it is more logical that others will do this kind of research.

There were signs of this every time Arthur attended an economics conference.In fact, there have always been economists interested in the processes and vicissitudes of the economy, Arthur said.As early as the 1920s and 30s, the great Austrian economist Schumpeter was a strong proponent of this idea.But I feel that in the past five or six years economists who think this way have become more confident that they don't have to justify analyzing economic change in words.They were powerful and skilled, and the movement grew and became part of mainstream economics. gain orthodoxy The movement certainly made Arthur's life much easier.His idea of ​​increasing returns, which had been largely ignored, now has a cult following, with speaking invitations pouring in from all over.In 1989, Scientific American magazine asked him to write a special article on increasing returns, which was one of the things I was most excited about.He said.This article published in the February 1990 issue won him the International Schumpeter Society's Most Outstanding Evolutionary Economics Research Award that year.

In September 1989, a large symposium was held in Santa Fe to review the current state of the economic research program. Arrow's summary was Arthur's most comforting assessment.Ironically, at the time, Arthur barely heard what Arrow said.At noon that day, as he was going through the front door of the monastery to go to lunch, he accidentally sprained his foot.In the afternoon, he endured the pain and sat in the conference hall to listen to the summary. Dr. Kaufman carefully bandaged his feet, and put ice packs on the chair in front of them for him to apply.In fact, Arrow's talk came as a thunderbolt a few days later when, against the advice of his doctors, colleagues, and wife, he insisted on limping to an academic conference in Irkutsk, Siberia.

It's as if you wake up at three o'clock in the middle of the night and suddenly have a flash of insight and total awareness.Arthur said: "The plane was coming down, and there was a guy on the runway on a bicycle, waving a short shiny stick, directing us in the direction where the taxis would stop.I thought back to what Arrow said in the conclusion, and I suddenly understood.He said: I think we can say that we now have another form of economics besides the standard theory that everyone is familiar with.He is very modest about calling the standard theory the Arrow︱Debreu system, but basically he means the general equilibrium theory of the neoclassical school.The so-called other form of economics is Santa Fe-style evolutionary economics.He clearly pointed out that this year, Santa Fe's economic research program has shown another effective way to study the economy, enough to keep pace with traditional economic theory.He said that it is not that the traditional research methods are wrong, but that we have discovered another way to examine the economic system, and the new research methods just complement the standard theory.He also said that we don't know where the new economic theory will take us, but it's a good start, and he finds the new knowledge interesting and exciting.

I am very happy.Arthur said: But Arrow mentioned another thing.He compared the Santa Fe research project to the Cowles Foundation research project he was a part of in the 1950s.He said that at this stage, the Santa Fe school of economics, less than two years old, seems to be more acceptable than the Coles Foundation school at the same time.I was amazed and flattered to hear that, because the people at the Kors Foundation, like Arrow, Koopmans, Dybno, Lawrence R. Klein, Hurwicz They were all upstarts in economics at that time, four of whom had already won the Nobel Prize, and there may be several future Nobel Prize winners.They were the ones who set the research direction for later economists, and they were also the ones who completely refurbished economics.

Newtonian view of the universe From the Santa Fe Institute's point of view, making radical changes in the field of economics is only part of the job. The real task is to catalyze a complex scientific revolution in science as a whole.Their quest may turn out to be an illusion, but Arthur believes that Cowen, Gelman, and others have the right issues on their hands. People who don't study science often think that science is born of deduction. In fact, science is mainly born of metaphors, and the metaphors in people's minds are constantly changing.Arthur said.Looking back, how has our view of the world changed since Newton?Before the seventeenth century, the world consisted of trees, diseases, human souls and behaviors. The world was in chaos; Art.But then, in the 1660s, Newton came along, invented a few laws, devised differentials, and suddenly the planets seemed to be moving in simple and predictable orbits!

To this day, Newton's discoveries still have an incredibly profound impact on the human psyche.Arthur said: God's residence, the way of heaven can already be explained, we no longer need angels to take care of everything, no longer need God to make everything in its place.So once there is no God, this century becomes more secular.However, when people face snakes and scorpions and earthquakes, storms and plagues, they still yearn for a power that can dominate everything in their hearts.So the Enlightenment movement arose, and from 1680 to the beginning of the eighteenth century, people began to respect the power of nature.If you leave nothing to chance, nature will figure out how to make everything work well for the common good.

The regularity of the planets, Arthur says, became an important metaphor for the period: simple, regular, Newtonian, self-operating machines.And Newtonian physics became the model of reductionist science for the next two and a half centuries.The parlance of reductionist science is: Hey!The world is chaotic and complex.But look!Just two or three laws can reduce everything to an amazingly simple system! Complexity in simplicity So, the rest was up to Adam Smith, who was probing the mechanics behind the economic system in Edinburgh at the height of the Scottish Enlightenment.In The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Adam Smith argued that if you let people pursue their own interests, the invisible hand of supply and demand will naturally make everything in the common interest of the masses.Clearly, this is not the whole of Adam Smith's theory, which also points to troubling issues like worker alienation and exploitation.But his Newtonian economic concept is concise and powerful, and he has dominated Western economic thought ever since.

Arthur said: "Adam Smith's ideas were radiant and we were all dazzled by them.A long time ago, the economist Kenneth Boulding asked me: In the field of economics, what do you want to do?I was young and energetic at the time, and I answered bluntly: I want to bring economics into the 21st century.Bao Ding looked at me and said: Don't you think we should first bring economics into the eighteenth century? Arthur argues that, in fact, when all science was no longer naive, twentieth-century economics remained the same, almost a generation behind.For example, in the early twentieth century, philosophers like Russell, Whitehead, Friedrich, Wittgenstein, etc. proved that all mathematics can be based on simple logic.They're partly right, most of the math is true, but not all.In the 1930s, mathematician Kurt Godel showed that even very simple mathematical systems such as arithmetic are incomplete and contain statements that cannot be proven true or false within the system, while logicians graph Ning also said that even for a very simple computer program, you have no way of knowing in advance whether the computer can get the answer.Physicists in the 1960s and 1970s got the same message from chaos theory: that extremely simple equations can produce surprising and unpredictable results. Arthur said the same message came up again and again in different fields.People began to understand that philosophy is chaos, language is chaos, chemical dynamics is chaos, physics is chaos, and finally, of course, economics is chaos.This confusion is not caused by dust on the microscopic slide, but lies deep within the system itself, elusive and beyond the bounds of mere logic. The result, Arthur said, was a revolution in complexity science.In a way, complexity science is the opposite of reduction theory.When someone says: Hey, I can start with this amazingly simple system, and look, it turns out to be incredibly complex and unpredictable.Thus was born the complexity science revolution.Complex science does not rely on the Newtonian cosmology metaphor that the world is as regular and predictable as a clock machine; complex science is more like a small seed that sprouts and grows into a plant, a few lines of code expand into a computer program, and simple birds organize themselves into flocks.Of course, it is just like Langton's metaphor for artificial life: complex and life-like behaviors all come from simple rules and unfold from bottom to top.This is also what Arthur was trying to communicate in the Santa Fe Economic Research Project: If I have a goal or a vision, then my goal is to tell the world that chaos and vitality in the economy start from a very simple and elegant developed in the theory.This is why we created these models of the stock market. In the models, the market appears to be unpredictable, sometimes crashes, and sometimes soars in unexpected directions, just like people have personalities. make complex simple Ironically, Arthur didn't have time in Santa Fe to discuss Langton's artificial life, or the edge of chaos, or a hypothetical new second law; operating hours.But he was ecstatic enough to hear that artificial life and other research really captured the very essence of Santa Fe.Martin Heidegger (Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher and writer in the nineteenth century) once said that the fundamental question of philosophy is existence. As conscious entities, what are we living in this world for?Why isn't the universe just a mess of particles colliding with each other?Why is there structure, form and form?Why is there consciousness?There are very few people at the Santa Fe Institute who can get to the core of the problem like Langton, Kaufman, and Farmer; but Arthur felt that everyone touched the problem in different ways. Moreover, he felt that these ideas coincided with his research in the field of economics.When you look at the subject through Langton's phase-transition lens, all neoclassical theory suddenly becomes a simple proposition: that the economy is well-ordered, that markets are in perpetual equilibrium, and that any change in the economic environment is slow.And the Santa Fe view has likewise become a simple proposition: the economy is on the brink of chaos, actors are constantly adapting to each other, and situations are constantly changing.Arthur had always known which proposition was more realistic. Arthur, like other Santa Feites, hesitated when he considered the larger implications of all these ideas.Their theories have not really taken shape, and it is easy to sound like a New Age movement, or to appear incomplete.But Arthur, like everyone else, couldn't help but wonder what the revolution in complexity science meant more. Seize the moment and take advantage of the trend You can look at the complexity science revolution almost theologically.The Newtonian view of the universe is very close to the orthodox Christian idea that the universe is basically orderly.But this is not to say that God created order, which is too catholic; it is that according to God's arrangement, order will naturally exist if we follow the rules.If we keep our duties, pursue legitimate self-interest, work hard, and don't interfere with others, then the world will naturally return to balance, and we will get the rewards we deserve.This is my impression of Christianity.Arthur said. The viewpoint of complex science is that of pure Taoism.There is no such thing as implicit order in Taoist thought.The Taoist view of the universe is vast, shapeless, and unpredictable, with its elements fixed but constantly recombined.So the universe is like a kaleidoscope, a constantly changing shape that will only repeat in part, not all the same.The universe is always new and different. What do we have to do with such a world?We are also made of the same elements, so we also belong to this universe that is constantly changing and not changing.If you think you're on a motorboat so you can swim upstream, you're kidding yourself.In reality, you're just the captain of a paper boat floating on a river, and if you try to fight the current, you're going nowhere.On the contrary, if you quietly follow the flow of the river, knowing that you are also a part of it, knowing that the current is constantly changing, always bringing new complications, then you will pole the boat from time to time, avoiding a Another vortex. How does this relate to economic and political decision-making?On a policy level, that means you watch, watch, watch, and occasionally stick out your paddle and improve things.In other words, you have to face up to the reality and understand that the game is constantly changing, so you must master the current rules of the game.That is to say, you see the Japanese as eagles, stop being so naive, stop begging them to treat each other as equals, stop clinging to outdated traditional theories, and stop saying: as long as this balance point can be reached.You have to watch and act when it is time to act. Note that this is not to encourage negativity or fatalism, Arthur said.The method is to use the natural nonlinear system dynamics, you use the existing force to achieve the maximum effect, not in vain.This is the difference between the strategies of South Vietnam and North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.South Vietnam's Westmoreland approach was heavy shelling, overwhelming troops, and burning villages.The North Vietnamese army quietly retreated like a tide, and three days later made a comeback, elusive.This is also the philosophy behind all oriental martial arts, don't just try to block your opponent, let him attack, and then follow the trend.The point is to observe, be brave to make a move, and seize the right moment. The Amazon Rainforest Debate Arthur was reluctant to dwell on what this all meant for policymaking, but he remembered in particular that shortly after he left Santa Fe in the fall of 1989, Gehrman and he co-chaired a small seminar whose purpose was It explores how complex science analyzes the interplay between economics, environmental values, and public policy.A typical example is the Amazon basin, where rainforest is being lost at an alarming rate to build roads and farms.In his speech, Arthur pointed out that the formation of rainforest policy can be seen from three different levels. The first level is traditional cost-benefit analysis: calculate the costs and benefits of each action, and then decide how to achieve the best balance between costs and benefits.This kind of science makes sense, and it forces you to think through the implications of each alternative.Of course, at the meeting, there was a lot of debate about the cost-benefit of rainforests.The trouble is, this approach usually assumes that the problem is clearly defined, that the options are clearly laid out, that the necessary political tools are in place, and that all that remains is to calculate the cost-benefit figures for each option, as if the world It's like a train. Although we are on this track now, we can pull the train to another track as long as we adjust the track. Unfortunately, the real world is almost never that well defined, especially when it comes to environmental issues.Not uncommonly, objective cost-benefit analyzes are the result of arbitrary points given on top of subjective judgments, and zero points for projects that no one knows how to evaluate.I scoff at this type of cost-benefit analysis in my classes.The benefit of keeping spotted owls depends on how many people visit the rainforest, how many of those people see spotted owls, and how much seeing spotted owls benefits them.The cost-benefit analysis of this environment is like we stand outside the window of nature and look in. We say: Yes, I want this, this and this.But we are not in the window, we are not part of nature.Therefore, I have never appreciated this kind of research. This school of scholars is arrogant and only asks what is good for human beings. The second level is the full institutional︱political analysis to find out who plays what role and why.Once you start doing this kind of analysis of the Brazilian rainforest, you find that there are various characters: landowners, settlers, politicians, local police, road workers, indigenous people, and so on, all in this intricate, interactive monopoly The main character of the game deeply affects the evolution of the environment.Moreover, the political system is not left alone, in fact, the political system is the result of the game, and the faction alliances born of the game are forming the political system. In short, you want to see the system as the system, just like the Taoists observe the complex and changing currents in the paper boats.Of course, historians or political scientists will naturally take this view, and some economic research has recently begun to take this view.But at the 1989 symposium, the idea was an unheard-of discovery for many economists.Arthur said: In my speech I made a strong call for economists to adopt this type of analysis.I told them that if you really want to go deep into environmental issues, you have to ask who is at stake, who is at stake, what factions are likely to form, and basically grasp the situation before you can find possible ways to intervene. harmony between man and nature So, this brings up the third level of analysis.Arthur said: At this level, we can look at what two different worldviews say about environmental issues.One is the traditional view of equilibrium inherited from the Enlightenment, which holds that man and nature are dichotomous, and a balance point that is most beneficial to mankind can be found between the two.If you believe that, you're going to mention something like the best decision about environmental resources, which came from another speaker at the seminar. Another point of view is the complex point of view, which believes that man and nature are one, that man and nature are not opposed, that we are a part of nature and are in nature.There is no difference between the dominant and the dominated, because we are all in this closely related network.If we as humans want to take actions that are beneficial to humans (such as deforestation) without understanding how the whole system will respond, then the chain of events we start will eventually turn around and force us to adapt in different forms (such as climate change). So once you give up the idea of ​​the dichotomy between man and nature, the problem changes.You can't talk about the best decision anymore, because it's pointless to talk about, as if a parent wants to put his own best interests between himself and his children, which is a very strange idea for the whole family .What should really be discussed is how to reconcile and adapt to each other, and how to do what is best for the whole family.Arthur continued. Basically, the ideas I'm talking about are nothing new to Eastern philosophy, which has always seen the world as a complex system.But this worldview is increasingly important to Westerners, both scientifically and more broadly culturally.Westerners gradually changed from the view of exploiting nature to emphasizing the mutual harmony between human beings and nature.We move away from a naive view of the universe and begin to understand complex systems, that is, to understand that our world is a constantly changing, interconnected, non-linear kaleidoscope. So, the question is how do you deal with yourself in such a world?The answer is that the more choices the better.What you pursue is the ability to survive, the implementable plan, not the ideal state.Many people will ask: Isn't this the same as accepting the second-best situation?No, because the definition of the ideal state is in fact unclear.You should make yourself stronger and more survivable to face the unpredictable future.Therefore, learn as much as possible about non-linearity and causality.You observe the world carefully, not expecting any situation to last forever. So, what role does the Santa Fe Institute play in this? Certainly not another policy think tank, Arthur said, although that was always expected.No, the Institute's role is to help us see this ever-changing river, to understand what we're seeing. In really complex systems, the shapes don't repeat each other, but there are recognizable themes, for example, when you talk about history, you can talk about revolutions, although every revolution is different; so we borrow metaphors.Making policies is about finding the right metaphors, and many wrong decisions are often made with inappropriate metaphors.For example, it may be inappropriate to compare anti-drugs to a war of guns and assaults. So from this perspective, the Santa Fe Institute exists to create vocabulary and metaphors for complex systems.If someone does a great computer study, you can say: This needs a new metaphor, let's call it the edge of chaos!Therefore, when the Santa Fe Research Institute has studied many complex systems, it can tell us what possible observable forms and which metaphors are applicable to changing and complex systems; we no longer only understand the clockwork as a metaphor for the movement of the universe. Therefore, the smartest way is to let Santa Fe purely engage in scientific research. Turning it into a decision-making think tank would be a big mistake, it would devalue the whole thing, and it would be counterproductive.Because what is most lacking at present is an accurate understanding of how complex systems work, which is the most important task for the scientific community in the next fifty to one hundred years. suddenly see the light Arthur said: "I guess that sort of thing has its own personality.People who like to study flow and form are completely different from those who are content with static and order.All my life, whenever I've seen simple rules give rise to emergent, complex chaos, I've said: Ah!gorgeous!But others might be put off if they see it. Around 1980, when Arthur was trying to analyze his own views on the changing and evolving economic system, he happened to read a book written by the geneticist Lu Wengting, and he was deeply moved by a passage .Lu Wengting said that there are two kinds of scientists: The first kind of scientists believe that the world is basically in a state of equilibrium, and if occasional turbulence causes the system to deviate from equilibrium, then there will be other forces to bring it back to equilibrium.Luonting called these scientists the Platonic school, after the famous Athenian philosopher Plato declared that the chaotic, imperfect objects we see around us are nothing more than images of perfect archetypes. The second kind of scientist regards the world as a process of flow and change, in which the same matter is constantly circulating and reorganizing.Lu Wengting called this kind of scientists Heraclitians, because the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus strongly advocated that the world is constantly growing and changing.A century before Plato, Heraclitus famously observed that you wade in the same river, but it keeps flowing with different currents.Plato's interpretation of this passage is: You can never step in the same current twice. As soon as I read Lu Wengting's words, I suddenly became enlightened and finally understood what happened.I thought to myself: We are finally starting to wake up from Newton. The coach is about to retire While Arthur was driving westward in the setting sun, Ke Wen, the commander-in-chief of the Heraclitus School, was about to resign. Although the economic research project is very successful, and the edge of chaos and artificial life are also sensational, Ke Wen is very clear that the permanent fund of the Santa Fe Research Institute is still zero.After six years at Santa Fe, he was tired of having to keep begging for donations, and worrying about not turning the economic research program into an 800-pound gorilla that dominated the institute, and even more tired of having to keep fighting Gale. Mann's will, arguing over what Santa Fe's mission should be, including whether complex revolutions can teach us how to build a sustainable future for humanity. Ke Wen was really exhausted.Now, under his leadership, the Santa Fe Research Institute has started, and he hopes to spend the rest of his life studying science, studying novel and complex science.Therefore, at the annual board meeting in March 1990, Ke Wen formally submitted his resignation.He told the board that they had a year to find a successor and that he would try to stabilize the institute's finances.However, he made up his mind. Ke Wen said: I think it's time for a new face.The board meeting happened to be right after my seventieth birthday, and I had promised myself that when I was seventy, I would never hold my seat.I've seen too many old guys get in someone's way; a lot of people have ideas and they should be given a chance. Santa Fe regulars were not surprised by Cowen's statement.He's been looking so depressed lately that colleagues are starting to worry about his health.He became capricious, smiling one day, depressed and irritable, and furious the next.He often told others that when he took over this position in 1984, he had announced that he was not here, and that he accepted the call only to pave the way for a younger successor.He has clamored to resign more than once, and then was comforted again.At the last board meeting, he had hinted that it was time to resign and appointed a committee to find a successor.Now the committee has to step up. But that's exactly the crux of the matter.Ke Wen was the first person who thought of setting up this research institute.He was also the first to foresee the coming of complex science before others knew what to call this vague concept.He has devoted himself more than others to the birth of the Santa Fe Institute, and he has made Santa Fe the most intellectually vibrant place.As Langton said, when you see Ke Wen'an sitting on the abbot's throne, you know everything is all right.Everyone can't think of anyone who can take on this burden. If Ke Wen is not in his position, who else can be competent? Fundraising for Umbrella Funding Ke Wen himself was at a loss.However, at least he has no time to worry about this issue for the time being. In the next twelve months, his pressure will only increase.Before retiring with peace of mind, I hope that the funds for the next three years have been secured, and my successor should not be faced with the embarrassment of insufficient financial resources.That said, his top priority is finalizing proposals to the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.The two agencies have allocated grants each year since 1987 for a period of three years, totaling US$2 million.Now that it has expired, if the contract is not renewed, there will be very little left of the Santa Fe Academy. For Cowan, these proposals are not just about research funding.If it was just a question of funding, then his life would be much easier. Santa Fe could follow the example of many university polytechnics and insist that researchers find their own way to raise funds from other foundations.For Santa Fe, this is not difficult at all. Santa Fe has a lot of talent and academics who are experienced in applying for grants. They know how to play this game.But Cowen was convinced that doing so would destroy the character of Santa Fe. Cowen said: For me, the most important thing is that we have created a new kind of inclusive academic community, covering every level of the hard sciences, mathematics and social sciences.We have recruited the best minds from the beginning, and perhaps good taste has worked its magic, and the pool of minds we have assembled as we intended has sparked a spark of knowledge.I think the group we have built is unique in its breadth and quality.I have never seen a combination like this in any scientific organization in history. But if funding is patchwork, then we're immediately fragmented.Funding agencies usually limit each grant to research on a specific topic in a specific discipline, and individual grants form each person's own research field, which just runs counter to the direction of Santa Fe.You see, in order to apply for a $50,000 or $100,000 research grant, a researcher spends a lot of time writing a proposal, so he becomes an entrepreneur with a fund, and in any way that infringes on his autonomy over that grant, is immoral.So even if everyone is very caring, try to keep the organization loose, create a community atmosphere, and have some interdisciplinary discussions; after all, every scholar will inevitably spend more and more time on their own research, and spend less and less time. time to communicate with others.Without central coordination, you're back to normal academic circles again. Of course, in reality, the Santa Fe Institute is still struggling to win funding for awarding specialized subjects.That's the thing with finances, and even the Santa Fe Institute isn't immune to it.The economic research project subsidized by Citibank is one example. Arthur did spend a lot of time proposing to this foundation and that foundation for more funding subsidies.So, to combat these centrifugal forces, Cowan is eager to get what he calls umbrella funding, so that scholars with good ideas about complex science (such as Langton, Hornan, or Kaufman) can conduct research , whether or not their ideas can be relegated to traditional academic fields.If you want to have a unified complex scientific research program, then you have to create a new organizational atmosphere, you don't need to tell people how to do it, and there will be consistency from the bottom up.Umbrella funding is an integral part of this. That's why he had to go to the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy in the first place.Before the appearance of the eternal guardian angel, he could only turn to the funding of these institutions so that the research project would not be forced to divide according to the discipline.這也是為什麼他覺得續約關係重大；因為保護傘一旦收起，令亞瑟、考夫曼、賀南和其他人大為振奮的創造活力，很快就會無以為繼。 聖塔菲的超級推銷員 所以，那年春天，柯文、西蒙斯和幾位科學委員會的成員，花了無數個小時討論這份提案，他們都知道這份提案必須極具說服力。一九八七年，說服這兩個機構撥出第一期款項就不是件容易的事，而當時，聖塔菲需要做的不過是證明他們網羅了一群出眾的人才，並且有非常好的構想。這次的推銷工作更困難了，他們要國家科學基金會和能源部投下十倍的賭注，從三年內補助二百萬美元提高到五年內補助二千萬美元。而且，他們提案的時候正是聯邦政府緊縮科學預算的時候，傳統學門的研究人員擠破頭想爭取經費。國家科學基金會和能源部都有中層主管質疑，當許多嚴謹扎實的大學研究計畫都在哀哀求助的時候，為什麼卻把錢撥給這個冒險的跨學門玩意？ 所以，柯文、西蒙斯一干人等不能再靠描繪遠景來過關，他們必須證明過去三年中，他們確實成就非凡，而且在未來五年內有能力再從事價值二千萬美元的研究。當然，目前的情況有一點複雜，他們無法宣稱已經解開了複雜之謎，最多只是開了個頭；但是他們可以宣稱在三年的營運之後，他們確實創造了一個專攻複雜問題、實實在在的研究機構。他們寫道，正如一九八七年的提案中所承諾，聖塔菲研究院已經發展出完整的計畫、創新的管理體系、開始符合大量整體需求的支援系統，以及擁有一群出色的研究人員。 柯文和西蒙斯可以提出強而有力的證據，來支持他們的說法。他們指出，三年內聖塔菲研究院贊助了三十六個跨學門的研討會，出席的學者超過七百人。聖塔菲也邀請了一百位學者來訪，這些學者後來在著名的學術期刊上，發表了六十篇討論複雜科學的論文。聖塔菲每年還開辦複雜系統暑期學校，設計了為期一個月的課程，每年教授一五○位科學家有關複雜科學研究的數學及運算技術。聖塔菲研究院更開始出版了一系列聖塔菲研究院的複雜科學研究叢書。撰寫這份提案的時候，聖塔菲正和好幾家學術出版商討論創辦一份關於複雜科學的新學術期刊。 然後，就要談到研究本身了。柯文和西蒙斯寫道：特別值得注意的是，從才華洋溢的研究生到諾貝爾獎得主、資深企業主管、以及著名的政府官員，他們對聖塔菲研究計畫的支持有增無減。許多不同領域中的一流人才形成了相互激盪的團體和網路，這是聖塔菲研究院迄今最重要的貢獻。 在這裏，他們又可以列出一長串特殊成就，事實上，提案中大部分都在說明從人工生命到經濟學等各項研究計畫的成果。柯文和西蒙斯如此描述經濟研究計畫：這是聖塔菲研究院發展最成熟的研究計畫，在實質內容和組織架構上，都堪稱其他研究計畫的典範。 走一步、算一步 當然，為了裝點門面，柯文等人仍然在提案中隱瞞了一些不足為外人道的細節，例如經濟研究計畫幾乎快讓柯文抓狂了。 其中有一部分和老問題財源有關：在不那麼慷慨的時候，柯文常覺得經濟學家要研究院負擔所有的籌款工作，而他們卻坐享其成。即使柯文不那麼想不開的時候，他也充分警覺到經濟研究計畫在學術上的成就遠超過它籌措財源的成績。花旗銀行很滿意聖塔菲的成績，因此每年繼續補助十二萬五千美元的研究經費，但是還不足以涵蓋所有開支。亞瑟企圖向幾個大規模的基金會募款羅素塞吉、史隆、美侖基金會等，卻全都鎩羽而歸。殘酷的現實是，提供主流經濟學的經費都少得可憐，更遑論聖塔菲的新理論了。 美國對經濟學研究的支持很薄弱，柯文說：個別的經濟學家荷包飽滿，但報酬不是來自他們所做的基礎研究，而是來自於他們為企業擬訂計畫。同時，因為經濟學屬於社會科學，國家科學基金會和其他政府機構也吝於撥款補助。結果，許多經濟學家視聖塔菲為經費來源，很少為聖塔菲另闢財源。所以，聖塔菲研究院只好以聯邦經費來彌補花旗銀行捐款不足的部分，而柯文原本希望把這些錢用在其他的研究計畫上。 最大的問題是，自從亞瑟在一九八九年底離開後，艾羅一直在設法網羅一流的經濟學家來接替亞瑟的位置。柯文說：我們是走一步，算一步。編完今年的預算，還不知道下一年的經費有沒有著落。但是，當你想要吸引大家都爭相禮聘的人才時，你就得開出支票，承諾你可以提供哪些資源。儘管當經濟研究計畫剛開始時，聖塔菲顯然前途未卜，但是過了一、兩年後，聖塔菲看起來穩固多了，人們開始把我們當史丹福或耶魯一般看待。因為經費還沒有著落，我們要不就是潑他們冷水，要不就是表現得好像他們說得完全正確，然後仍然得想辦法籌措財源。這是不同的壓力，遊戲的本質已經改變了。 繼續對跑贏的馬下注？ 然而，和以前一樣，柯文真正顧慮的不是表面的金錢問題，而是整個脆弱的聖塔菲研究院。經濟研究計畫的成功，使聖塔菲面臨可能變成經濟學研究院的威脅，這完全不是他們的初衷。創立了一個不分系所的研究院，然後又只追求一門學問，簡直是自相矛盾，還不如一開始就創辦一個系。我們必須先有個起步，但是我們也必須從一開始就確定經濟學不會成為研究院唯一的興趣。Ke Wen said. 所以亞瑟和柯文因為經濟研究計畫的經費和發展速度而時生齟齬，也就不足為奇了。柯文說：在科學委員會上，亞瑟站在同夥的經濟學家那一邊，主張既然經濟研究計畫很成功，我們就不該把經費挪到其他研究計畫上，應該繼續下注在跑贏的馬身上。亞瑟強烈的捍衛自己的立場。但是聖塔菲的理念是，複雜系統涵蓋許多不同的層面，包括神經行為、人類行為、社會行為，以及其他許多經濟學不會探討的事情。所以，我極力主張至少要支持一個和經濟研究計畫規模相當的研究計畫，我們需要擴大學術議題，分散風險。雖然經過很多討論，科學委員會還是頗支持我的想法。 柯文特別想到的計畫是適應性計算發展一套能應用在所有複雜科學（包括經濟學）的數學和計算工具。如果我們有一個共同的觀念架構，那麼我們也應該有一個共同的分析架構。Ke Wen said.他補充，展開這樣一個計畫，有一部分只不過是要認清有哪些既有的研究，然後給予更廣泛的支持。賀南的遺傳演算法和分類者系統大概會是適應性運算的骨幹，但是考夫曼的布里恩網路（Boolean network）和自動催化組、蘭頓的人工生命、亞瑟和其他經濟學家眾多的經濟模型，都有類似的概念。法默曾在論文中指出，神經網路、免疫系統模型、自動催化組、分類者系統基本上都圍繞著相同的主題。事實上，適應性計算這個名字是西蒙斯想出來的，有一天他和柯文在辦公室裏推敲有什麼名字能廣泛的涵蓋所有這些概念，但又不會像人工智慧一樣帶著知識的包袱。 所以，在現階段，適應性計算研究計畫只是給予目前的發展正式的肯定及協調，同時提供額外的經費給研究生、訪問學者，以及舉辦研討會。長期而言，他希望這個研究計畫能促使經濟學家、社會學家、政治學家、甚至歷史學家的研究更嚴謹而精確，就像當初牛頓發明微積分對物理學所造成的影響一樣。我們期待的是，在十年或十五年以後將會研究出一套演算法，可以量化複雜適應性作用體彼此互動的方式。柯文說：目前社會科學家論辯的方式往往是兩個人各執一詞，每個人都認為他的見解最重要。我的看法比較重要，因為我能證明財務政策比貨幣政策重要等等。但是，你沒有辦法真的證明這個觀點，因為終究是訴諸文字。然而，電腦模擬提供了一系列清楚界定的變數，大家至少討論的是同一件事。而且，電腦能讓你處理更多的變數，所以，如果你的模擬把財務政策和貨幣政策都包含在內，你就可以分析這兩種政策孰輕孰重。這樣的結果有可能是正確的，也有可能錯，但是這種辯論方式的架構要清楚多了。 億萬富豪醉心複雜 無論電腦模擬是不是真有那麼好，展開適應性計算研究計畫，至少能帶來大家樂見的副作用柯文等人可以名正言順的把賀南從密西根請來，擔任聖塔菲第一位全職研究人員。不只因為他是主持這個計畫的不二人選，同時也因為他充滿了源源不絕的活力和新點子。大家都喜歡常看到他。 在柯文和西蒙斯給國家科學基金會和能源部的提案中，適應性計算獨占了十頁的篇幅，其中大部分是由熱心的賀南親自執筆。厚達一五○頁的提案書在一九九○年七月十三日寄出。之後，他們所能作的只是祈禱、等待，希望評審諸公仁慈一點。 聖塔菲研究院追求賀南的過程，帶著點諷刺的意味。在研究院草創之初，柯文和其他創辦人一心一意想聘請專職研究人員，把聖塔菲變成一個像紐約洛克斐勒大學一樣成熟的研究機構。但是，現實的財務問題從中作梗。到了一九九○年，柯文、西蒙斯和其他不少常駐聖塔菲的學者，都開始覺得財務的限制不盡然只有壞處，事實上，沒有專職研究人員似乎對聖塔菲更好。 好處是我們更有彈性，柯文說。他充分明白，一旦再請了一群專職人員，在這些人離開或去世以前，研究計畫都動彈不得。所以，為什麼不乾脆讓聖塔菲繼續扮演觸媒的角色？到目前為止，聖塔菲表現出色。繼續讓訪問學者輪番上陣，在聖塔菲待一段時間，和這裏狂放的知識活力充分融合，然後再回去各自的校園中，繼續和聖塔菲保持長途的合作關係，同時在同事間散播革命的火種。 但是，儘管言之鑿鑿，一碰到賀南的情況，每個人卻都樂意為他破例。更棒的是，支持賀南的經費已經有著落了。前捷克反政府鬥士、自力奮鬥有成的倫敦報業鉅子兼億萬富翁麥斯威爾（Robert Maxwell），對複雜科學這樣的東西產生濃厚的興趣。 當然，一九九一年末麥斯威爾離奇淹死，以及他負債累累的媒體王國隨之迅速瓦解，也令他聲名大噪。但是，在一九九○年當時，他就像神話中的教母一樣。聖塔菲與麥斯威爾的接觸早在一年前就開始了，葛爾曼有一次碰巧見到了麥斯威爾的女兒克麗斯汀，克麗斯汀於是安排葛爾曼在一九八九年五月和他的父親共進午餐。當葛爾曼向柯文報告，麥斯威爾似乎對聖塔菲研究院所作的事情大感興趣時，每個人都一片茫然，不知道麥斯威爾身價幾許，但想必有數不清的財富。 一九九○年二月，在多次的傳真及電話往返後，從倫敦來了一封特別的傳真信函，其中有兩個重點。第一，麥斯威爾說他希望藉由捐十萬美金來贊助適應性複雜系統的研究，展開與聖塔菲研究院的合作關係。第二，他很喜歡聖塔菲的想法創辦一份關於複雜科學的新學術期刊，他希望這份期刊能交由他旗下的學術出版公司普格蒙（Pergamon Press）出版。 展開合作關係？柯文和西蒙斯對著這幾個字沉吟了好一會兒，最後，柯文決定冒一冒險，提高賭注：我想要求更多。在回信中，柯文附上了聖塔菲學術期刊委員會的工作概況，提綱挈領的說明他們對這份期刊的構想，同時還提議麥斯威爾在聖塔菲設立麥斯威爾教授獎助金，每年捐助三十萬美元。柯文解釋，這個數目不但涵蓋了麥斯威爾教授的薪水，同時也足以支付博士後研究員及研究生、祕書的薪水、出差費用及其他各項雜支。 有一段時間，倫敦音信全無。柯文和西蒙斯早已耳聞麥斯威爾大權獨攬，所以他們能做的只有不斷的透過信件、電話提醒，並透過葛爾曼、克麗斯汀及克麗斯汀的兄弟們與麥斯威爾保持聯繫。原則上同意的回音終於來了，正好趕上一九九○年三月的董事會，在會中正式通過提供賀南五年的麥斯威爾教授獎助金。 巧立聖塔菲前哨 在密西根，賀南開始好好利用這個機會大作文章。當時，他對於電腦通訊學系被併入電機工程學系耿耿於懷，他痛恨工學院裏只看短期、強調應用的研究風氣，因此已經開始想辦法腳踏兩條船。幾年前，加州大學洛杉磯分校就暗示過可能聘他為榮譽教授。所以賀南展現了不為人知的靈活手腕，他立刻去找教務長，說：如果要我留在密西根，至少要讓我可以在心理系兼職。密西根心理系在美國名列前茅，賀南自從撰寫歸納法這本書的時候，就和心理系接觸頻繁。教務長戈登柏格（Edie Goldenberg）一方面體諒他的狀況，一方面急於把他留下來，就作了必要的安排。 現在，手中握著聖塔菲的邀約，賀南又去找戈登柏格。麥斯威爾教授獎助金是作研究的理想機會，我很想接受這個職位，除非我在密西根也能花更多的時間在研究上。戈登柏格再度聽進他的話，找到經費，作了種種安排。同時，還協助賀南安排好替代方案：心理系聘賀南為全職教授，同時減輕他的教學負擔，因此他可以花更多的時間作研究。另一方面，他要為密西根大學與聖塔菲研究院建立起永久的合作關係，密西根的教授、博士後研究人員及研究生能定期到聖塔菲作研究，而且兩個機構經常共同舉辦學術會議。就好像大雪紛飛的安娜堡是聖塔菲研究院的前哨站一樣。 合作關係在一九九○年夏天正式建立，賀南在秋天安排了為期兩週的研討會來宣告聖塔菲前哨站的成立，還特別舉辦了由亞瑟、葛爾曼及史丹福的費德曼參與的座談會來揭開序幕，大家都很開心。杜德斯塔特校長（James Duderstadt）親自為座談會揭幕，而且還從頭聽到尾！賀南說：他還作筆記。研討會很有趣，每個人都很高興。從那時候開始，除了到聖塔菲及參加學術會議，賀南大半時間都快樂的躲在自家書房中，與他的麥金塔電腦為伴。後來，他甚至認真考慮從大學退休，以便花更多的時間在研究上。生命有限。我年紀大了（他當時六十三歲），但是我還有很多新的想法有待研究 而在聖塔菲這廂，柯文很遺憾賀南拒絕了聖塔菲的職位，但是他承認賀南用計扭轉劣勢，令他大開眼界，尤其是賀南還不惜以工作為賭注，來維繫住與密西根的聯繫。聖塔菲對這樣的安排喜出望外。 同時，柯文還得應付麥斯威爾。他和西蒙斯在一九九○年初夏，一直客氣的以傳真信函提醒倫敦：請不要忘了把錢匯來。八月，寫著十五萬美金的麥斯威爾私人支票終於寄到，這是第一年三十萬美元捐款中的第一筆，這時候他們才告訴麥斯威爾，賀南沒有辦法接受獎助金。如果我去密西根和他談談，你覺得有沒有用？麥斯威爾回答。 沒有用。但是聖塔菲提出折衷方案：一九九○年秋季這個學期，就由賀南和葛爾曼分享這筆獎助金，賀南會利用這段時間為新的適應性計算研究計畫打好基礎。一九九一年，再由考夫曼和潘恩斯輪番上陣。同時，聖塔菲會利用這種彈性來延攬一流的年輕科學家，像洛伊（Seth Lloyd）、克洛區菲、賀布勒（Alfred Hubler）等。 麥斯威爾透過傳真機表示同意。而大家似乎對於新的複雜科學期刊由麥斯威爾的普格蒙出版公司出版，也都沒有異議。柯文和麥斯威爾在越洋電話中長談後，敲定了合作細節，但是不久，麥斯威爾就突然決定賣掉普格蒙出版公司，來籌措購併的資金。幸好，一九九一年二月下旬，在連連越洋傳真催促之後，麥斯威爾居然還記得寄來第二筆十五萬美元的捐款。 葛爾曼研究院？ 一九九○年整個夏天，每當有人提起柯文的接班問題時，葛爾曼就會嘆口氣，以逆來順受的口吻說：我猜最後我不得不接手。 可以理解，葛爾曼當然不想當聖塔菲研究院的院長，他討厭繁忙的行政工作，他一輩子都在想辦法推掉這類的工作。但是，聖塔菲研究院和複雜科學太重要了，還有誰能有這樣的遠見，能洞悉聖塔菲該做的事情？還有誰能把複雜科學解釋得這麼清楚？還有誰有這種聲望和人脈來登高一呼？ 的確，還有誰做得到？聖塔菲的接班人遴選委員會立刻陷入癱瘓。沒有人上當，大家都知道葛爾曼巴不得能當上聖塔菲研究院院長，問題是，他們敢不敢讓他當院長。有些人覺得應該認真考慮這個可能性，他們說，畢竟葛爾曼在科學史上是個影響力人物，又得過諾貝爾獎，如果他真的想要這份工作，為什麼不讓他試試看呢？ 比較了解葛爾曼的人則只要想到葛爾曼要嘗試管理工作，就大驚失色。沒有人懷疑他智慧的見解、他的活力、或他的募款能力，他能源源不絕的想出各種有趣而值得研究的科學問題，而且他似乎認識每一個人，而且他有一種驚人的本領，能把各領域一流的人才聚集在一起。沒有他，聖塔菲就沒有今天的面貌。但是院長？他們可以想像未回的電話和待簽的文件會在他的桌上堆積如山，而他卻在遠方挽救雨林。更糟的是，他們可以預見聖塔菲實際上變成了葛爾曼研究院。 在我所認識的人當中，葛爾曼最對生命抱著純粹知識分子的觀點。他的談話或是他生活中的其他事情，都圍繞著他對知識的關注。他非常關心聖塔菲的研究方向，他很清楚自己希望聖塔菲往什麼方向發展；他曾經深入思考這個問題，他希望我們朝著他設定的方向發展。一位認識葛爾曼多年的物理學家說。 目前的情況利弊參半。由葛爾曼這樣傑出的學者來領導聖塔菲走向更富於生產力的方向，對研究院而言是件好事。但是，另一方面，只要葛爾曼在場，其他人幾乎就不可能插嘴。一旦他分析了一個問題，他就覺得問題已經分析清楚了，如果有人不同意，他會認為他們不是沒有聽進他的話，就是沒弄懂他的意思。所以，他不是把別人的意見一筆勾消，就是更詳細的重複一次自己的論點。無論是純因才智過人或個性強烈，他就是會排斥任何不同的觀點；每個人都看到聖塔菲可能會成為葛爾曼追求他個人所熱中的學問的工具。 簡單與複雜之爭 柯文當然也看見這個危機。平心而論，他聽葛爾曼說過聖塔菲需要多樣化以及兼容並蓄的觀點，但是他也相信葛爾曼當了院長將會破壞研究院的狂放氣氛和多元性，許多有原創性的人才將會離開，即使葛爾曼本意不是如此。葛爾曼總是覺得他的看法是唯一可能的看法，他總是要改正別人的看法。 柯文這麼說其來有自。自從聖塔菲研究院創辦以來，他就一直在和葛爾曼打這場仗。當然，他一直自我節制，他知道他和研究院都很需要葛爾曼。很多時候，他不得不對葛爾曼讓步，以致於許多人質疑他是不是被諾貝爾獎得主的頭銜震懾住了。但是，有時候連柯文也受不了。 他們長期爭論聖塔菲該研究什麼，就是最好的例子。葛爾曼說：我認為聖塔菲研究院的研究主題應該是簡單與複雜，對我而言，宇宙的簡單法則及其或然性、資訊的本質及量子力學，都很重要。沒錯，聖塔菲討論過兩次資訊和宇宙的關係，早期我們也探討過超弦，以及縱觀數學和宇宙學、粒子物理。但是我們既不能研究簡單，也不再討論超弦。我不知道為什麼柯文痛恨這些題目。 事實上，柯文並非痛恨這些想法，超弦理論的確很神奇。（超弦理論是一種假設的萬有理論，把所有的基本粒子形容成純能量的小得不能再小、猛烈振動的弦。）只是能研究超弦、夸克、宇宙學的地方比比皆是，他不認為聖塔菲應該把時間或金錢浪擲在重複別人的研究上。而且不是只有柯文這麼認為，大多數的科學委員提到超弦研討會，都說：絕不再辦了。但是，最令柯文惱火的是，葛爾曼的簡單研究聽起來像是偽裝過的化約主義，而且他發現葛爾曼依然喜歡貶低任何他不感興趣的學問，例如化學或固態物理。他會當著安德森的面，稱固態物理為污態物理（squalid︱state physics），顯然只是為了激怒安德森。柯文說，也許葛爾曼只是想開開玩笑，但是他的言下之意是，研究集體行為是實際、混亂，而且不是那麼有智慧的。 在局外人眼中，他們對葛爾曼的簡單觀念的不耐，聽起來好像中古時期關於神學精義的祕密爭辯。但是柯文和葛爾曼都十分惱怒，由這個主題往往衍伸出其他的爭辯，然後就談不下去了。柯文特別記得在一九八七年的某個場合，五、六個聖塔菲的資深研究員圍坐在會議桌旁，討論該怎麼形容聖塔菲研究院。柯文說：每次我們說我們有興趣致力於複雜科學時，葛爾曼就會加一句：以及構成複雜科學的基本原理他指的是夸克。他言下之意是社會組織也是由許多夸克所組成的，夸克的原理可以貫徹到不同的群體之中。 這種對於對稱和絕對化約主義的信仰，我稱之為理論物理的宗教。我看不出有任何理由要採信這樣的說法，我說我們不會這樣做！Ke Wen said.柯文的論點是，複雜、突現系統代表一種新科學，需要探究的是超越基本作用力定律的整體行為。 葛爾曼面無表情的說他不能接受，柯文說：我第一次明白葛爾曼提出自己的主張以後，就希望別人都依他的方式做。我覺得他太自大了，我控制不了我的脾氣。 的確，那時柯文勃然大怒，拿起桌上的論文，說：我不幹了！然後就走出去。奈普和卡魯塞斯趕緊追出去，大叫：柯文，回來！ 柯文最後還是回來了，從那次以後，葛爾曼幾乎都不再提簡單二字。 避免世紀大災難 但是，簡單理論帶給柯文的困擾，如果比起他對全球永續生存研究計畫的反感，又是小巫見大巫了。起初，這是柯文的研究計畫，反映出他一向對地球上人類前途的深深關注。而且他當時也不是稱之為永續生存，他最初的想法是稱為全球穩定或全球安全，一九八八年他籌畫的第一次小研討會，就叫全球安全研討會。柯文說：剛開始時，還有人討論像國家安全之類的主題，但是很快就跳出這個範圍，而討論我們在未來幾百年中，要如何避免A級災難，存活下去？這是要好幾代才能解決的問題。就混沌邊緣的觀點，要避免這樣的大災難，必須想辦法阻止毀滅性的崩潰和巨變。最初，在我的單子上，A級災難的第一順位是核子戰爭，B級災難則是像第二次世界大戰之類。但是在我們開第一次研討會之前，美蘇兩國重修舊好，核子戰爭的問題降為名單上的第五位，而快速浮現的卻是人口爆炸問題艾利希口中的大災難。然後是可能的環境災難，例如溫室效應；我自己倒不認為這會變成A級災難，但是其他人認為如此。 這個計畫不動聲色的進行了一段時間，主要是因為柯文在抽得出空來的時候，就安排一些小型會議。但是，葛爾曼對這個問題愈來愈感興趣，以全球、整合的眼光來看人類的長期生存問題，這樣的想法正投其所好。畢竟，葛爾曼是在五歲時漫步於紐約中央公園觀察自然時，開始對科學發生興趣。他最關心的問題，廣義來說，是全球的環境保護問題，狹義來說，則是保持雨林生物的多樣化。所以，他強力介入，堅決的把柯文的全球穩定性研究計畫推向他想要的方向。到了一九九○年，他已經成功的修正議程，把這個研究計畫變成了他的計畫。 他的議程比柯文的激進多了。葛爾曼不只對避免災難感興趣，他還要進一步達到全球的永續生存境界儘管這個名詞的含義模糊不清。 一九九○年五月的聖塔菲研討會中，葛爾曼指出，近來永續已經變成時髦的陳腔濫調。對大多數人而言，永續的意思似乎是照正常狀況持續下去，但這正是問題所在。葛爾曼曾協助創立了華盛頓的環境智庫世界資源研究院；那所研究院的學者認為，只有當人類社會在未來幾十年內，經歷了至少六種轉變之後，才可能發生全球永續生存。 一、在人口結構上，過渡到幾乎穩定的世界人口。 二、在技術上，過渡到每個人對環境的影響達到最小的程度。 三、在經濟上，努力讓商品及服務的真正成本（包括環境成本）都能反映在價格上。因此，有足夠的誘因使世界經濟不再耗盡大自然的資本，而是善用大自然的收入。 四、在社會上，大家共享資源，全世界的窮人都有更多無害的就業機會。 五、在制度上，建立跨國界聯盟來促進全球問題的研究，同時整合政策的不同層面。 六、在資訊上，藉由科學研究、教育及全球監督，使大多數人都能了解他們所面對的挑戰本質。 治療社會的精神病 當然，訣竅在於要從現在過渡到上述的未來，同時避免發生柯文所說的A級災難。葛爾曼說，如果我們希望達到這個目標，研究複雜適應性系統顯然舉足輕重。要了解這六種轉變，也就是了解相互牽動的經濟、社會和政治力量，你不可能像過去一樣，只看個別的問題，就希望能描繪出系統的整體行為；你惟有把世界看成一個相互緊密連結的系統才行！ 更重要的是，要確定未來是值得生存的世界。永續的人類社會很容易變成歐威爾式的恐怖國度，生活在其中的人都受到嚴密的控制，沒有人身自由。永續的社會應該有適應能力、堅強、經歷小災難後能迅速復原、能從錯誤中學習，這個社會應該不是靜態的，而是能容許人類生活品質不斷成長，而不是只有人口成長。 他說，要達到這個目標顯然需要一場艱苦的戰役。西方的知識分子和企業主管都是理性論者，一意強調會導致不良後果的手段，也因此他們只尋求以技術來防止不良後果。所以，我們有避孕措施、軍備限制協定等等。這些事情當然都很重要，但是真正的解決方法絕非僅止於此，必須要昇華或轉換我們的傳統慾望像是勝過敵人、征服敵人之類。這些