The future of everything : the science of prediction : from wealth and weather to chaos and complexity

380 Pages·2007·2.47 MB·English

by  Orrell

Praise for The Future of
Everything
“With wit, humor, and clarity The Future of Everything gives a good overview
of the history of science as a predictive tool. . . . Orrell’s work has the potential
to change the way we plan for the future, both personally and as a society.”
—Winnipeg Free Press
“Even big-picture predictions—global warming, impending pandemics, the
global impact of consumerism, emerging technologies such as genetic
engineering and nanotechnology—seem less overwhelming after this
enlightening history lesson. . . . Some of Orrell’s most eloquent and provocative
passages are about those unpredictable forces known as free will and personal
choice, and he rallies us all to effect positive change.” —Canadian Geographic
“If you loathe uncertainty, can’t cope with complexity, or prefer easy (yet
wrong) solutions to complex problems, you may not appreciate this book. On the
other hand, you will likely find it reassuring, even empowering perhaps, to know
that the ‘experts’ can be wrong, and that common sense is still useful.”
—Edmonton Journal
“The special and enchanted land of forecasting is inhabited by tribes of
specialists who speak a language that is unintelligible to most of us. David
Orrell’s The Future of Everything is a wonderful guide and companion to that
land; its history, its valuable resources and its fault lines. And it still manages to
be a good read.” —Everett Herald
“Orrell’s writing is top-notch, but he’s at his finest when writing about the old
days, somehow finding exactly the right mix of anecdote, broad brush, and
humor. There’s the goat’s-beard hygrometer (curly plant = humid weather) and
the invention of the word ‘forecast’ (to distance weather prediction from
astrological prediction, though the same folks often did both).”
—The Globe and Mail
“Mathematician David Orrell explains why the mathematical models scientists
use to predict the weather, the climate, and the economy are not getting any
better, just more refined in their uncertainty . . . Dr. Orrell is no climate-change
denier. He calls himself green. But he understands the unjustified faith that arises
from the psychological need to make predictions.” —The National Post
THE FUTURE OF
EVERYTHING
THE FUTURE OF
EVERYTHING
THE SCIENCE OF PREDICTION
FROM WEALTH AND WEATHER
TO CHAOS AND COMPLEXITY
DAVID ORRELL, PHD
The Future of Everything
The Science of Prediction
From Wealth and Weather to Chaos and Complexity
Copyright © 2007 by David Orrell
Hardcover edition published in January 2007 in the United States by Thunder’s
Mouth Press, by arrangement with HarperCollins Publishers Ltd., Toronto,
Canada
Paperback edition published in December 2007 in the United States by Basic
Books, A Member of the Perseus Books Group, 387 Park Avenue South, New
York, NY 10016-8810
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,
recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be
invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer
who wishes to quote brief passages in connection with a review written for
inclusion in a magazine, newspaper, or broadcast.
Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data is available.
Hardcover: ISBN-10: 1-56025-975-2; ISBN-13: 978-1-56025-975-6
Paperback: ISBN-13: 978-1-56858-369-3
eBook ISBN : 9780786732319
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
This book is dedicated to the memory of my father, John Orrell, to Beatriz
and to Isabel
INTRODUCTION
THE SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY OF FORECASTING
The term “natural disaster” has become an increasingly anachronistic misnomer.
In reality, human behavior transforms natural hazards into what should really be
called unnatural disasters.
—Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future.
—Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
ANATOMY OF A STORM
By December 15, 1999, the run-up to the new millennium had begun in earnest.
People around the world were getting the champagne in, ready to uncork it the
moment 1/1/2000 did its giant, slow march into their time zone. The NASDAQ
stock-market index was also acquiring a champagne-like froth, as the Internet
rewrote the rules of the world economy. The only cloud on the horizon—a
potential storm—was the Millennium Bug, a software error caused when
programmers rounded off the computer’s internal date from four digits to two.
Many predicted it would bring chaos, or even collapse, to the world economy.
In the slums, or ranchos, perched high on El Avila mountain north of
Caracas, Venezuela, the Millennium Bug was not a major worry. Most of the
residents had electricity, acquired by tapping illegally into the network, but
Internet access was limited, to say the least. They were more excited about that
day’s referendum, which their hero, the new president, Hugo Chavez, had called
to get the constitution approved. Voter turnout was high, and 78 percent in
favour, despite the heavy rains, which had been falling for days and seemed to
be getting worse.
Normally, the rainy season lasted only until October, but this year was an
exception. The weather was out of synch. Some in the government suggested
that the more vulnerable areas of Caracas be evacuated, in case the steep slopes
became unstable. Perhaps not wishing to disrupt the referendum, however, the
government took no action.
Early the next morning, December 16, the northern side of El Avila, which
faces the coastal resorts near the airport, simply gave way. Witnesses said that
huge waves of water, six metres high, cascaded down the mountain, carrying
away everything in their wake—trees, cars, houses, people. Giant boulders
hurtled down narrow gullies, not stopping until they fell into the ocean or
smashed into the luxury apartment blocks that lined the coast. One survivor, a
young woman, described waking up in the middle of the night to the sound of
the water and the rocks crashing down the mountain and people yelling, “The
1
river is coming!” The water filled half her house before she could get out the
door. Many others weren’t so lucky.
At first, the scale of the disaster was not comprehended. Estimates were for
100 dead, then 500. By December 22, this had grown to 30,000, with perhaps ten
times that many left homeless. Many of the bodies were swept out to sea or
buried under the mud, and were impossible to recover. Survivors gathered in
halls and stadiums, desperately searching for lost relatives. Rescue workers were
completely overwhelmed. One told a journalist from the Independent how he
2
had rescued a three-year-old girl: “Every time she saw water, she screamed.”
Many feared that the lack of drinking water and sanitation would lead to disease
outbreaks, magnifying the human impact, but fortunately this did not come to
pass.
Almost immediately, the storm was politicized. The president’s opponents
castigated him for proceeding with the referendum. On Christmas Day, Chavez
distributed gifts to hundreds of orphaned children at the Poliedro sports arena, in
Caracas. When a reporter suggested the ex-paratrooper was culpable for the
disaster, he replied: “They should shoot me if I have any personal responsibility
3
in this.”
Could this storm, with all of its social, economic, and medical repercussions,
have been predicted? Was it a random, unforeseeable event, or was someone
responsible? How about the weather forecasters? The conditions for the storm
began to develop in early December, when a cold front encountered a
southwesterly flow of moist air, resulting in precipitation over the northern
coast. There was one week of moderate rain, followed by two days of extremely
heavy rain on December 15 and 16. The daily totals recorded at the nearby
Maiquetia International Airport for these days were so excessive that, in theory,
4
they wouldn’t be repeated for 1,000 years—truly a millennial storm. Almost by
definition, such events do not get predicted; no forecaster likes to predict