SimEarth: F.U.D. Inoculation
This seemed almost offensive to me. I was eleven or twelve years old, so not very much time had passed since my Dinosaurs are Awesome! phase. I knew that palaeontologists had a pretty good idea of what killed the dinosaurs. Like any recovering dinosaur-enthusiast, I knew about the K-T boundary and its abundance of rare isotopes of iridium and chromium. It seemed like pretty solid evidence to me; an asteroid impact had caused the mass extinction. The big question was whether or not the Chicxulub crater was the site of the impact. Our textbook's claim that scientists have "no idea" what killed the dinosaurs was very unsettling. The fact that no one really seemed to care about the misleading characterization of the topic was disturbing.
In freshman year biology class, we began our discussion of genetics by examining the inheritance patterns of various genetic diseases. To my horror, several students repeatedly expressed the opinion that the world would be better if we simply sterilized or exterminated everyone with, for example, cystic fibrosis. Then we wouldn't have to worry about it any more. The teacher was appalled. By the time evolution came around, I was was resigned to the necessity of ignoring everything my classmates had to say.
Then there was global warming. In my elementary school science classes, we learned that carbon dioxide and water vapor are greenhouse gases. We learned that both gases are emitted by combustion. We also learned that fossil fuels are the decomposed remains of dead plants and animals. We learned about the global carbon cycle. And yet, the question of whether or not humans could cause global warming was considered "dubious."
In high school, virtually no one thought humans could cause global warming. When I competed on our policy debate team, judges would often throw out your whole case if you impact scenario involved global warming. We were coached to avoid the topic. If our opponents raised the issue, we were given canned arguments designed to undermine the whole idea of global warming. The canned arguments didn't attempt to prove or disprove anything; they merely created doubt and confusion about the issue. I seem to recall that our teams used a popular anti-global-warming brief from Baylor University, though I can't find a reference to it. They were devastatingly effective. Later on, I noticed that same arguments turned up in newspaper editorials and political messages.
Nevertheless, it always seemed so obvious to me that global warming was a real threat, and that the burning of fossil fuels was the most likely cause. I recently began to wonder why it was that I remained convinced of its dangers despite spending a decade of my formative years among a consensus of global-warming naysayers. Why was I so convinced?
Obviously, I hadn't read the scientific literature and I hadn't conducted studies myself. Whatever convinced me, it wasn't exactly careful evaluation of the evidence. I suppose it must have been the hours and hours I spent playing my favorite video game.
SimEarth is a toy model, and the real feedback systems in the environment are vastly more complicated. Global warming in SimEarth was a fairly simple effect. However, tinkering with the simulation did give me an intuitive appreciation for the complexity of interdependent systems. The Earth is vastly more complicated that even the most sophisticated computer simulations. SimEarth teaches an exceedingly important lesson: When you disturb a complex nonlinear system, there are always consequences. Even when you understand every single rule governing a system, you often cannot predict the outcome.
If you don't believe me, fire up SimEarth, and try to guide a civilization of intelligent amphibians to the stars.
