Criticizing Scale, Causality, Complexity, and Emergence

Criticizing Scale, Causality, Complexity, and Emergence

The analysis of the scale and the complex systems does not give an explicit linking on the range of disciplines involved, which gives rise to much debate and misunderstandings. An individual could assume that it is easier to navigate through complexities of scale, realizing the power of being conscious, and visualizing the inter-connectedness involved in it. However, the understanding scale and the processes arising from it is still difficult for most people. It is made up of complex systems that rely on other explanations to clearly give an individual basic understanding of the term, and one has to draw insights from these systems to define it clearly. The scale has been rejected as an ontological category because the term does not define itself clearly in geography, and many questions surround it without getting a unique explanation that is accepted by the geographers. No one knows how to apply scale or the concept involved when operating with the concepts of scale, causality, and related complex systems.

A poly-scalar way of approach is required for an individual to understand the particular processes involved in several fields around the scale. It becomes difficult to comprehend or differentiate linear systems from the complex ones without enlarging the casual models, which are applied to study linear systems from a scientific point of view. The inter-connectedness is vital in ensuring understanding of the complex systems and their interdependence, which gives meaning to existence, yet there is no specific theory clearly defines the scale. Another criticism on this matter is the lack of explanation where the processes happening at smaller levels cannot be expanded further, while the processes taking place on large scale levels cannot be easily broken down for an explanation. According to the Brownian motion theory where there is a random movement of particles in a gaseous state, and throughout this, it gives rise to an extremely complex system where the movements of every single particle are challenging to discern.

These complex systems require applications of other fields which are diversified and ranges from biology, economics, science, physical geography, chemistry, ecology, and climate. Each field is distinct from the other one, and it functions on an entirely different level because of the protean nature, which causes rise to the emergence of individual components making each field to stand on its’ own. Specific properties with distinct ontological qualities are what comes up in the result of the changes involved in each field, making up the scale, causality, and sophisticated systems. As a result, conflicts start coming up from this phenomenon, and attention will always be directed to one side, forgetting or neglecting the other one, a system known as ‘publish or perish.’

By looking or relating to the poultry industry, funds will be directed to one research while abandoning the other study. For instance, there will be more resources to facilitate specific targets like an increase in economic efficiency, but there will be no resources for the research that targets reducing chicken suffering. Universities are then influenced to study particular topics that only benefit those funding it, according to the interviews from the University of Georgia Department of Poultry Science. The interviews accurately concurred that the records of getting these funds are significant and that success is peer-reviewed to determine if a specific faculty will receive the funds for poultry research. The universities that design projects which these funding institutions consider as good keep receiving funds, and they easily navigate survival. On the other hand, the universities that have conflicting priorities with the funding institutions do not get any funding for their research, causing many of them to fail and not survive. Research in the latter faculties never gets recognition because priorities are against the funding agencies’ interests, which is a bad thing.

Research should be equal in all institutions, and equitable funding is needed by everyone to ensure successful results are achieved — not just the interests of a few individuals controlling the flow of money or funds to be studied. There is evidence of biases prevailing in the funding agencies, forcing faculties to change their research priorities and study what benefits them alone. By removing or neglecting the faculties with different priorities, research is stalled, and there are no alternative resources of data to counter, object, debate, and argue against what has been studied. The system has altered the laws such that institutions doing research do not realize that a specific criterion is existing in the selection dynamics from the funding authorities. The scale needs to move so that these priorities can equally benefit all the faculties doing different research in the state. Capital is influencing the study objectives in such dynamics, and faculties conducting research on poultry will have to determine the aims of their projects.

Another observation is that funds available for research in poultry science comes primarily from the public, who sponsor the infrastructure and wages of the workers. The private firms take advantage of this and only fund the cost of research alone. That is not what should be going on in reality. A private firm should fund all of its operations without using the public’s money to benefit themselves, and therefore becomes exploitation of resources. Guidelines have developed to look at the welfare regulations over the years to counter such measures of exploitation and provide a standard level of operation to allow for transparency in these firms. In conclusion, the arising structures from the complex systems interacting with one another should not influence the behaviors of the main stakeholders in the system. It is good to understand the causal forces which are playing a significant role in ensuring the existence of the social human nature in solving the existing questions.