Complexity Theory: as societies become increasingly complex, they're also more prone to collapse.

[JohnyCanuck]

The Complexity Theory

By Ray Grigg, Special to Courier-Islander

SNIP

Complexity Theory argues that societies become progressively more unstable and vulnerable as the network of interconnections within them increases -- not particularly good news for a globalizing system in which increasing complexity is precisely the thrust of economics, finance, manufacturing, technology and almost everything else we do. The sobering implications may explain why many proponents of Complexity Theory preface their comments with an apology. "We don't want to tell you this," goes the essence of their message, "but we think you should know." When the New Scientist published two articles on Complexity Theory (Apr. 5/08), its editor anticipated some reader discomfort. "We are predisposed to pay attention to bad news," noted the editorial. "There is a good reason for this. We need to be warned of difficulty and danger so we can protect ourselves.... if the warning is too scary or distressing, we attack the messenger as a doom monger."

Complexity Theory comes with its hint of doom, ominously reminding us that no civilization has ever survived the stresses of history, with the possible exception of China and Byzantium -- in a much reduced state for 450 years following the 15th century Arab invasions. But Sumer, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Maya and even Rome all collapsed, primarily because they succumbed to overwhelming complexities.

Joseph Tainter, writing in The Collapse of Complex Societies, explains why. "For the past 10,000 years, problem solving has produced increasing complexity in human societies" (Ibid.). Food production is a classical example. Each time people find the solution to a food shortage -- irrigation, fertilizer or plants with higher yields-- the population rises to meet the food supply and the next problem to solve is more complicated and challenging. Every solution adds extra levels of organization, complexity and interdependence, which adds inefficiency and diminishing returns for the total amount of energy expended.

Progress is a process of perpetual problem solving, with each new solution adding more specialists and more layers of peripheral tasks that don't directly address the problems being solved. A civilization finally peaks at its maximum level of complexity when all its efforts are being used just to maintain its equilibrium (I get the feeling we might be at this point right now/JC). Then an unusual adversity arises: invaders, crop failure, disease, climate change, depletion of a critical natural resource, or anything that stresses a structure already precariously balanced. Then the civilization collapses and reorganizes itself at a simpler level.

http://www.canada.com/Complexity+Theory/1286263/story.html

[Deja Q]

1. But has China actually developed over its centuries? Not really. Not until *now*.

Doesn't mean they will last forever.

Doesn't mean we're about to collapse either. Ooga booga; it's sad how all the people with "partners" in this world would rather scare the shit out of everyone else and the rest of us trying to think forward are told* to "get laid".


* And only told. See, they're so lazy they won't do their part either.

[izquierdista]

2. Good advice to take

I'm going to reorganize myself at a simpler level.

[HereSince1628]

3. I first encountered this notion back in the 70's in theoretical ecology

Qualitative analysis of matrices of interaction show some things with interesting social implications. One in particular that sort of rocks a peaceful perspective is that mutualisms are as destabilizing as antagonisms.

The original work was done to consider the impact of insertion of new business into an economic community--Qualitative economics and the stability of equilibrium J Quirk, R Ruppert - Review of Economic Studies, 1965

[RandomThoughts]

4. You left out a great part of that article

But the theory has its saving graces. It does make us more aware of our vulnerabilities. And it does argue for simplification and local self-sufficiency, particularly for essentials such as food supply and energy production.

And guess what group has been saying this for decades!

Although its not just interdependency, it is also thin margins of fault tolerances to maximize returns. To be most competitive, industry balances on the edge of collapse.

And alot of the complexity added is because of work that is created, like making money from money or what you own, or creation of demand of things not wanted, by advertisement, to keep a flow going where it is not sound to go.

The articles says the feudal system was fault tolerant because of its simplicity, but actually so is our system. For instance, foreclosures really have no real effect on society until you enforce ownership and ability to make a house empty because someone else owns it for profit. The things in society that break down are cascaded downward from top layers of complexity back down to simple layers, so failures revert back to more basic systems as the top layers evaporate back into the mist they were created from.

But it was an interesting article.

[ixion]

5. conversely: societies that are too homogenous deteriorate

and stagnate.

For all it's complexities, heterogeneous societies offer a better survival strategy, IMO.

By way of example: It's a homogeneous group of people (social conservatives) insisting upon the moralistic laws that try to force humans to live a certain way (e.g. don't use drugs) that creates unnecessary tension in a complex society, which leads to the shredding of the social fabric over time.

It's the fraying of this fabric that causes a complex society to collapse.

Acceptance, Tolerance, Understanding, Compassion and Enlightenment are the core concepts of a successful complex society. We could change the world in a day if we would adopt this posture over the neo-barbaric stance we currently offer.

[ThomWV]

6. What a worthless article. Where is the theory? Who published it? Where are the proofs?

This is just juvenile horseshit as presented.

[ixion]

7. yeah, seems to be just an op/ed, with no proofs

and I disagree with the author's premise from the get-go.

[GoesTo11]

8. There's an original source that probably has more detail

In the article, he says "Joseph Tainter, writing in The Collapse of Complex Societies, explains why."

Basically seems like an article paraphrasing this book, but without sufficient attribution.

[ThomWV]

9. You'd think that at least the "theory" would have been stated in the article

It would have been interesting at least to see just what the theory is. You know, that one clear statement that defines the principle operating in nature? What are the conditions, what are the predictions? Shit, where is a link to the original (what is it, a book, paper, article?) what ever it is?

[fasttense]

10. Too much of anything is bad.

Too much complexity, too much simplicity, it all has it's bad side if taken to extremes. Human kind is one giant bell curve. It's never the extreme ends of the bell curve that most people move to. It is the middle where the majority lies.

Any thing good can become bad if it is taken to excess, like sex and eating. Even horrible things like war and killing, has it's place when done carefully and sparingly as in good wars (like WWII) and in self defense.

All things in moderation is really the answer to most problems.