The Mechanics of Collapse
by Jason Godesky
Update (1 November 2005) A better synopsis of Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies is now available in two of the Thirty Theses: thesis #14 and thesis #15.
Thanks primarily to Jeff Vail’s recommendation, I have recently finished Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies. It is, without a doubt, one of the most important books I have ever read. It has challenged my understanding of civilization and its collapse. Tainter’s case is solid and academic. He highlights the logical flaws in most constructions of collapse, and provides a theory of his own that is powerful and elegant. He then proceeds to showcase the power of this theory by applying it to several cases of collapse known by historical and archaeological records. Tainter’s theory allows us to bypass the particulars of any given civilization, and understand it systemically. In essence, Tainter reduces a proper understanding of civilization to a mere problem of energy in, and energy out.
Ultimately, every culture is a system for moving energy. There are two basic needs which all animal evolutionary strategies must ultimately serve: feeding and procreation, that is, the maintenance of life, and the propogation of life. Any human group would suffice to serve the needs of procreation, and the arbitrary sexual taboos and mating rituals which govern it are largely arbitrary. Therefore, cultures are needed for the much more difficult, and more frequently necessary, task of providing food. This is why cultural typologies have such strong correlations with subsistence strategy–why it is that how you get your food determines so much else about your culture. Locality, gender status, religion, art, philosophy, music, science, math–all play their role in the constant need to acquire food.
These are the terms in which I have understood culture–and civilization–until now. I had already intuited a more abstract principle behind this when Tainter elucidated it in detail. Namely, that food is only one of the many possible energy sources that a culture can tap. Food is an important specific case, but ultimately, culture is not strictly speaking just a system for acquiring food–it is a system that passes through energy.
Cultures have any number of means of acquiring energy through all manner of various sources. A fire drill is a cultural item that unlocks heat and light energy in fire. An oil rig is a cultural item as well, which also unlocks energy. Cultures have various means of distributing energy to its members, as well, whether it’s the unspoken social rules of simply sitting about a fire, or the complicated pipelines, refineries and stations that make crude oil available as useful petroleum. Thus, culture is a system through which energy passes.
Seeing culture as a food-gathering adaptation, I argued for defining civilization in terms of agriculture. Tainter defines civilization in terms of complexity. Complexity, Tainter points out, can be measured empirically. In anthropology, there is a notion of “culture items.” Every concept, every piece of technology, every style of pottery, every administrative level is a different culture item, Complexity, then, can simply be measured by counting up the items in any given culture. Thus, all cultures exist somewhere along a continuum of complexity–no culture can claim an absolute on it, and no culture it utterly without it.
Using this idea, attempts have been made to catalogue the number of culture items in various cultures–and thus, to gauge their complexity. Some 600,000 culture items were catalogued for the Navajo, who are by no means the simplest of cultures. Yet the United States military dropped millions of kinds of hardware on the Pacific islands–the number of our cultural items may number in the billions or more.
This suggests a much more general, much more useful definition of civilization than any I have yet encountered: a civilization is a society which adopts increasing complexity as a general strategy.
Civilization’s first response to any challenge is to increase complexity, whether that increased complexity is represented by research, development, new administrative levels or techniques, or technological innovation. The Green Revolution is an example of civilization answering a challenge technically; the Department of Homeland Security is an example of meeting a challenge administratively.
This strategy is flawed, however, because increasing complexity is subject to the same law of diminishing marginal returns as anything else–something Tainter illustrated with the graph above. Every aspect of complexity is subject to diminishing returns. Agriculture is a subject to the law in many ways we have discussed on this site in the past; indeed, it was in regard to agriculture that the law of diminishing returns was originally formulated. More interesting is its application to other aspects of complexity. In research, the most basic, fundamental research is the easiest to conduct, and it serves as a basis for all further research. That research tends to be more specialized, and thus, of less general use–even though it often costs a great deal more, since it is more specific, involved and complicated. The same applies to education. The most commonly used education is the general education we recieve when we are very young. This forms the basis for the much more narrow and specialized education and training we recieve later on–which is much more narrowly applicable. Reading, writing and arithmetic are necessary in any pursuit, but the esoteric commands of a UNIX command line have a much more narrow application. The simplest inventions–the wheel, the pulley, the lever, et cetera, are by far the most useful; more complex inventions, like an AC spark plug, have far fewer uses, but are much more difficult to put together.
Both a fire drill and an oil rig output energy–but it takes far less energy to make a fire drill than an oil rig. It becomes a question of ERoEI–Energy Return on Energy Invested, a key concept in peak oil. In a way, it is a very similar problem–peak complexity.
Tainter points out that at point B1,C3, the benefits of complexity are the same as B1,C1–yet B1,C1 was a much simpler time. To lose complexity is to collapse, and beyond B2,C2, collapse becomes increasingly attractive.
That is one of Tainter’s most powerful points–that collapse is an economizing process. Collapse improves our lives when civilization’s strategy of increasing complexity has run complexity far beyond its usefulness.
As I mentioned before, cultures are systems through which energy flows. The invention of agriculture allowed more energy to be harvested in absolute terms, by lowering the ERoEI of our general subsistence. Similarly, fossil fuels have allowed a great deal more energy to pass through our culture. This amount of energy has allowed our culture to achieve levels of complexity undreamed of by past generations. Unfortunately, because civilization is a strategy that meets every challenge with greater complexity, it is a strategy that does not require the same energy input every year, but greater energy input every year–as there are always new challenges, big and small, which require further complexity, and thus, more energy. Such a civilization faces collapse not just from less energy available, but simply from energy supply failing to grow at a sufficient rate.
When that happens, further complexity becomes impossible, and the economizing process of collapse takes over.
According to Tainter, the point of no return–B1,C3–is most immediately recognizable by the emergence of some marginal population that begins to consider whether it might be preferable to live at some lower level of complexity.
Our very existence suggests that this strategy of increasing complexity has already gone too far–that civilization has gone too far, and that we have now passed the point of no return, where there is no possibility but collapse.
Interesting Jason…. looks like new material for my reading list.
‘Cept for one thing… “According to Tainter, the point of no return–B1,C3–is most immediately recognizable by the emergence of some marginal population that begins to consider whether it might be preferable to live at some lower level of complexity.”
Aren’t you the one that has been telling us that Quinn’s ideas have been bandied about in ‘Western’ culture for well over two thousand years?
Doesn’t that at least suggest some bad logic?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 5 September 2005 @ 9:19 AM
Well I didn’t say he was right, I said that’s what he said.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 5 September 2005 @ 9:25 AM
Ah Ha!
Comment by Janene — 5 September 2005 @ 9:59 AM
Hey, you might want to go with a word other than “fire drill”. You had me quite confused for a moment there, as I was picturing rows of children exiting school buildings in single file from shortest to tallest…and wondering what the heck that had to do with oil rigs. Or maybe I’m just exceedingly dense.
Roxy
Comment by Raku — 7 September 2005 @ 12:58 PM
lol, you know, I didn’t even think of that kind of “fire drill”… hmmmm.
I guess I’m just out of touch with mainstream America.
I’ve been trying for so long to get out of touch with those people….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 September 2005 @ 1:48 PM
As I was reading this article I was thinking about how corporations and thier associated stock price are similar. As a company grows year over year, so does the stock price. A company must continue to grow the revene to keep the price going up. As soon as they miss the growth targets, the stock price will collapse. Seems like daily evidence of this theory.
Comment by Shawn — 27 September 2005 @ 9:30 AM
This theory sounds like an overcomplicated explanation to the future of civilization.
I think it’s evident to see that we are at inevitable collapse, every souce of enegy one day collapses, nothing last’s forever.
The last energy source to go will be the sun, and we’ll be long extinct before that happens.
Comment by Nick — 28 September 2005 @ 6:08 AM
Nick, welcome to Anthropik!
Are you suggesting that energy throughput and civilization are synonymous? More energy automatically means more civilization; less energy automatically means collapse? That strikes me as far too simplistic. What of all the non-civilizations that had just as much access to enhanced energy throughput, and didn’t take it? What about all those groups throughout history who have voluntarily opted for a more simple way of life?
Ultimately, I see Tainter’s theory as an academic application of a very basic truth. I can even illustrate it with learning primitive skills. I’ve heard some claim learning such skills is difficult, but so far, in my experience, it has been incredibly easy. Then again, I’m just starting out. Everything is new to me. I’m learning the simplest, most effective things now. As time goes on, I’ll learn more complicated, specialized skills. My “marginal returns will diminish,” which is simply to say I’ll work harder for less benefit. At some point, I’ll realize I’m working way too hard, for way too little benefit, and stop learning those skills.
Tainter’s theory, I think, is very simple and powerful. Civilizations try to solve every problem by increasing their complexity, until one day they realize the ROI of that strategy has really bottomed out. That’s when they stop doing it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 September 2005 @ 9:41 AM
Yes, systems collapse when they run out of energy, BUT chaos theory, one way of thinking about complexity, suggests that the system has two options at this point. It can reorganize at a lower level of complexity, as with all the historical collapses. However, it is also possible to reorganize at a higher level of complexity - rebirth.
The problem with the collapse is that the Earth’s current population cannot sustain (feed) itself at these lower complexities the Greenies love. What do we think causes third world starvation? Surely not complex agricultural systems?
Look at the gulf coast. A relatively minor blip in a complex system and we have hundreds of thousands shouting FEMA feed me. Why, because most of them can’t feed themselves at a lower level of complexity. And in the short term, even the most self-sufficient hunter gatherer would be hard pressed to find food and water within walking distance, although perhaps most hunter gatherers have the good sense to live above sea level and come in out of a storm.
While none of us could reasonable argue that the average American is coping well with the current level of complexity, very few people in this country could feed themselves at a lower level of complexity. What we appear to miss is the wide range of individual differences in the ability to deal with complexity. Those who thrive on complexity keep pushing the envelope. As the envelope gets bigger and bigger, the number of individuals unable to cope begins to increase dramatically. Try Robert Kegan’s
“In over our Heads” for thoughts on this problem.
Comment by BJ — 28 September 2005 @ 11:48 AM
Hey –
“What do we think causes third world starvation? Surely not complex agricultural systems?”
YES. See Thesis #4 or THe Opposite of Malthus
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 September 2005 @ 12:17 PM
If it’s possible, then it’s certainly unprecedented, which makes it highly improbable. Additionally, I can’t figure out how such a thing could happen. Could you please explain it to me in more detail?
Well, yes. In every collapse, a lot of people die.
Actually, that’s exactly what causes it. Tribes are egalitarian; it’s only with the development of agriculture that you begin to see social classes arising. (The Meaning of Civilization, The Chicken and the Egg) And once you have people living at this excess of luxury (i.e., the entire Western world, but America in particular), you need more and more people to live on less and less in order to produce all those luxuries cheaply. (That was one of the issues I hit upon in My 2.8 Slaves.)
Once again, you’re absolutely correct. No indigenous tribes were hurt by the 2004 tsunami because they recognized the signs much quicker than anyone else and fled for higher ground.
As for your comment about a hunter-gatherer finding food or water in New Orleans… Cities don’t have a lot of foragable/huntable food in them in general, and now we’re talking about a city that’s drenched in toxic sludge. I’m not entirely sure what this has to do with anything we’re talking about, because no one’s expecting people to forage in cities. We’re talking about foraging in forests. And in a forest, it’s pretty difficult not to find food or water within walking distance.
Sadly, that’s true. That’s why, once we (Anthropik) learn enough primitive skills, we’re planning on opening up a primitive skills school, where we’ll teach others who can’t cope with such complexity how to leave civilization.
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 28 September 2005 @ 12:18 PM
BJ, I don’t think that chaos theory offers a way out of collapse.
The thing about a complex system is that the Structure enables it to function. A chaotic ‘leap’ to a different stable structure might happen in a relatively simple system, but in a complex one - I don’t think so. Sure a new complex system might arise (Corporate Facism for example - oh wait, did that already happen ?) rather than collapse back to hunter-gatherer tribes, but any ‘complexity resting point’ would surely be at a lower level of complexity than the society which collapsed.
And your implied argument that collapse cannot or must not happen just because a billion or so First World citizens wouldn’t be able to cope very well… well it may be true, but it surely won’t stop collapse.
I’ve also recently read Tainter’s book in detail. It is excellent, although fairly hard work in the middle.
It’s worth reading the summary chapter at the end, then reading the book and rereading the summary - it gives a nice framework.
Thanks for the suggestion re. Robert Kegan. That sounds interesting.
Comment by Peter Goode — 28 September 2005 @ 12:21 PM
Welcome to Anthropik, BJ! I’d respond to your comments, but it seems Janene, Giuli and Peter already said everything I was going to say. Thanks!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 September 2005 @ 8:25 PM
“Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be. The past clarifies potential paths to the future. One often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy costs. This could come about through the ‘crash’ that many fear — a genuine collapse over a period of one or two generations, with much violence, starvation, and loss of population. The alternative is the ’soft landing’ that many people hope for - a voluntary change to solar energy and green fuels, energy-conserving technologies, and less overall consumption. This is a utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will come about only if severe, prolonged hardship in industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology.”
– Joseph Tainter
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 September 2005 @ 8:33 PM
Being new to this, my question is always “when will this happen?” In 1970, there was basically everything we have now: international corporations, mass consumption, unequal distribution of wealth, etc. Of course everything seems more extreme now, but it’s not at all clear to me that we’re necessarily at the top of the curve, and not still in the middle of the upside. How do we know that things won’t continue to get more complex for another 50-100 years before they start to unravel?
Also: doesn’t complexity make things somewhat more stable, at least some of the time? A complex medical/governmental/regulatory framework, with a lot of public health workers all over the globe working on vaccines and exchanging information simultaneously, is much more likely to help (most of) us survive an outbreak of bird flu, than home remedies would.
Finally, it seems to me that evolution is towards complexity. Human biology is infinitely more complex than a single celled organism, yet a given human is probably more robust and lives longer than a single- celled organism. It seems like the drive of biology is towards increasing complexity, and there must be a reason for that. It must be adaptive.
Am I wrong?
Comment by Coffeenow — 30 September 2005 @ 4:00 PM
Hey –
Well, to start at the end… there is no ‘drive of biology… towards increasing complexity’ — it just looks that way.
Stephan J Gould wrote Full House specifically about this phenomena, so if you are interested in biology and evolution, I suggest you check it out. It is well written, accessible and entertaining all in one.
His basic argument is this: Life, by its very nature ’started’ simple. I don’t think anyone (well, except maybe creationists) would dispute that. As a result, life could not get any more simplier than it already was. So when we look at evolution, we see increasing complexity as a result of our perspective. When you look at the actual distribution of organisms over the full history of life on earth, what you will find is 99.9% of all life, over ALL of the ages, have been single celled.
On complexity… initial complex developments CAN add stability to the system as a whole. However, what happens as you get higher and higher levels of complexity, is that redundancies start to be eliminated. To use your example, public health workers around the world CAN provide greater care than traditional home remedies. But what happens if a pandemic occurs within that infrastructure? If we lose all of our health workers we are in deep doo-doo because nobody knows what the home remedies ARE anymore. So we end up with no health complex AND no primitive alternatives.
So the answer? Open Source Knowledge. Learn about homeopathic/herbal remedies, learn about wild, ornamental and cultivated food sources, learn about weaving, learn about something that interests you AND that could be useful. And encourage your friends, family, neighbors, whoever, to do the same. Then if the worst happens, you will have skills to draw on.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 30 September 2005 @ 4:54 PM
Janene - Sorry should have put the proper emphasis in - I agree complexity may be a root cause of starvation - NOT complex AGRICULTURAL systems though. Complex Agricultural systems are required to feed such dense populations. Unfortunately complexity in other areas (e.g. short sighted do-gooders providing medicine without birth control) outstrips many a 3rd world culture’s ability to maintain the complex agricultural (and distribution) systems necessary to feed their bloated populations.
For those interested in evolution toward complexity, see Howard Bloom’s work http://www.paleopsych.org. An interesting definition of a living system is something that consumes massive amounts of energy in an attempt to continually reverse entropy. Of course, the more efficient an organism or a culture is at this task, the more likely it is to survive and thrive.
Now the problem with complexity, is that it’s inherently a high-energy approach. Therefore, it must also be efficient AND effective in order to gain a positive return on the energy investment. In the agricultural arena, an example might help. Kansas wheat farms supply bread to Americans both efficiently and effectively. Fresh produce, on the other hand is a complex system that is very energy intensive for the dubious (or most of us on this list might say useless) gain of having fresh produce (half-ripe strawberries and spoiling lettuce) available in our stores regardless of the season. After Rita panic emptied the stores here, people actually complained that there was no lettuce in the grocery store Sunday morning. (Yes, I did doubt their sanity.) So not all complex agricultural systems are created equal. America’s breadbasket farms could easily feed the entire world bread if we could figure out distribution, but if all our US food distribution were as ineffective as produce, even Americans might soon join the starving.
To add to Janene’s examples, the American air traffic system is the epitome of a close-coupled complex system - read butterfly effect in the extreme. One lost bolt at 8 AM in Kansas, no incoming plane and Houston cancels a flight, which leaves a plane missing in …. As with our medical system, no slack and no fall-back alternatives. By 8 pm 1000 stranded passengers are sleeping in O’Hare. The people who are assigned to deal with it don’t seem to understand the complexity. For example, knowing the incoming plane was in an area with thunderstorms, I asked the check-in desk if our outgoing flight was late. She said she didn’t know. I asked where the plane was - she said on the ground (1.5 hrs away) and this 45 min before scheduled takeoff, but she couldn’t figure out the outbound flight had to be late? Or was forbidden to admit it?
It seems as if today’s most pressing issue is that complex technology has outstripped most social structures and even in the developed world the average person is well beyond their individual ability to cope with the complexities of their daily lives.
Several theorists suggest that the issue in the middle east (Islam) is in fact NOT religious. It’s the inability of an outdated social structure to deal with two things. One the complexity pushed on them by the developed world and second, the complexity required to deal with out-of-control population growth.
Several on this list have asked - should our goal be survival? Yes, you could say that simply taking the North Korea route and letting your population starve is a perfectly fine way of dealing with out-of-control population. I tend to take the position that if I wouldn’t tolerate being on the receiving end of such draconian “solutions”, I shouldn’t consider them an acceptable alternative.
As several others have mentioned, predictions of collapse are always with us; some more likely than others. One of the advantages to having reached our current level of complexity is that it gives us choices. We can take the “right wing survivalist” tack - every individual for himself and stock up on arms and canned goods.
Alternately, from a higher level of complexity, we can look at ways to insulate the average person from complexities beyond their ken. This means embedding simpler, more livable systems that fit human psychosocial needs within the more complex technology. This is the system reorganized at a higher, more stable level of complexity. One of the advantages of existing at AND UNDERSTANDING a complex system is it gives the option of actively choosing alternatives to collapse and working to make them happen, rather than finding a rock to hide under as the sky falls. After all, we’re just another living system looking to hold off the effects of entropy a little longer.
Comment by bj — 30 September 2005 @ 6:47 PM
Just happened to catch a look-see here,
With the progress of the human genome project and the search for everlasting life, it should be inherent that everlasting exstinction shall provide itself as a useful tool towards many tribal species of Homo sapien. Generally speaking, if it is “tic-tac-toe”, then which species has the club? Will the power elite choose to use it with an aptosis mechanism such as HIV? If so, Which tribe to select as a work bearing gradient while the remaining rescend upon themselves?
Typically, the most efficient would be chosen by natural selection; while the tribes who lack the ability to provide a sustainable homeostasis would demise. Thus leaving a healthy collection of primitive human life to provide the energy harvesting workload, while a more advanced tribe redistributes it to their advantage.
A form of religion or counterbalancing system of a sort would provide an adequate measure to circumvent the transfer of energy through culture so that the higher order remains at a level of conditioning to take the next evolutionary step. All the while the less primitve tribe of Homo sapien remain behind to contemplate their own inevitable fate as they watch it rescend upon itself. Leaving but a few to start it anew. I read once that at some point, everyone’s DNA can be linked back to arguably (of course) approximately a few dozen humans just a few thousand years ago. Maybe its just another cycle…
Also, give Malthus his respect. He had a good thought, but how was he to know about bio-genetically engineered kentucky-fried-chicken-substrate?
Comment by Huffy — 1 October 2005 @ 11:14 AM
Great discussion here, and a lot I want to respond to … but I’m in St. Louis until Monday, so while I’ll likely be posting some blog entries from the hotel, I probably won’t have time to really give these issues the attention they deserve until then.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 October 2005 @ 7:30 PM
That is, indeed, the question. Peak Oil is a problem that follows the same curve, for much the same reasons. Ultimately, it’s just another application of a diminishing marginal returns curve. Now, the sources I trust most all say Hubbert’s Peak is right now, and I’m seeing plenty of evidence to back up that assertion. If the North American peak in 1971 was any indication, then we’re probably talking about a time scale of the next decade for when this will all take place (Tainter spends a good bit of time on the fossil fuel subsidy so crucial to the complexity of industrialized civilization).
There are other indications that we’re looking at this problem now, rather than later: water shortages, the Green Revolution, global climate change, all present us with civilization-crushing crises on the same time scale of the next decade or two.
Such is the claim, and why we invest in complexity. The problem is that its ability to do that begins to drop, even as its costs continue to grow. That’s the curve. Eventually, the problems created by complexity outweigh its benefits, and you’re paying more for it than you’re getting back. That’s when it breaks down.
Absolutely not. As I wrote in the second thesis:
Also see Mark Meritt’s “The Unsustainability and Origins of Socioeconomic Increase,” which discusses this at length, and very convincingly.
You’re right, only agriculture can feed the kind of population that agriculture creates. But that’s not why the Third World is starving. The Third World overshot its carrying capacity. Like any animal population, they began dying. The First World sent in food to save them. They stopped starving, and the population that already couldn’t be supported began to grow. Now they’re entirely dependent on the First World, and instead of growing food, they grow cash crops like coffee, to sell to the First World in exchange for grain grown in Kansas.
The problem facing the Middle East is definitely not religious. Had it been Communists as in Afghanistan, fascists as in Iraq or Syria, or “democratic” strongmen as in Egypt that made any significant stride against foreign domination, you’d see them emerging. But they all failed; it was Islam that succeeded. People aren’t flocking to it for its own sake; they’re looking for something–anything–that can free them from neocolonialism.
I’m all for any simpler, more livable system, though I think if it relies on a complex society, it’s doomed to fall with the rest of complex society. A strategy of increasing complexity is not sustainable, and I think we are nearing the peak of this curve now. We may not be able to countenance the idea of “letting” others starve (as if we were somehow gods to “let” these things happen), but it’s going to happen regardless–whether we like it, or can accept it, or not. When we tried to save the Third World from that fate, we merely set them up for an even more grisly one. Rwanda is a fine example of that.
Only our current way of life can support 6.5 billion people, and our current way of life can’t be supported much longer. Any simplification at all means die-off, but we cannot do anything but simplify. We’ve gotten ourselves in a corner; die-off is inevitable. The best we can do now is try to survive it, and try to make sure some good comes out of it, so that the strife to come is not all in vain.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 4 October 2005 @ 11:24 AM
thanks for the thoughtful responses.
Comment by Coffeenow — 4 October 2005 @ 2:04 PM
G’day Jason,
Following on from my last comments on the “Principles-of-Prognostication” this seems the best spot to de-construct what I see a the two major short-comings of Joseph Tainter’s ‘Civilisation & Complexity & Energy’ explanation (as outlined on Anthropik Network pages).
1# The Law of Diminishing Returns is a Cultural NOT Functional construct.
This essay states in part;-
The things that are done first are those that are most OBVIOUS not those that require the least effort. The text-book example being the Pre-Columbian American cultures’ lack of the Wheel! Or another example is why did chairs, tables, pots etc. of those same Pre-Columbian American cultures general have three legs while those of European traditions had four legs?
2# No particular instances of ‘Civilisation & Complexity & Energy’ relationship can be postulated as universal absolutes.
While the explanation may hold for any civilisation examined in isolation, it can-not (if only for reasons climatic difference alone) be held across different time periods, geographical locations or cultural constructs. That is to say a hypothetical Civilisation “A” of Complexity “B” (with that interrelationship being maintained as a constant), would be characterized by varying Energy consumption profiles in keeping with the climatic and geographical parameters of where it happened to be located.
Or why for example while Civilisation & Complexity, of Modern Europe compared to that of United States of America are approximately the same, yet the USA consume nearly three times as much private (we are not talking corporations or national productions here) energy per head for comparable levels of personal comfort at home?
So then while one maybe justified in saying that the current Civilisation “C1″ with Complexity “C2″ will not be able to continue as-is long past Peak-Oil’s constriction, then cessation of ridiculously cheap connivent energy. That is not the same as saying a Higher Civilisation with a different mix of Complexity and thus a different Energy profile is not a plausible alternative / out-come.
From all this it probably obvious that I also think the definition given as;-
is so just non-sense. Especially as this definition closes-out many different strategies that have been used in the past, or may be successfully engaged in the future. (over on Ish-Con ) Matt’s formula of what a civilisation is far more realistic and useful;-
A ‘general strategy of increasing complexity’ is only one (and not a good one at that) of many memeplexes societies have, or could use.
That is enough for now. Shawn
Comment by W.Shawn Gray (AuzGnosis) — 30 October 2005 @ 5:10 PM
For that statement to work, you’d need to be suggesting that obvious things are not things that require the least effort. That would need to take into account things like the time to develop an idea. Obviously, something that’s obvious requires less effort, because you don’t need to invest any effort in coming up with the idea.
The whole “pre-Columbian Native Americans had no wheel,” line is a myth. They did have wheels, but without any domesticated pack animals besides the unruly llama, they were of very limited use. Also, three legs provide a much more stable configuration than four. So, these hardly stand as counter-arguments to the basic, irrefutable statement that complexity is subject to diminishing returns (for a much more thorough discussion of that, see thesis #14).
Why not? Is there some segment of that civilization that doesn’t use energy?
So what? Memes are irrelevant. What does a meme have to do with a civilization? The memeplexes of Chinese and European civilizations are noticeably different, but that doesn’t make them any less civilizations. The definition you present,
is not a definition. It says that civilization is defined by (1) a society, (2) a memeplex, and (3) a way of organizing itself, but it does not suggest what those would be. Every culture has those three things; by that definition, every culture is a civilization. By simply leaving it at “a specific _____,” this “definition” is nothing more than, “it’s a civilization if I say it is.”
My definition provides a solid, concrete definition that fits every known civilization. If your society ever answers a stress with some strategy other than intensifying complexity, then it isn’t a civilization. Period. And it fits every single known civilization that has ever existed.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 30 October 2005 @ 7:18 PM
Lets get this straight. According to you if a “civilization” solves say an administartive or structural problem (that is a source of stress) by steamlining a process or proceedure, that is to say reducing the complexity, then “..it isn’t a civilization. Period.” ?!?
As regards the rest I’ll read your ‘thesis #14′ before replying.
Comment by W.Shawn Gray (AuzGnosis) — 31 October 2005 @ 5:47 PM
Hey –
Enter, Jevon’s Paradox
Janene
Comment by Janene — 31 October 2005 @ 7:06 PM
Hmmm … that may be overstating the matter somewhat, you’re right. After a discussion of how incredibly ethnocentric most definitions of “civilization” are, Tainter offers us this:
I’m not sure if I’m entirely comfortable with this definition, though (no, I really do disagree with Tainter on a few points!). Is civilization, then, simply a synonym for cultural complexity? Societies are more or less civilized, or more or less complex? I tend not to believe in synonyms; nearly all words in English have some (even if only minor) difference.
There is an identifiable phenomenon of a positive feedback loop of complexity, in which every known civilization has fallen. We’ve covered the reasons for this in the Thirty Theses, but every civilization falls into a game of Prisoner’s Dilemna in which they are forced to continue investing in complexity until it’s no longer possible to do so, at which point it all collapses and they start over again. So, it seems that the most defining characteristic of civilization is not its memes or its culture, but this self-reinforcing, positive feedback loop–this phenomenon by which civilizations are compelled to make ever larger investments in complexity for ever smaller returns.
By comparison, non-civilized societies have a much more stable strategy, with a dynamic equilibrium flitting about some complexity “carrying capacity,” if you will. Sometimes they’ll increase their complexity; other times they’ll decrease it. This difference in approaching complexity is the primary difference between those societies we normally considered “civilized,” and those we consider “not.” So, the real dividing line is whether or not the society in question is willing (or able) to consider solutions that don’t involve greater investments in complexity.
But how to accurately and succinctly characterize that? If the U.S. streamlines its bureaucracy in one agency, that’s letting go of some complexity; yet, its overall social complexity is still increasing all the time. Obviously, we would still consider the U.S. a civilization. Nor can we say a civilization is a society with increasing complexity, because foragers increase their complexity as often as they decrease it, on average. So how to accurately and succinctly express this relationship between civilization and complexity?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 October 2005 @ 7:34 PM
“A civilization is a socitey in which the net complexity of the whole of the society is always increasing throughout the whole of it’s existance.”
Tribes have a sine curve.
Civilization has Jason’s favorite bitmap.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 31 October 2005 @ 7:43 PM
I like it!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 31 October 2005 @ 8:52 PM
G’day Jason,
2nd instalment.
On 28 Sept. 2005 you quoted directly from Joseph Tainter;-
That first bit is okay being fairly logical, but the while pretending to be in the same logical vein, the following bit is nothing more than tarted-up conjecture;-
From a whole of World perspective the ’soft landing’ option started to evaporate with the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, as the USA moved from a governance of reason to that of image. George Herbert Walker Bush (41st U.S. President) shabby posturing over the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, sealed a nasty future crash for at least 40% of the world. The Roman Catholic Church’s & fundamentalist Moslem’s obstruction of a broad birth control push at The United Nations convened International Conference on Population and Development, in Cairo in August 1994, all but guaranteed that “much violence, starvation, and loss of population” would be the future experience of the vast majority of the world’s inhabitants. The Howard (Australia) & Clinton then Bush governments’ white-anting of the Kyoto Protocol on Greenhouse Gases ruled out any possibility of a soft-landing for most of the developed world as well. There are now only a very minute pocket of countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol that may with a good measure of luck achieve the fabled ’soft landing’ without too much pain.
My bent is trying to map what is most likely. Then how to smooth some of the bumps to triggering a paradigm shift in what form Civilization may be in future.
All the best, Shawn
Comment by W.Shawn Gray (AuzGnosis) — 1 November 2005 @ 12:37 AM
I agree. Tainter is brilliant; he literally wrote the book on collapse. But that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has to say.
There would have been the faintest flicker of a hope for a new energy subsidy, and a few more centuries of complexity, had we stuck with Carter’s alternative energy plans. But we voted for Reagan instead. G-d bless America!
Any civilization in the future will be so far removed from all previous civilizations, that to call it “civilization” at all would require a definiton so broad as to make the term meaningless. There’s a whole world of diversity among the various options available to us, but civilizations are incredibly homogenous and differ only superficially for the most part. That is probably the only option that will no longer be available. The rest of the wide range is open. Want to be a Mongol in Kansas? Maybe a nomadic, sea-borne fishing village of boats lashed together? I’m especially looking forward to seeing a few Midwestern small towns transform into horticultural villages, and developing a syncretic Christianity with a heavy dose of animsim. The possibilities are endless.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 1 November 2005 @ 10:34 AM
For a completely different view of globalization and complexity, you might want to take a look at this article.
http://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo/backissue/f2005/evolut-context.shtml
Comment by BJ — 24 November 2005 @ 5:09 PM
Hey BJ –
Interesting — only the authors use a proven mis-statement of evolutionary theory as the basis for thier argument. Evolution does NOT drive toward complexity, complexity is simply a side effect of diversity.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 25 November 2005 @ 11:14 AM
Re:
“Evolution does NOT drive toward complexity, complexity is simply a side effect of diversity.”
This aspect of the Anthropik view of the world seems a bit odd to me.
Surely if evolution is driving towards increased diversity, and complexity is one expression of this diversity, evolution must be driving towards increased complexity by default (as well as in the other possible directions).
Comment by Clive — 25 November 2005 @ 12:46 PM
No, there’s a world of difference between the two.
If evolution is driving towards greater complexity, then the trajectory of life should be more or less a straight line, yielding what I heard one ignorant comedian thought was a really great punchline: “If evolution’s right, then why are there still monkeys around? Did they just not get the memo?” Ugh….
Under that understanding, civilization is the natural destiny of mankind under evolution, and we must do everything we can to save it.
On the other hand, if increased complexity is merely a consequence of the diversity that evolution is really promoting, then complexity is neutral. You can take it or leave it; it’s a byproduct of no value in and of itself. If it fosters more diversity, great! But if it threatens that diversity, it has to go–you’re not going to sacrifice the main goal for a byproduct you really don’t care about.
The first–that evolution pursues complexity–is patently and obviously untrue. The second–that evolution drives diversity–is just as patently true. The first suggests that civilization is our natural destiny and must be preserved at all costs. The second suggests that our happiness and survival are much more important than living in a complex society, and if we can survive better in a simpler society, then we should do that.
Is complexity the goal, or is it just something we hit upon along the way, that we should get rid of if it gets in our way?
In other words, complexity shouldn’t get any special consideration over any other dimension of diversity. If its net effect is more diversity, it’s good. If its overall net effect is less diversity, though, it is evil, and should be destroyed.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 25 November 2005 @ 12:58 PM
Hey Clive –
“Evolution does not drive toward complexity” is not just a view here at Anthropik.
It is such an oft-misunderstood concept in evolutionary theory that Steven J Gould (one of the most prominant, erudite and well respected evolutionary theorists of the twentieth century) wrote an entire book an the subject. The title is [u]Full House[/u] and I recommend it to anyone that wants to understand evolutionary theory.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 25 November 2005 @ 1:52 PM
I don’t understand why it’s being assumed here that evolution has a goal. Even if it does seem to have a goal or direction, why that direction or goal should be considered to be good or correct or have moral value because evolution happens to be going that way. It seems to me that although diversity is common and complexity rare, there is no need to prefer either except in relation to a certain goal in specific circumstances. Although it’s unlikely that evolution has any goal, we required diversity, complexity, and a lot of luck for the many accidents that led to humanity. But until complicated humanity appeared there was no known consciousness to evaluate this universe.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 26 November 2005 @ 12:21 AM
Hey Bob –
Evolution has no goal. that is the point of disputing the ‘evolution drives toward complexity’ argument.
I believe that Jason’s basic premise is not that there was a conscious intentional drive to diversity in evolution (although such WOULD be consistant with shaman — completely diametrically opposed to shamanism). Rather, once we came along with our ability to evaluate the universe, morality, etc, that it once we took on ‘control’ of the world (or at least the illusion thereof) that we also took on a responsibility over morality. Once there, it is not that big a stretch to look at all of the moral systems that have been presented and then suggest a new one with evidence. One based upon evolutionary success rather than on temporary success…
Janene
ps Now I’ll find out if Jasons’ gonna smack me down… cos I’m still not certain on this one
Comment by Janene — 26 November 2005 @ 11:04 AM
Janene, & Jason:
This is from Thesis 1:
“The universe has not simply become more complex; that is simply a side-effect of its drive towards greater diversity.�
…so there is an “unintentional� movement towards greater complexity. Even though it is a side-effect of the movement towards greater diversity, it is still an inevitable side effect. It is one of the many ways in which the universe is able to become more diverse.
And, echoing Bob, what if it did, hypothetically, turn out that complexity were the primary good, rather than diversity? Would that cause the Primitivists of the world to rethink? Just because the universe is set up in a particular way doesn’t mean that