From some of the thrust of ‘We All Fall Down’ I thought you where implying that the ‘no-choice’ was that the complex societies must charge off, sacrificing themselves in the effort.

You can have more complexity in a smaller area, or less complexity over a larger area, for the same amount of energy. What can’t happen is to bypass the opportunity to maximize one or the other.

Here is the main difference between us. I only think that the past informs us of the future when the majority of the facts in both cases are akin, which this time around they seem far from.

The present isn’t as unique as we think. Oil, timber–they’re both just energy sources, as far as complexity is concerned. Abstraction allows us to distill principles general enough that we can see how it shaped the past, and use them to accurately predict the future.

“..if it is at all possible, then complex societies cannot stop until it is done. If it is not possible, then complex societies can stop when that fact becomes apparent.”

From some of the thrust of ‘We All Fall Down’ I thought you where implying that the ‘no-choice’ was that the complex societies must charge off, sacrificing themselves in the effort.

I tend to be a uniformitarian in these things, though; the forces shaping the future are the same forces that shaped the past.

Here is the main difference between us. I only think that the past informs us of the future when the majority of the facts in both cases are akin, which this time around they seem far from.

Many thanks Shawn

Excuse me, ‘giving up after a failed attempt’ IS-A Choice, different to;-
“… surrounding complexity has no choice but to RESTORE IT”

If you’re trying to drive to NYC, and you run out of gas and have to ditch your car by the side of the road, did you “choose” not to go to NYC? The Byzantine Empire didn’t reconquer the West because it wasn’t capable of reconquering the West, It didn’t have the energy for that kind of complexity. So it gave up on the idea; that doesn’t seem like a choice to me, that seems like accepting the reality of the situation. If they’d had the capability of reconquering the West, they would have. They did try, after all, and gave it up only when it proved impossible.

Then if you go back and check the context I quoted you from on Ish-con that has already ruled out the possibility of giving up.

OK, let me clarify — if it is at all possible, then complex societies cannot stop until it is done. If it is not possible, then complex societies can stop when that fact becomes apparent. You’ll note that Justinian’s conquests did increase the size and scale of the Byzantine Empire as much as it could be expanded. So, my point stands: complexity will always grow, as big and as fast as it possibly can.

My previous post was never intended to be a ‘counter-example’ more a koan. I have no argument with your basic thesis, which seems perfectly suited to explanation of how civilisation evolved. I just think your contextual roots have restricted the thesis’s applicability to futurology.

Well, the ultimate test is whether or not it’s able to make accurate predictions. So far, it fits the past perfectly. We’ll see if the miraculous throws off its future reliability. I tend to be a uniformitarian in these things, though; the forces shaping the future are the same forces that shaped the past.

“the Eastern Empire did try to restore the West (Justinian), but failed. They didn’t have the resources to do it. So they didn’t.”

Excuse me, ‘giving up after a failed attempt’ IS-A Choice, different to;-
“… surrounding complexity has no choice but to RESTORE IT”

Then if you go back and check the context I quoted you from on Ish-con that has already ruled out the possibility of giving up.

“….. There’s a kind of osmosis at work with complexity; it is compelled to spread into areas of less complexity. ……”

My previous post was never intended to be a ‘counter-example’ more a koan. I have no argument with your basic thesis, which seems perfectly suited to explanation of how civilisation evolved. I just think your contextual roots have restricted the thesis’s applicability to futurology.

Best of Luck, Shawn

So why then when the less-complex Western Roman Empire did collapsed {because of internal failures}, didn’t the more complex Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire (consistent with your statement) follow this “… surrounding complexity has NO CHOICE but to restore it” axiom?

At the time of that collapse, neither the East nor the West was more complex than the other. But, the Eastern Empire did try to restore the West (Justinian), but failed. They didn’t have the resources to do it. So they didn’t. Ultimately, there was no longer sufficient energy to maintain that level of complexity in both the East and the West. It tried to expand, but there just wasn’t enough energy.

No answer expected. I know the whys as wherefores of what happen. I’m just trying to highlight that this ‘Civilisation & Complexity & Energy” linkage, while a helpful explanation of PAST events is not a robust theory for every occasion.

You may not have expected an answer, but there is a very simple one, which shows quite clearly why the linkage really is every bit as robust as I’ve suggested. Your counter-examples are not counter-examples at all, but very good example of my theory, outlining precisely what one would expect based on the framework I’ve suggested.

“….. There’s a kind of osmosis at work with complexity; it is compelled to spread into areas of less complexity. So, a localized collapse surrounded by complexity not only can be restored to complexity, the surrounding complexity has no choice but to restore it.”

So why then when the less-complex Western Roman Empire did collapsed {because of internal failures}, didn’t the more complex Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire (consistent with your statement) follow this “… surrounding complexity has NO CHOICE but to restore it” axiom?

No answer expected. I know the whys as wherefores of what happen. I’m just trying to highlight that this ‘Civilisation & Complexity & Energy” linkage, while a helpful explanation of PAST events is not a robust theory for every occasion. It is just too simplistic for the Prognostication task you are attempting to apply it too.

See ‘Mechanics Of Collapse‘ thread for further clarification.

Best of luck, Shawn

Why did the less complex Western empire collapse, and the more complex Eastern empire survive? Because the Western empire lost its sources of energy. Preceding the real collapse–precipitated by the barbarian horde that crossed the Rhine in 409 CE–the main sources of food for the Western Roman Empire–the Gallic diocese, especially Britain–were decimated. We know that the population dwindled, and much land that was once farmed was abandoned. Britain , which was apparently to the West what Egypt was to the east (that is, the primary source of food), was largely unaffected by this depopulation, and remained prosperous right up to the moment when Constantine III came to power in Britain and decided to press his imperial claim on the Continent. He failed, but at the same moment, Honorius was losing Italy itslef to Alaric. Rome never had a new opportunity to press its claim on Britain, and the island–and most of the Western empire’s food supply–was lost forever. You’ll see that it’s after this that the Western empire begins its slide into total collapse.

The collapse of the Western vs. the Eastern empires is one of the cases that Tainter points to as one of his best examples. Well worth a read.

So you say;-

complexity does consume more energy, not only in creating greater variety (that is, creating greater complexity), but also in maintaining itself.

A quick quiz:
Which ecosystem consumes more energy,
a/ 10 sq.k of grassland reclaimed from the Amazon rainforest, or
b/ the highly complex virgin rainforest close-by?

The enviromental energy inputs, sun, rain etc are identical for both eco-systems. But contrary to your argument it is actually the less-complex grasslands that requires external energy inputs byway of fertizlers to prevent the soil leaching to useless desert. The complexity in this case requires LESS energy WITH long-term sustainability.

Or for historical social example, in terms of energy & complexity why did the more energy intense, complex Eastern Roman Empire survie when the Western Roman Empire, with the better land, less complex ethnic mix colapsed?

Energy as indicative of social complexity and surivability, is just another fashionable paradigm,
with similar powers as Marx’s flawed model.

The Energy ~ Cilivization paradigm has some very sobering lesson for the USA at the moment, if there is still time to stop a colaspse there. But the world as a whole is not all cast from the same mold with the same limitations or fates.

C’ya

But, complexity does consume more energy, not only in creating greater variety (that is, creating greater complexity), but also in maintaining itself. The more complexity there is in a culture, the harder it is to find a new variety (the low-hanging fruit problem), and the more it takes to teach everyone (in an increasing population) all the variety that already exists.

By contrast the “Abstraction” talked about in Hofstadter and the more technical AI usage is a Consdensing of complex elements as loaded symbols with high leverage in a schema. In this context the concept of a single ‘atom’ is an Abstraction of all the sub-atomic complexity that modern physics has found there-in.

Thus you start to see two differnt sorts of Complexity. 1: Numerical compexity, ie increase the population of people, or cars, or cows etc. needs more energy to maintain the increased numerical complexity. However increased cultural complexity only consumes energy in the creation of variety, not in the continuing cultural / knowledge heritage.

Does that help?

Best of luck, Shawn