Home » Posts tagged 'joseph tainter'

Tag Archives: joseph tainter

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXVIX–Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability

November 4, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXVIX–Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability

Tulum, Mexico (1986). Photo by author.

This Contemplation shares my thoughts on and a summary of an article by archaeologist Joseph Tainter that discusses societal problem solving’s complexity, history, and prospects for sustaining a society. It follows nicely from the four-part series I just completed regarding societal ‘collapse’ being primarily the result of stress surges following a prolonged period of diminishing returns in problem solving (See here: Part 1 (Website; Medium; Substack), 2 (Website; Medium; Substack), 3 (Website; Medium; Substack), and 4 (Website; Medium; Substack)).

Tainter’s focus in the paper is to better understand the problem-solving process so that societal ‘collapse’ is avoided. His goal is to identify problem-solving strategies that provide sustainable existence. One of the issues discussed is the human tendency to simplify complex issues and depend upon decision-making processes that minimise or ignore complexities. This results in a ‘solution’ that has only a tenuous connection to the ‘problem’ and eventually leads to system-wide consequences that may appear years/decades after the ‘solution’ is put into place.

While during and after reading the article (summarised below) I had some of the following thoughts.

It’s a common assertion by some that it is our ‘solutions’ to ‘problems’ that invariably lead to further problems that, in turn, require more problem solving.

This is perhaps a consequence of the fact that our solutions are often in terms of furthering societal complexity and as a result of implementing them create secondary and tertiary issues that require their own problem solving.

It is likely also the outcome of the fact that our solutions tend to be focused on short-term/immediate results and we are less worried (if at all) about the longer-term consequences that arise from our problem solving. It doesn’t help this limited thinking that the ‘benefits’ of the solution are highlighted by those with a vested interest in seeing the solution implemented, and the possible negative qualities downplayed or ignored. This leads not only to the acceptance of the proposed solution by most but contributes to the belief that the problem has been solved and our problem-solving approach is always successful. Solutions work!

When later negative consequences arise as a result of the solution put in place, they are not easily attributed to the earlier action/policy. Lag times between solutions and problems contribute to this perception as well, with supposed benefits occurring ‘immediately’ and some consequences not appearing for long periods of time–sometimes years/decades.

As Tainter points out in the article summarised below, it’s also often the case that solutions are only tenuously connected to the perceived problem they are supposedly addressing and thus not only are more problems created but the impacts of the problem persist, requiring further redress via more problem solving.

In addition to the above, it’s my belief that part of this exponential proliferation of societal problems occurs because the solutions used to address them are not only increasing complexity, tenuously connected to the problem, and focused upon short-term results, but often (if not always) a repercussion of the ruling elite taking advantage of the problem-/crisis-at-hand and leveraging it to support other agendas–especially the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. This ultimately ends up in creating more problems as the solutions offered and carried out are only marginally addressing the issue-at-hand, as Tainter asserts.

It is primarily in the marketing/spin of the solution by the mass media, governments, and associated businesses/industries (all the benefactors of the ‘solution’ put in place) that any policies/actions are fully and completely related to the problem. But in reality the solution is fundamentally the creation/expansion of a ‘racket’ that further enriches those who sit atop a society’s power and wealth structures. If the problem were actually solved, the monetary enrichment and the increase in social control often garnered by the elite via their ‘solutions’ would be stymied. And this is not what the ruling caste wishes to see happen.

There are of course a variety of additional reasons why any particular solution to a perceived problem leads to other problems that require other solutions. System complexity. Incomplete data/knowledge. Biased perspective. Blind spots. Groupthink. Etc..

Regardless of why solutions lead to even more problems, the issue for Tainter is that there appear to be three fundamental societal-level consequences/results of human problem solving:

Simplification;
Further complexity;
‘Collapse’.

It would appear that the most often pursued problem-solving strategy of furthering complexity to address issues tends to result in new problems that require even more complexity leading to a positive feedback loop:

NEW PROBLEM(S)
↓ ↑
PROBLEM → SOLUTION(S) OF MORE COMPLEXITY

This pursuit of further complexity, however, requires evermore energy-resource subsidies. Of course (at least for those who acknowledge biogeophysical reality), this furtherance of complexity that relies upon continually increasing energy and other resources is a distinct issue on a planet with finite resources.

In the past, solutions of increased complexity had relatively minor impacts upon ecological systems and society–especially when their scale was relatively small. For example, riverine irrigation or the burning of biomass at a small scale did not result in massive ecological systems destruction, the overloading of planetary sinks, or major societal shifts. However, increasing the scale of even these basic ‘solutions’ can become problematic.

From an environmental perspective, sinks may become overloaded resulting in planetary/regional boundaries being overshot–something we are witnessing in modern times as 8+ billion humans (and especially those in so-called ‘advanced’ economic societies) strive to exist and depend upon complex industrial technologies that require finite resources, especially hydrocarbons. From a sociopolitical perspective, large-scale irrigation projects require significant labour organisation, communication, and surplus-distribution institutions that can lead to increases in societal-level bureaucracies and increasing inequality.

Homo sapiens’ original lifestyle of nomadic hunting and gathering consisted of relatively limited complexity requiring minimal energy/resource subsidies to support it. It could be supported quite well with local, natural resources and human labour. It was a successful strategy for the overwhelming majority of our species’ existence. Environmental challenges and/or population pressures were met with minimal increases in technological and/or social complexity, and/or migration to un/underexploited regions–perhaps even the breaking off of small groups.

However, for the past 6000-12000 years, the primary problem-solving strategy of our species has become one of increasing complexity. This strategy unfortunately leads in the long run to negative impacts upon ‘sustainability’. In the moment of addressing immediate problems, long-term consequences tend to be ignored/denied as they are not of relevance in the here-and-now. Our default has become that because of our ingenuity and technological prowess, at some future time some technological ‘breakthrough’ will ‘solve’ any new problems/issues that may arise.

With a population performing at about minimal or close to basic sufficiency needs (e.g., hunting gathering), there existed a massive capacity to increase productivity with just human labour. Innovations (e.g., irrigation, draught animals, organisational institutions) attributed to human ingenuity could push productivity even higher and expansion over a number of years/decades/centuries could create a sense of such increases in complexity and technological ‘improvements’ being forever possible. Infinite growth on a finite planet IS entirely possible and not unreasonable from this perspective due to human ingenuity and technology.

Any ‘problems’ are also completely ‘solvable’ and not anything to be concerned about. We are the ‘wise human’ or ‘thinking man’. We can do any and everything we can imagine. Look at us, we’re great! [NOTE: from a psychological perspective our self-serving bias (part of attribution theory) tends to always attribute success to something internal–in this situation, our uniquely human ingenuity–while failures are the result of external factors.]

An important insight by Tainter that demonstrates a disconnect between our seeming self-congratulatory hubris that we can solve any problem is that: “with every victory over nature, the difficulty of achieving breakthroughs which lie ahead is increased”–classic diminishing returns on investments in complexity. I was reminded here of the ‘faith’ by so many in the energy transition sphere where almost all the success of shifting away from hydrocarbons to ‘renewables’ of some type rests on as-yet-to-be-hatched technological chickens and/or the scaling up of some current technologies that would require energy/resources beyond the capacity of our finite planet to provide.

This faith almost invariably ignores the impacts upon ecological systems of the continued resource extraction and processing needed for our complex, materials-based technologies. Some provide passing acknowledgement with the proviso that they are less problematic than hydrocarbons but this, in turn, ignores the significant hydrocarbon (and other finite resource) inputs required for scaling up the industrial technologies they are advocating and is blind to the multitude of variables (i.e., complexity) of the problem (actually predicament) at hand–this being almost always due to carbon tunnel vision: we just have to address carbon emissions and our complex society is ‘saved’.

The Byzantine ‘simplification’ that Tainter discusses is one of the rare instances of a society ‘voluntarily’ contracting–but its simplification was perhaps not truly voluntary/managed but demonstrated some adaptive responses to general ‘collapse’. An approach that some argue is the typical response of a society to issues rather than actual collapse: complex societies don’t ‘collapse’, they simplify in response to circumstances. This seems to me to be somewhat of a semantic argument and one I discussed in my previous Contemplation series.

As I stated near the end of my last Contemplation: “…I wish to highlight the primary response typically pursued by the elite and that we are already bearing witness to, and will likely see much more of in the years ahead: opting to pursue increased complexity to address perceived problems.”

As Tainter points out in the article summarised below: a society pursuing a problem-solving strategy of increased complexity ends in ‘collapse’ if there is no energy subsidy available to sustain it.

At this point in time, there is not only no scalable and ecologically-neutral energy subsidy waiting in the wings to save us and our complex societies from ourselves, but we have blown past the natural environmental carrying capacity of our planet thanks to the subsidies provided by hydrocarbons and rocketed into ecological overshoot where most of the planetary boundaries for sustainable living have been left far behind in the dust.

This has but one inevitable near-term ending: societal ‘collapse’ (or ‘simplification’, if it makes you feel better to call it that). Only time will tell whether extinction accompanies our plight.

Problem Solving: Complexity, History, Sustainability
Joseph A. Tainter
Population and Environment, Sep., 2000, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 3-41

This article by archaeologist Joseph Tainter follows from his general thesis that human societies are at their basic functioning a problem-solving organisation which primarily uses the strategy of increasing complexity to address issues that arise. He argues that while such an approach can be quite successful in the short term, it is cumulatively detrimental to the sustainability of the society resulting eventually in ‘collapse’, simplification, or the pursuit of increasing complexity via increasing energy subsidies.

His goal is to better understand the development of our problem-solving strategies by studying examples through pre/history so that modern society can choose ‘solutions’ to problems that are ‘sustainable’ in nature.

After outlining a variety of constraints to the effectiveness and durability of institutional problem solving (e.g., environmental; structural–including other institutions; internal transaction efficiency; human cognition limits), he suggest that ‘solutions’ may often have only a tenuous connection with the problem and result in system-wide consequences that may appear years/decades after implemented.

Our societies tend to become more complex (more parts, types of parts, and integration of parts), especially so over the past 12,000 years (5000-6000 for state-level societies). There is a cost (in terms of resources, labour, etc.) to this but it has also provided utility in problem solving.

As an adaptive, problem-solving strategy, complexity investments can be effective initially when the easiest/cheapest solutions are used but this approach loses effectiveness over time as more difficult/expensive solutions are necessary–this is diminishing returns. As return on investments decrease, society becomes more vulnerable to collapse.

A great example arises in resource production where the easiest-to-acquire/-process/-distribute/-consume resources are initially used. As consumption increases and/or resource availability decreases, greater costs/effort must be used with non increase in returns.

The same is true for knowledge production where productivity declines over time; i.e., each additional year of education past the first couple results in decreasing increases in productivity. Investments in more complex research, for example, grows exponentially while ‘progress’ rates do not, with each subsequent ‘breakthrough’ taking longer, costing more, and being less likely.

While the ‘solutions’ being pursued appear rational in the moment, mostly because costs and complexity are only slightly incremental, the cumulative and long-term impacts irreparably harm the systems involved.It is the cumulative nature of small increases in complexity and costs that cause negative impacts in the long term. As Tainter stresses, “[t]his is the key to understanding the development of unsupportable complexity: it grows by small steps , each necessary, each a reasonable solution to a problem.” (p. 19)

In using the Western Roman Empire as an example, Tainter points out that the economies of imperialism are such that initial subjugation provides the best returns (appropriated surpluses) but once governing costs are assumed such returns decline. These increased costs lead eventually to the need to devalue the currency to cover the growing shortfalls. This currency debasement led to insolvency and military funding issues, which resulted in military contraction and foreign invasion success. Domestic unrest also rose as living standards fell.

The response from the elites was to increase complexity by growing the governing bureaucracies, doubling the size of the military, increasing taxes, conscripting labour, and dictating occupations. The empire “became a coercive, omnipresent state that tabulated and amassed all resources for its own survival.” (p. 22)

As taxes became more burdensome, lands were abandoned with peasants seeking protection from wealthy landowners. Eventually negative feedback loops arose where lost provinces led to lost revenue that hurt military funding leading to more lost regions. The Roman military eventually disbanded, and the Germanic tribes the emperor was using overthrew him when they were not paid, In 476 A.D. the Western Roman Empire was officially no more.

Tainter also discusses the Early Byzantine Recovery episode where it was able to come back from near total collapse (at least until the Turks took Constantinople in 1453. Where the West’s emperors of the 3rd and 4th centuries responded to the crises via increased complexity, those of the East’s 7th and 8th centuries found a period of ‘simplification’ extended their society’s existence.

Civic and military administrations were merged, cities contracted to fortified hilltops, education and literacy were scaled back to basics, and a class of peasant-soldiers arose–paid with land rather than a debased currency so long as they and their eldest male (and so on) provided military service.

Finally, Tainter holds up the centuries-long military arms race of modern Europe as a classic example of diminishing returns on complexity (focusing upon the 1400-1815 time frame). For example, siege guns laid waste to the advantage of stone castles. This led to the development of defensive canons and fortified walls. These changes were expensive and prevented large militaries from forming but also led to more expensive siege methods. Despite such ongoing changes, the outcome was usually a stalemate.

The most significant constraint was funding as complexity via technological innovations grew faster than revenue and the necessary resources to support it. To sustain this arms race, European states ended up drawing upon ever-larger segments of society, eventually using trade wealth and colonisation (via their resources) to fund their military adventures.

The three examples Tainter draws upon show the basic outcomes to societal problem-solving: collapse (Western Roman Empire); simplification (Early Byzantine Recovery); and, growing complexity alongside energy subsidy growth (modern Europe).

Tainter concludes that for state-level sustainability to be successful, research needs to focus upon complexity and attempts to identify problem-solving strategies that are sustainable. Modern societies have become increasingly complex the past couple of centuries and especially since the discovery of hydrocarbon energy subsidies. But this subsidy is waning and will come to an end in the near future and it is our understanding of problem-solving systems and the three outcomes that might help to inform how we respond.

We can continue to grow complexity while experiencing diminishing returns, and proceed towards collapse. We can simplify our existence and extend our societies. Or, we can grow our complexities while hoping we discover an energy subsidy…

The longer summary notes of the article can be found here.

If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

Released September 30, 2024

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.

The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXVII–Collapse = Prolonged Period of Diminishing Returns + Significant Stress Surge(s), Part 3

October 23, 2024 / 1 Comment on Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXVII–Collapse = Prolonged Period of Diminishing Returns + Significant Stress Surge(s), Part 3

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXXVII–
Collapse = Prolonged Period of Diminishing Returns + Significant Stress Surge(s), Part 3

Tulum, Mexico (1986). Photo by author.

This Contemplation follows from Part 1 (Website; Medium; Substack) and 2 (Website; Medium; Substack) that was prompted by the devastation brought to the southeastern United States by way of Hurricane Helene. This recent natural disaster (followed closely by Hurricane Milton) is but one of dozens to hit the globe during the past year.

As I stated in the introductory Contemplation “my own immediate reaction to the significant damage and a few articles/conversations with others has me viewing the tragedy that is unfolding as another step in the path towards ‘collapse’ of the U.S. nation as currently constructed. Another straw, as it were, on the camel’s back that supports societal complexity for this particular nation state/empire–which would have repercussions for most other societies on our planet given U.S. global hegemony (and its faltering nature).”

In Part 1, I describe how complexity and collapse are viewed in archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s thesis (see: The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press, 1988. (ISBN 978-0-521-38673-9)). Part 2 looks at diminishing returns and begins to explore what the ‘collapse’ process entails, i.e., what occurs during and what follows the loss of sociopolitical complexity. In this Contemplation, I will expand on what the past tells us about what a large, complex society experiences as it is in the process of ‘collapse’, what it looks like post ‘collapse’, and begin to touch on what our present-day complex societies may have in store as we continue along the path of increasing complexity while encountering diminishing returns.

A ‘Collapsing’ Society
Let me begin by expanding on what past societies tell us about the ‘collapse’ process.

Tainter’s thesis posits that complex human societies of all sizes tend to be problem-solving organisations. Their primary means of solving the problems that they encounter have been technical innovations and/or via expanding investments in complexity, particularly sociopolitical complexity. For relatively large complex societies, ever-larger amounts of resources are funneled towards increasing: its territory and/or reach; its problem-solving institutions and associated bureaucracies; and, its variety of social roles and mechanisms to organise all of the various parts. Over time, however, this approach encounters a point of diminishing or declining returns on its investments.

Problem-solving costs are initially borne through regular operating budgets, typically raised through societal surpluses, taxes, and/or conscripted labour. But as diminishing returns increase the costs of greater complexity, these costs are met through enlarging the drawdown of societal reserves and demanding greater inputs by the masses. Reserves, however, are finite and what can be borne by the society is limited in nature.

Eventually a point may be reached when burgeoning complexity actually results in decreased overall benefits for society as a whole, especially since because of diminishing returns problem solving becomes more difficult and more costly, and less successful–it takes more and more time and resources to achieve satisfactory problem-solving results. It is at this juncture that a society becomes more susceptible to stressors that arise and the bonds that hold it together have an increasing likelihood to fray, perhaps even fall apart as increasing numbers of people find ‘simplification’ more attractive than increased complexity.

“Where marginal returns decline, the advantages to complexity become ultimately no greater (for the society as a whole) than for less costly social forms. The marginal cost of evolution to a higher level of complexity, or of remaining at the present level, is high compared with the alternative of disintegration.” (p. 121)

Archaeological evidence and pre/historical records suggest that during the collapse process the following is experienced:
1) Benefits to the population fall as the costs of complexity rise;
2) Shortly before the collapse, costs increase substantially and burden a society already weakened by declining marginal returns;
3) The demands of supporting a complex system negatively impact the well-being of people, who’s population had leveled off/declined before collapse;
4) Growth affects the environment in a negative fashion.

As complexity’s costs rise, and especially once diminishing returns have been encountered, it appears that those that sit at the top of the society’s power and wealth structures (and benefit the most from the status quo organisation and institutions) typically respond by imposing strict behavioural controls in order to try to decrease inefficiencies and sustain the arrangements that provide their revenue streams and positions of power. This is primarily achieved via greater legitimisation activities and/or control mechanisms. Activities of legitimisation are less expensive than the more violent/oppressive control mechanisms that have been used over time but they both are costly and result in feedback loops that exacerbate the economic decline. Eventually, over time, society’s sociopolitical systems are weakened to the point where they begin to fall apart.

The three societal examples of collapse highlighted by Tainter in his text show that their simplifications can be seen as “responses to declining marginal returns on investment in complexity” (p. 192) When the benefit:cost ratio reaches a point where alternatives to complexity are more attractive, members of society choose to simplify.

Rome’s collapse, for example, was not due to barbarian invasions or internal weaknesses but “the excessive costs imposed on an agricultural population to maintain a far-flung empire in a hostile environment” (p. 191) The Mayan collapse was not brought about by peasant revolts, invasions, or agricultural deterioration but “due to the burdens of an increasingly costly society borne by an increasingly weakened population” (p. 191) The collapse of the Chacoan society was not due to environmental deterioration but because the population choose to disengage when the challenge of another drought raised the costs of participation to a level that was more than the benefits of remaining.

Keep in mind that the societal shifts being discussed take place over a number of years/decades. While each may be perceived as a significant adjustment (i.e., collapse) in isolation and if ‘sudden’, this is not typically how they unfold, nor how they are perceived. As the ‘boiling a frog’ metaphor discussed in Part 2 suggests, they occur in small, incremental changes that are ignored/unnoticed in the moment but accumulate over time. It is not until or unless we step back and compare the situation prior to changes, to that which exists later on, that we recognise the significant shifts that have taken place.

A related aspect of our assessment of change that needs to be considered is the timeframe that we are viewing societal ‘collapse’ from. If we are looking at only a small segment of time, say a generational period (i.e., 20-25 years), there may be evidence of very minimal shifts in society and its institutions. However, if we step back and take in a multi-generational chunk of time, say 7-8 generations, the change over such a time frame might indicate massive societal alterations in any and all indicators. A 150 year long decline/simplification of a 500-1000 year span towards peak complexity is collapse-like in comparison.

It is akin to the Seneca Cliff/Effect proposed by Dr. Ugo Bardi where growth is gradual but decline is much swifter in nature. This is ‘collapse’ when viewed in the context of the entire existence of societal complexity.

“There are centuries in which nothing happens and years in which centuries pass.”
Homero Aridjis, 1991
Christian Science Monitor

“Collapse happens slowly…and then very suddenly.”
Dave Pollard, 2020
How to Save the World

Post Collapse
The problem-solving strategies of a society lead to its growth and increased complexity. At first this approach yields positive returns and is supported by the masses for they are receiving more benefits than the costs they must endure. Over time, however, the perceived benefits are lost and these masses become dissatisfied. In such times, any sudden stress surge (such as a significant natural disaster or geopolitical engagement) can lead to a fraying and eventual breakdown of the societal institutions and bonds that keep the society intact.

This process may occur regionally and can but does not necessarily spread to all areas of a larger society immediately. Other regions will, however, eventually also succumb to diminishing returns and eventual simplification; for as Tainter reminds us, it is only a matter of time. This is particularly so if the areas ‘unaffected’ continue to pursue increased complexity in the face of diminishing returns.

In Tainter’s words: “The shift to increasing complexity, undertaken initially to relieve stress or realize an opportunity, is at first a rational, productive strategy that yields a favorable marginal return. Typically, however, continued stresses, unanticipated challenges, and the costliness of sociopolitical integration combine to lower this marginal return. As the marginal return on complexity declines, complexity as a strategy yields comparatively lower benefits at higher and higher costs. A society that cannot counter this trend, such as through acquisition of an energy subsidy, becomes vulnerable to stress surges that it is too weak or impoverished to meet, and to waning support in its population. With continuation of this trend collapse becomes a matter of mathematical probability, as over time an insurmountable stress surge becomes increasingly likely. Until such a challenge occurs, there may be a period of economic stagnation, political decline, and territorial shrinkage.” (p. 127)

In the introduction of his book, Tainter describes what the evidence and records suggest about the collapse process and what follows. Here is a relatively long passage from it: “the characteristics of societies after collapse may be summarized as follows. There is, first and foremost, a breakdown of authority and central control. Prior to collapse, revolts and provincial breakaways signal the weakening of the center. Revenues to the government often decline. Foreign challengers become increasingly successful. With lower revenues the military may become ineffective. The populace becomes more and more disaffected as the hierarchy seeks to mobilize resources to meet the challenge. With disintegration, central direction is no longer possible. The former political center undergoes a significant loss of prominence and power. It is often ransacked and may ultimately be abandoned. Small, petty states emerge in the formerly unified territory, of which the previous capital may be one. Quite often these contend for domination, so that a period of perpetual conflict ensues. The umbrella of law and protection erected over the populace is eliminated. Lawlessness may prevail for a time…but order will ultimately be restored. Monumental construction and publicly-supported art largely cease to exist. Literacy may be lost entirely, and otherwise declines so dramatically that a dark age follows. What population remains in urban or other political centers reuse existing architecture in a characteristic manner. There is little new construction, and that which is attempted concentrates on adapting existing buildings. Great rooms will be subdivided, flimsy façades are built, and public space will be converted to private. While some attempt may be made to carry on an attenuated version of previous ceremonialism, the former monuments are allowed to fall into decay. People may reside in upper-story rooms as lower ones deteriorate. Monuments are often mined as early sources of building materials. When a building begins to collapse, the residents simply move to another. Palaces and central storage facilities may be abandoned, along with centralized redistribution of goods and foodstuffs, or market exchange. Both long distance and local trade may be markedly reduced, and craft specialization end or decline. Subsistence and material needs come to be met largely on the basis of local self-sufficiency. Declining regional interaction leads to the establishment of local styles in items such as pottery that formerly had been widely circulated. Both portable and fixed technology (e.g. hydraulic engineering systems) revert to simpler forms that can be developed and maintained at the local level, without the assistance of a bureaucracy that no longer exists. Whether as a cause or consequence, there is typically a marked, rapid reduction in population size and density. Not only do urban populations substantially decline, but so also do the support populations of the countryside. Many settlements are concurrently abandoned. The level of population and settlement may decline to that of centuries or even millennia previously.” (pp. 19-20)

In summary:

The political centre loses prominence and power resulting in a loss of control and authority;
Government revenues fall;
Government redirects resources from its citizens to maintain itself;
Greater success of foreign challengers as military funding declines;
Domestic revolts and regional breakaways occur;
Smaller, regional states emerge and vie for power, increasing domestic conflict;
Lawlessness develops;
Construction of monumental architecture ceases;
Existing architecture is ‘mined’ for materials;
Centralised redistribution of goods disappears;
Trade is greatly reduced and craft specialisation ceases;
Regions become locally self-sufficient;
Technology simplifies to that which can be developed and maintained locally;
Population declines as settlements are abandoned.

The past is prologue
I have written numerous times that I believe the past is prologue for our future. See, for example: Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse; Societal Collapse: The Past is Prologue; What Do Previous Experiments in Societal Complexity Suggest About ‘Managing’ Our Future; Ruling Caste Responses to Societal Breakdown/Decline; Declining Returns, Societal Surpluses, and Collapse.

The archaeological evidence and historical records indicate a multitude of prior experiments in large, complex societies. And while we cannot predict the future with much if any accuracy, there are dozens if not hundreds of experiments that have been attempted by our hominid species in the realm of complex society development over our approximately 300,000 year existence–particularly the past 12,000 years. Each and every one of these previous trials have ended with a dissolution of the complex society in question. For many of these, it appears that in our attempts to counter diminishing returns on our investments in complexity we end up exacerbating the situation and expedite the ‘collapse’ process.

In the fourth and final part of this Contemplation I will elaborate on what our modern-day, large complex societies might expect as we stumble into the fog of the future. Hints for this dot the discussion so far.

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

Released September 30, 2024

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXIX–Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

May 24, 2024

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CLXXIX–Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

It’s been a few months since I last posted a Contemplation. There are a variety of reasons for this.

I’ve been ‘distracted’ by the preparations in my gardens for the upcoming growing season. The unseasonably warm weather here north of Toronto allowed me to get outside quite a bit earlier than previous years and I’ve put that time to use performing all those preparatory tasks I need to do: post-winter clean-up, setting up my rain barrel system (that gets ‘dismantled’ in the fall given the snow and cold our region receives in the winter), preparing the ever-increasing number of garden beds, getting seed potatoes and a variety of other seeds in (i.e., pea, bean, carrot, and kale), mixing up new soil (compost + ‘used’ soil + peat moss + vermiculite), spreading mulch over many of the beds, and finishing up some stairs and a work area in behind my greenhouses that I began last year. These things are on top of the hydroponic seed-growing system I established in the past couple of years and some weeks ago began several dozen seeds (tomato, squash, eggplant) and required periodic attention and, finally, transplanting into pots/grow bags/raised beds.

As most of this prepping is now complete my activities have already shifted towards maintenance of crops (especially the perpetual trimming/training of vines/canes) and working on the next ‘big’ project (dismantling an older experiment with composting and replacing the wooden retaining walls with brick/stone).

On top of this, I made a pledge to myself to reduce significantly my screen time. So that’s also reduced my reading and writing time. While not helping to minimise my cathartic needs that writing brings, less screen time does focus my energies on actionable, physical endeavours that in the end I believe are far more immediately relevant; and which require a bit more time with each passing year–apparently, I’m not getting any younger as my back and various joints periodically remind me; and ‘suffering’ through a torn rotator cuff due to a fall playing pick-up hockey (who knew it’s hard to stay upright when you step on another player’s stick?) that has slowed me even more than my ever-increasing age–although I’m ‘fortunate’ that it’s only certain arm motions that have been restricted and I’ve still been able to haul heavy objects around and do the majority of physical chores that need doing.

In addition, I occasionally think of that line from the Talking Heads song, Psycho Killer: “Say something once, why say it again”. And as I think about many of my Contemplations, the repetition of some themes/topics cannot help but be obvious; and the repeating of them increasingly seems pointless since we all believe what we wish to believe (especially that which addresses our confirmation biases)–the choir that I preach to will accept my stories while those who do not will in all likelihood never, regardless of ‘evidence’ or persuasiveness–we are a rationalising species, not a rational one.

And, this writing ‘hobby’ (despite the long-ago initial motivation: marketing my ‘fictional’ novel trilogy) is a money-losing prospect where the income from my novel sales is significantly less than the ‘channel fees’ I pay to my self-publisher for keeping the print version of my first book available; to say nothing of the fees for maintaining a website presence. Being on a pension for the past 10+ years makes one just a tad more concerned about ‘superfluous’ expenditures such as personal hobbies.

I’ve also been spending a lot of time attempting to both update my website (still more to do) and post all my Contemplations on Substack (now complete). So, if you’re relatively new to my writing and find yourself looking for more to confirm or challenge your beliefs, please peruse my website, Substack, or Medium page.

Finally, perhaps most importantly, I am attempting to spend more time with my wife. We try to get our dog out for a 30-45 minute forest walk every morning, and have been enjoying other time together as we reconnect after many years of giving our time and energy to ‘raising a family’ and careers in education (and other people’s children). And as I experience my adult children’s periodic struggles with our increasingly complex (dare I say, ‘collapsing’) world, I am also attempting to be present and supportive for them more than I have in the past.

Realising that one is closer to the end of this roller-coaster ride of life than the beginning puts things in perspective and pulling back on the amount of time I engage in a somewhat self-indulgent ‘hobby’ seems apropos. Reading and writing have taken a distant backseat to my attempts to ‘live in the moment’, that is sometimes ‘difficult’ when one filters a lot of what’s going on in our world through an ‘overshoot-collapse’ lens.

Or, maybe all the above is a personal rationalisation/justification for just being ‘collapse weary’ and realising how fubar our species is and my ‘pontificating’ over it is accomplishing little. Actions over words is where my mind is settling, and those actions are oriented towards personal, familial, and community resiliency and sufficiency in a ‘collapsing’ world.

In summary, my time spent sitting in front of my computer or even just with a book/article is being reduced significantly as a result. What time I have had in the early mornings as I’m enjoying a couple of mugs of coffee, is oriented towards perusing some articles and doing some other personal chores. I am even going to be scaling back the ‘current events/articles’ I share via my website–perhaps just performing this periodically.

And as I continue to reflect upon and contemplate our predicament and how to perhaps ‘insulate’ my family/community from the changes to come, I am shifting towards an attempt to understand more fully what past complex societies did in response to societal decline/collapse/simplification. There are clues in these responses as to how we can better adapt to the societal transition that is upon us.

Given the above, then, I am thinking of changing tack with my writing. I am going to begin reading, summarising, and commenting upon academic/research articles that pertain to the two most common themes of my writing: societal collapse and human ecological overshoot. Combined with the aspects I outlined above, this will necessarily slow down significantly my screen time and writing; academic work can oftentimes be more ‘dense’ and time-consuming to process (especially if one is not repeatedly immersed in the field of study and the style of writing)–at least, this is true for me. I am going to aim for posting a new Contemplation at a rate of about once every 4-8 weeks; maybe more, maybe less–we’ll see.

The first such article I wish to share and comment upon is one from archaeologist Joseph Tainter that looks at the archaeological evidence that suggest examples of ecological overshoot and societal collapse. My thoughts regarding it follow…

Archaeology of Overshoot and Collapse

Joseph A. Tainter
Annual Review of Anthropology, 2006, Vol. 35, pp. 59-74.

After suggesting that the concept of overshoot traces its roots to Malthus’s argument that population (which grows exponentially) would overshoot food supply (which grows linearly), Tainter argues that population numbers, consumption of resources, and waste production are the main concerns surrounding human ecological overshoot. He also suggests that the concept of collapse has been poorly defined by researchers but commonly is assumed to be a loss of both population numbers and societal complexity.

He reviews the pre/historic record for evidence of societal collapse brought on by ecological overshoot and proposes that overshoot goes beyond simply population and consumption, and may include political aspects, economic costs to society (especially its ability to pay for ever-growing complexities), and technological capabilities (particularly with regard to transportation and communication).

The studies Tainter reviews include collapse for the Maya lowlands (whose collapse has been blamed upon ecological factors, a growth system, and sociopolitical and socioeconomic policies), and Mesopotamia (Ur dynasties, that experienced diminishing returns on its resource base, and overreach via excessive socioeconomic policies).

Chew’s (2001) studies of ecological degradation over the past 5000 years using World Systems Theory concluded that excess consumption led to environmental degradation and eventual collapse for societies of the past. Basically, “… over-exploitation of resources due to capital accumulation, urbanization, intense land use, and population growth led to constraints on continued expansion and ‘a downscaling of material and cultural lifestyles’”.

Diamond’s (2005) overshoot model similarly argues that the foundational cause of collapse for a society is degradation of the environment, however it also includes the variables of local ecology, hostile neighbours, social responses, climate, and trade partners. While disagreeing with most of Diamond’s examples (mostly because of rare, adverse conditions that prevented adaptation), Tainter suggests the best case for overshoot, resource degradation, and collapse presented is that for Easter Island.

Tainter appears to agree fully with the assessment that Easter Island’s complex society ‘collapsed’ in the sense of a loss of organisational capacity. Several researchers suggest deforestation kicked off a cascading set of events: decline in fishing and farming, increase in warfare and insecurity, settlement pattern shifts, population decline, and, finally, sociopolitical collapse.

Tainter reviews a number of theories regarding overshoot and collapse, using the archaeological record as a measuring stick to gauge their viability, including: Meggar’s (1954) environmental limitation theory, Cooke’s (1931) and Sanders’s (1962) research regarding the consequences of low-production swiddening leading to overshoot and collapse, and Culbert’s (1988) elite-driven agricultural intensification resulting in resource degradation and eventual overshoot.

He suggests that Ur’s Third Dynasty and the Abbasid Caliphate may be the best candidates for assessing population overshoot, resource degradation, and sociopolitical collapse, but then argues the evidence indicates that neither show Malthusian overshoot, nor one brought on by excess production (today’s primary concern).

Further, he concludes that Chew’s (2001) analyses of Bronze Age societies are not supported by the empirical evidence.

Diamond’s (2005) analyses demonstrate a misunderstanding of ‘collapse’ (Norse Greenland and Pitcairn and Henderson Island) and confuse Malthusian overshoot with overshoot due to extreme climatic conditions (Maya and Southwest U.S.). And even Easter Island is not likely to qualify as a case of overshoot and collapse since the loss of giant palms (the identified tipping point leading to collapse by many) was likely more due to the rats brought by the original settlers than to human population overshoot.

Tainter concludes that the archaeological literature contains few cases that suggest population and/or mass consumption overshoot followed by environmental degradation and sociopolitical collapse. He further suggests that most of the interpretations that argue for overshoot are not credible; those that are lead to the conclusion that overshoot only occurs during extreme conditions [this aligns with his thesis in The Collapse of Complex Societies in that collapse is brought about by a society’s inability to respond to crises due to reserves being depleted via their use to sustain status quo systems as a consequence of diminishing returns having been encountered on investments in problem-solving].

Rather than cases of overshoot, we see examples of elite mismanagement and lack of proper feedback to governing institutions to correct misguided policies and actions. The human ability to adapt, especially in terms of agricultural intensification, is often denied by those seeking examples of overshoot. Greater resource production always appears possible via capital and technology application, labour, knowledge intensification, and/or energy subsidies.

The argument can be made that increasing mechanisation, irrigation, fertilisation, and/or labour have all resulted in increased production–proving Wallace, Erlich, Jevons, and Malthus wrong. In addition, societies may choose to simplify to a less costly organisation and/or reduce consumption; this is what the Byzantine Empire chose in the 7th-century AD when it lost its wealthiest provinces (Tainter notes this “may be history’s only example of a large complex society systematically simplifying” (p. 72)).

Despite the above, Tainter wonders whether our modern world can continue to intensify production indefinitely escaping a Malthusian fate. Neoclassical economists argue markets will always uncover new resources so overpopulation and/or overconsumption is not ever a concern.

“The contrary view is well known. We must reduce our ecological footprint or eventually collapse. The neoclassical argument is based on faith that markets will always work and denial of diminishing returns on innovation. Should we base our future on faith and denial, or on rational planning?” (p. 72).

More detailed summary notes can be found here.

My Thoughts

The lack of agreement over what constitutes overshoot and/or collapse is not unimportant. One of the ‘insights’ I gained over my decade of post-secondary education and subsequent observations of human perceptions of our universe is that the exact same observable phenomena are oftentimes (if not always) interpreted in different ways–sometimes even diametrically opposed to one another. I would argue that this is especially true when one is dealing with broad concepts such as ‘collapse’ and ‘overshoot’. Ask archaeologists what ‘collapse’ is and you’re likely to get many different answers; in fact, you’re likely to also get some that argue the term is inappropriate for what is observed via the artifactual remains of human complex societies (i.e., societies don’t ‘collapse’, they ‘adapt’).

Differences in what societal ‘collapse’ and/or ‘overshoot’ are and how they present themselves in the archaeological record can lead to quite disparate explanations about the process and responses. Despite the ideal of science being a dispassionate and objective enterprise, it is performed by humans with all the subjectivities, foibles, and predilections that we possess. We often if not always see what we want to see and interpret the world to support our beliefs. Scientists are no different and can become enmeshed in particular paradigms and echo chambers. Where one sees clear evidence of societal ‘collapse’, another sees examples of innovative adaptation.

The ability of humans to adapt to changing conditions, particularly around resource production, is predicated upon our capacity to shift behaviour and/or leverage resources–especially energy. One must wonder, as Tainter does, whether this is possible for our modern globalised and industrialised world. It would seem this is especially so where the all-important energy subsidy for hydrocarbons may not exist; certainly not at the scale necessary to support modern, industrial society’s complexities and its finite resource requirements–no matter how ingenious our species perceives itself to be.

This appears to be where the rubber hits the road. The archaeological evidence may indicate no previous examples of societal collapse due to overshooting of the natural carrying capacity, but past societies were vastly different in the sense that most of the population were skilled and knowledgeable in food production with few ‘elite’ being supported by the labour of the masses, and vast regions of land that had yet to be overexploited by humans existed relatively close by.

The ability of our species to intensify resource production in order to support our numbers and complexities seems in the present severely handcuffed by the lack of an energy subsidy that is capable of meeting the ability of hydrocarbons to do this. Despite narratives that a suitable energy ‘transition’ is not only feasible but in the works, every energy system continues to depend upon finite resources, cannot equal the density nor transportability of hydrocarbons, and serves more to support/sustain growth (in that they are additive to our energy use rather than supplanting any) than adapt to a simplifying world with much, much less energy–particularly net energy–to support our expansion and complexities, let alone continue to sustain the status quo.

The combination of increasing ecological systems destruction/degradation–because of our massive expansion in both numbers and corollary resource consumption and waste production–and very significant dependency upon a single energy resource (that is finite in nature and has encountered significant diminishing returns) has painted us into a corner.

While it has been said that history never repeats itself precisely but tends to rhyme with the past, the archaeological record has shown that virtually every iteration of human societal complexity has eventually reached a zenith and then simplified/collapsed. Our story, then, is likely to be quite similar but with idiosyncratic twists and turns not experienced in the past. Predicting exactly what will happen, or when, is complete guesswork.

From my perspective, our pre/historical record can provide signals as to what we might expect (bearing in mind that differences in the interpretation of artifactual remains and their import alters the story told). Whether humanity can avoid and/or mitigate the trials ahead of us is yet to be seen–especially in a fractured world where the worst of us seem to be steering the policies and actions to be taken as we bump up against the limits of what is and is not possible.

The current lack of skills/knowledge to be self-reliant/-sufficient (at a scale far, far beyond past societal simplifications where skilled families/communities could extricate themselves from the sociopolitical/-economic complexities and their disintegration via migration and/or self-sufficiency) combined with widespread ecological systems destruction due to humanity’s expansive reach and extractive proclivities, as well as significant diminishing returns on resource extraction and energy-averaging systems (i.e., trade to subsidise the lack of local resources) indicates exceedingly chaotic times ahead for homo sapiens 8 billion individuals and their complex societies.

The tales that will be told by we story-telling apes as the species collectively stumbles into this chaotic future and argue incessantly over how to ‘solve’ our insoluble predicaments will be something to behold. I can’t help but wonder what myths about our peak global society will emerge on the other side of this stupendous clusterfuck we have created. My ‘hope’ is that humanity can meet these ‘challenging’ times with grace and dignity; my prediction, however, is that we will not.

Best of luck to all in the journey ahead.

Snapshot of articles I’ll be reading/summarising over the next year or more:

The Origins of Agriculture. Kent Flannery, 1973.
Archaeological Contributions to Climate Change Research: The Archaeological Record as a Paleoclimatic and Paleoenvironmental Archive. Daniel H Sandweiss and Alice R. Kelley, 2012.
Archaeology, Ecological History, and Conservation. Frances M. Hayashida, 2005.
What Cultural Primatology Can Tell Anthropologists about the Evolution
of Culture. Susan E. Perry , 2006.
Social Stratification. Frank Cancian, 1976.
The Archaeology of Equality and Inequality. Robert Paynter, 1989.
The Evolution of Complexity in the Valley of Oaxaca. Stephen A. Kowalewski, 1990.
Institutional Failure in Resource Management. James M. Acheson, 2006.
Population Control and Politics. Jack Parsons. 1991.
Population Growth Through History and the Escape From the Malthusian Trap: A Homeostatic Simulation Model. Marc Artzrouni and John Komlos. 1985.
Population Viability Analyses with Demographically and Spatially Structured Models. H. Reşit Akçakaya. 2000.
Optimum Human Population Size. Gretchen C. Daily, Anne H. Ehrlich and Paul R. Ehrlich. 1993.
Is Human Culture Carcinogenic for Uncontrolled Population Growth and Ecological Destruction? Warren M. Hern. 1993.

A handful of ‘recent’ articles of interest (you can view many more on my website):

https://profstevekeen.substack.com/p/the-role-of-energy-in-production

https://erikmichaels.substack.com/p/new-developments-and-accepting-our

https://collapselife.substack.com/p/the-surveillance-state-will-be-a

https://www.collapse2050.com/living-in-fear/

https://www.thedailydoom.com/p/truth-or-consequences

https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/musings-on-the-nature-of-technology

If you’ve made it to the end of this Contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton’s Overshoot and Tainter’s Collapse: see here.

It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 1

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

With a Foreword and Afterword by Michael Dowd, authors include: Max Wilbert; Tim Watkins; Mike Stasse; Dr. Bill Rees; Dr. Tim Morgan; Rob Mielcarski; Dr. Simon Michaux; Erik Michaels; Just Collapse’s Tristan Sykes & Dr. Kate Booth; Kevin Hester; Alice Friedemann; David Casey; and, Steve Bull.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXXIV–Energy-Averaging Systems and Complexity: A Recipe For Collapse

December 2, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXXIV

November 28, 2021

Energy-Averaging Systems and Complexity: A Recipe For Collapse

Supply chain disruptions and the product shortages that result have become a growing concern over the past couple of years and the reasons for these are as varied as the people providing the ‘analysis’. Production delays. Covid-19 pandemic. Pent-up consumer demand. Central bank monetary policy. Government economic stimulus. Consumer hoarding. Supply versus demand basics. Labour woes. Vaccination mandates. Union strikes. The number and variety of competing narratives is almost endless.

I have been once again reminded of the vagaries of our supply chains, the disruptions that can result, and our increasing dependence upon them with the unprecedented torrential rain and flood damage across many parts of British Columbia, Canada; and, of course, similar disruptions have occurred across the planet.

Instead of a recognition that perhaps a rethinking is needed of the complexities of our current systems and the dependencies that result from them, particularly in light of this increasingly problematic supply situation, we have politicians (and many in the media) doubling-down on the very systems that have helped to put us in the various predicaments we are encountering.

Our growing reliance on intensive-energy and other resource systems is not viewed as any type of dependency that places us in the crosshairs of ecological overshoot and unforeseen circumstances, but as a supply and demand conundrum that can be best addressed via our ingenuity and technology. Once again the primacy of a political and/or economic worldview, as opposed to an ecological one, shines through in our interpretation of world events; and of course the subsequent ‘solutions’ proposed.

Our dependence upon complex and thus fragile long-distance supply chains (over which we may have little control whatsoever) is not perceived as a consequence of resource constraints manifesting themselves on a finite planet with a growing population and concomitant resource requirements but as a result of ‘organisational’ weaknesses that can be overcome with the right political and/or economic ‘solutions’. Greater centralisation. More money ‘printing’. Increased taxes. Significant investment in ‘green’ energy. Massive wealth ‘redistribution’. Expansive infrastructure construction. Higher wages. Rationing. Forced vaccinations. The proposed ‘solutions’ are almost endless in nature and scope.

All of these ‘solutions’ have one thing in common: they attempt to ‘tweak’ our current economic/political systems. They fail to recognise that perhaps the weakness or ‘problem’ is with the system itself. A system that has built-in constraints that pre/history, and population biology, would suggest result in eventual failure.

Archaeologist Joseph Tainter discusses the benefits and vulnerabilities of ‘energy averaging systems’ (i.e., trade) that contributed to the collapse of the Chacoan society in his seminal text The Collapse of Complex Societies.

He argued that the energy averaging system employed early on took advantage of the Chacoan Basin’s diversity, distributing environmental vagaries of food production in a mutually-supportive network that increased subsistence security and accommodated population growth. At the beginning, this system was improved by adding more participants and increasing diversity but as time passed duplication of resource bases increased and less productive areas were added causing the buffering effect to decline.

This fits entirely with Tainter’s basic thesis that as problem-solving organisations, complex societies gravitate towards the easiest-to-implement and most beneficial ‘solutions’ to begin with. As time passes, the ‘solutions’ become more costly to society in terms of ‘investments’ (e.g., time, energy, resources, etc.) and the beneficial returns accrued diminish. This is the law of marginal utility, or diminishing returns, in action.

As return on investment dropped for those in the Chacoan Basin that were involved in the agricultural trade system, communities began to withdraw their participation in it. The collapse of the Chacoan society was not due primarily to environmental deterioration (although that did influence behaviour) but because the population choose to disengage when the challenge of another drought raised the costs of participation to a level that was more than the benefits of remaining. In other words, the benefits amassed by participation in the system declined over time and environmental inconsistencies finally pushed regions to remove themselves from a system that no longer provided them security of supplies; participants either moved out of the area or relocalised their economies. The return to a more simplified and local dependence emerged as supply chains could no longer provide security.

Having just completed rereading William Catton Jr.’s Overshoot, I can’t help but take a slightly different perspective than the mainstream ones that are being offered through our various media; what Catton terms an ecological perspective. And one that is influenced by Tainter’s thesis: our supply chain disruptions are increasingly coming under strain from our being in overshoot and encountering diminishing returns on our investments in them (and this is particularly true for one of the most fundamental resources that underpin our global industrial societies: fossil fuels).

What should we do? It’s one of the things I’ve stressed for some years in my local community (not that it seems to be having much impact, if any): we need to use what dwindling resources remain to relocalise as much as possible but particularly food production, procurement of potable water, and supplies of shelter needs for the regional climate so that supply disruptions do not result in a massive ‘collapse’ (an additional priority should also be to ‘decommission’ some of our more ‘dangerous’ creations such as nuclear power plants and biosafety labs).

Pre/history shows that relocalisation is going to happen eventually anyways, and in order to avert a sudden loss of important supplies that would have devastating consequences (especially food, water, and shelter), we should prepare ourselves now while we have the opportunity and resources to do so.

Instead, what I’ve observed is a doubling-down as it were of the processes that have created our predicament: pursuit of perpetual growth on a finite planet, using political/economic mechanisms along with hopes of future technologies to rationalise/justify this approach. While such a path may help to reduce the stress of growing cognitive dissonance, it does nothing to help mitigate the coming ‘storms’ that will increasingly disrupt supply chains.

The inability of our ‘leaders’ to view the world through anything but a political/economic paradigm and its built-in short-term focus has blinded them to the reality that we do not stand above and outside of nature or its biological principles and systems. We are as prone to overshoot and the consequences that come with it as any other species. And because of their blindness (and most people’s uncritical acceptance of their narratives) we are rushing towards a cliff that is directly ahead. In fact, perhaps we’ve already left solid ground but just haven’t realised it yet because, after all, denial is an extremely powerful drug.

Vancouver is now completely cut off from the rest of Canada by road
There is currently no way to drive between Vancouver and the rest of Canada. The Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley are…www.kelownanow.com

Weather whiplash in Canada: extreme rains hit wildfire-devastated British Columbia ” Yale Climate…
An intense low-pressure system brought an atmospheric river of water vapor and torrential rains to southern British…yaleclimateconnections.org

Product shortage at Okanagan grocery stores, due to highway closures – Williams Lake Tribune
It’s been a busy two days at FreshCo in Kelowna. Customers are stocking up on various products after access between the…www.wltribune.com

Supply Chain Disruptions Will Continue – Daily Reckoning
Forty percent of all the cargo into the United States comes through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Offshore…dailyreckoning.com

The Cost of Waiting | The Tyee
“Push a complex system too far, and it will not come back.” – Joe Norman, founder and chief scientist at Applied…thetyee.ca

How Much of the Worsening Energy Crisis is Due to Depletion?
Coal and natural gas spot prices have recently soared to record levels internationally, while oil is trading at over…www.resilience.org

Our fossil fuel energy predicament, including why the correct story is rarely told
The article explains why the energy story told by main street media is biased, to make the situation appear like a “too…ourfiniteworld.com

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XV–Finite Energy, ‘Renewables’, and the Ruling Elite

October 20, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XV

May 21, 2021

Finite Energy, ‘Renewables’, and the Ruling Elite

Energy. It’s at the core of everything we do. Everything. Yet we take it for granted and rarely think about it and what the finiteness of our various energy sources means for us.

As Gail Tverberg of Our Finite World concludes in a recent thought-provoking article that should be read widely: “Needless to say, the powers that be do not want the general population to hear about issues of these kinds. We find ourselves with narrower and narrower news reports that provide only the version of the truth that politicians and news media want us to read.”

Instead of having a complex and very necessary discussion about the unsustainable path we are on (especially as it pertains to chasing the perpetual growth chalice) and attempting to mitigate the consequences of our choices, we are told all is well, that ‘science’, ‘human ingenuity’, and ‘technology’ will save the day, and we can maintain business-as-usual with just some minor ‘tweaks’ and/or a ‘green/clean’ energy transition. Pre/history, physics, and biology would suggest otherwise.

Here is my relatively long comment on a Tyee article discussing the International Energy Agency’s recent report that calls on all future fossil fuel projects to be abandoned and drastic reductions in demand in order to avoid irreparable climate change damage to our planet. The answer, however, will not be found in ‘renewable’ energy and related technologies as many contend because the underlying and fundamental issue of overshoot has been conveniently left out of the story.

Having followed the ‘energy’ dilemma for more than a decade I’ve come to better understand the complexities, nuances, and scheming that it entails; not all mind you, not by a long shot, but certainly better than the mainstream narratives provide. I have no incentive to cling to a particular storyline, none. I have discovered the following information through continued reading and questioning. My perspective on almost everything has shifted dramatically as a result — one cannot unlearn certain things once they’ve been exposed to them.

One has to ask oneself a few questions and keep in mind a number of facts when putting the puzzle together as to what exactly is going on; and energy applies to many, many issues in our world far, far beyond climate change because it is the fundamental basis of life and all this entails. I won’t/can’t post everything since it would involve a massive text, but here are a few pertinent issues to consider in the energy story and our fossil-fuel future.

First, fossil fuels are indeed a finite resource so their coming decline in use was inevitable. This is not only because they are finite but because of falling energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI). Given our tendency to exploit the low-hanging fruit first (use up the easy-to-access and cheapest-to-retrieve), the law of declining marginal utility (also known as diminishing returns) was destined to occur and our use of them diminish significantly. We now have to rely upon oil sands, tight oil, and deep-sea drilling to sustain or just barely improve extraction rates. This is not only not economical because of the complexities involved, but uses up increasing amounts of the energy extracted (to say little of the environmental impacts).

The energy industry and governments have known about this predicament for decades. It is not a surprise at all (several ‘research’ reports by government agencies/bureaucrats over the years are available that discuss the issue; to say little about the ‘academic’ discussions). Geophysicist Marion King Hubbert projected this situation while working for the Shell Oil Company in the mid-1900s and developed the Peak Oil Theory, which has more-or-less been quite accurate in its predictions, especially for conventional crude oil production. Given that the largest and most profitable conventional crude oil reserves have all been found and exploited, and the increasing costs and diminishing returns of alternative methods of extracting oil and gas, it’s really not surprising that the industry has greatly reduced capital expenditures in exploration and instead ventured into alternatives; there is little additional profit to be made in oil and gas — better to move to other energy sources and market them as a panacea that will not only address climate change but support our energy-intensive living standards. This dilemma is also outlined in the 1972 text Limits to Growth that used emerging computer simulations to explore various scenarios given the fact that we live on a planet with finite resources. Of the various models generated, we seem to be tracking most closely the Business-As-Usual one that projected problems arising for humanity as we entered this century (and peaking around 2050); problems/dilemmas due to a variety things, not least among them the consequences of population overshoot.

Second, transitioning to alternative sources of energy is not a simple nor straightforward shift; not even close. We have created a complex, interlinked world almost entirely dependent upon fossil fuels. This one-time, finite cache of energy reserves has underpinned virtually our entire ‘modern’ way of living. From the ability to create a complex energy-averaging system via globalised, long-distance trade routes to industrial agriculture that feeds our billions (some quite well, others not so much), oil and gas makes it possible. There are no alternatives that can replace fossil fuels for a number of reasons but mostly because many of our necessary industrial and extraction processes must use fossil fuels since alternatives are inadequate — and alternatives all rely upon these processes for their production, distribution, and maintenance. Rather than acknowledge this dilemma, we have crafted a narrative that such a transition is not only possible but will more or less be forced upon humanity for its own good (more on why I believe this is so below).

Much of our geopolitical and economic chaos over the past number of decades can be tied directly to our energy issues as well. Maneuvering by various nation states, in the Middle East especially, has a link to the massive fossil fuel reserves that have been discovered around the planet. Alliances with questionable governments and proxy wars with competing nations has been the storyline for some years now as access to and control of oil and gas reserves (among other important resources) has been paramount. The untethering of our currency to physical commodities (i.e., gold and silver) in the late 1960s and early 1970s (especially the abrogation of the Bretton Woods Agreement by the United States), and subsequent ever-increasing debasement of it, can be said to be one of the consequences of diminishing returns on our most important energy sources and attempts to counteract the energy decline — especially in the US where oil and gas production peaked about this time. Geopolitics is mostly if not always about control of resources, not about freeing a nation’s citizens from its tyrannical government and bringing ‘democracy’ to them — we chose which ‘tyrants’ we support and which we vilify (even within our own ‘democracies’).

Finally (although I could ramble on forever), the ruling class/oligarchs/elite (whatever you wish to term the power brokers and wealthy in society) have one primary motivation that drives them: the control/expansion of the wealth-generating systems that provide their revenue streams — this has been the story of the ruling classes throughout pre/history. All other concerns either serve this first one or are secondary/tertiary. Energy is one of the most profitable of the various wealth-generating systems (control of the creation and distribution of fiat currency perhaps the most; along with taxing powers). What better way to ensure continued wealth generation than convincing everyone that a shift to alternative energy sources is necessary to save ourselves and planet, even if such a shift is impossible and untenable.

We cannot mitigate, let alone solve, the issues at hand for humanity and the planet if we do not correctly identify the cause(s). Clinging to a narrative that is primarily marketing propaganda might help to reduce the cognitive dissonance created by holding two or more beliefs that conflict with each other, but it does zero in addressing our needs. Holding on to the hope that we can continue to live as we have because ‘someone’ will solve these conundrums is in my opinion misplaced faith.

Our major dilemma is overshoot, defined simply as the point where a species has placed more demand on its environment/ecology than that system can naturally regenerate and sustain the population. The one-time cache of fossil fuels has allowed our species to proliferate (and helped to provide amazing wonders) well beyond the natural carrying capacity of our planet. And now that it is in terminal decline nature is sure to bring our species’ population back into alignment. Those at the top of society’s power structures are well aware of these issues for they have driven most of their actions and policies for decades. It is far better for them, however, if the masses are focused elsewhere and their use of propaganda to do this has a long history as well. We are being sold a comforting narrative about ‘clean/green’ energy while the underlying reality of what is occurring is being purposely ignored or dismissed, often as conjecture or conspiracy. The idea that we need to reduce our fossil fuel use to save the planet is convenient cover for the truth that fossil fuels are becoming too expensive to retrieve because the cheap-to-access and easy-to-retrieve reserves are quickly running out.

I’m increasingly doubtful we are going to face the ultimately very difficult decisions that need to be made (in fact, needed to be made decades ago) and we will continue to stumble along hoping and praying that all will work out just fine, thank you. Only time will tell how this all plays out for none of us can accurately predict the future but the path of decline/collapse seems fairly certain. Every complex society that has existed up to this point in history has experienced it and we are not significantly different when push comes to shove. If archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s thesis in his monograph The Collapse of Complex Societies is accurate, complex societies ‘collapse’ due to the inability to deal with stress surges because they have been experiencing diminishing returns on their investments in complexity; and this is exactly the situation with humanity’s investments in fossil fuels.

This is what I have been able to cobble together in the couple of hours of a few household chores and while enjoying my morning coffee. Now I will prepare to spend my usual day out and about our yard enhancing our fruit/vegetable gardens, and attempting to make our household a tad more resilient in light of the decline that is most assuredly upon us. You may or may not agree with my interpretation of things but I would implore you to explore the issues and certainly step outside of your comfort zone and consider a different paradigm because the ones pushed by the ruling class are not in your best interest.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XI–Fiat Currency, Infinite Growth, Finite Resources: A Recipe For Collapse

October 10, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XI

Fiat Currency, Infinite Growth, Finite Resources: A Recipe For Collapse

Yet another in an increasing collection of comments I have posted to the online media site The Tyee. This time it is a commentary on an article that reviews a book arguing in favour of the implementation of Universal Basic Income.

“No stone is left unturned in their thorough and convincing argument…”

I’m not so sure this is true. My personal focus for the past decade+ has been on the unsustainability of our complex society, particularly as it is impacted by our propensity to chase growth — especially population and economic, for these both have a significant connection to our ever-increasing drawdown of finite resources and ecological destruction of our planet. If we are not correcting this tendency to ‘grow’ in any way, shape, or form, then we are just creating more ways to kick-the-can-down-the-road of our wasteful and ruinous path; and place the significant burden of our misinformed ways on future generations.

One of the key arguments of archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s thesis regarding societal collapse as presented in his text The Collapse of Complex Societies is that a society becomes increasingly susceptible to collapse once it encounters diminishing returns on its investments in complexity. It is not a stretch at all to argue that we have been on the path of such decline for decades, particularly once we began creating a purely fiat currency that has allowed an explosion in debt/credit. If one looks at the ‘growth’ of our world since the late 1960s when central banks/governments shifted the world to a monetary system that creates money from thin air with no connection to physical commodities that could constrain our growth somewhat, it is almost all predicated on debt/credit expansion; a conundrum since debt repayment necessitates the growth imperative to continue (yes, basically a gargantuan Ponzi scheme).

Why is this connection to fiat currency important? Primarily because money is basically a claim on future resources and such resources are in terminal decline. So, the more money we ‘print’ (regardless of the reason for its printing), the more claims there are on future resources; resources that not only are disappearing quickly and getting more costly to access (because we always retrieve the easiest and cheapest to get to first), but whose retrieval results in monumental ecological destruction.

And on top of all this is the whole overshoot conundrum we have led ourselves into because of the above. Again, it is not difficult to argue that we have far surpassed the natural carrying capacity of our environment and only been able to ‘sustain’ our population by increasing our drawdown of resources through technology, energy-averaging systems (based on trade/geopolitical conquests), and this explosion of debt.

So, if we want to support our most vulnerable in society in a world that must pursue degrowth (the antithesis of our current pursuits and its expansion of debt/credit), then we need a much more complex discussion of how to do this. I see zero mentions of these complexities in the article. Just creating more money to distribute to a portion of our society is not a solution. In fact, the creation of more and more fiat is likely to have the negative consequence of our ruling class pursuing (more than they already do) increasing and significant price inflation, something that tends to hurt the majority of society more so than the elite at the top of the monetary/financial/economic system.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh VI–Infinite Growth, Finite Planet; What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

October 5, 2023

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh VI

October 9, 2020

Teotihuacan, Mexico (1988) Photo by author

Infinite Growth, Finite Planet; What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Tyee commentary…(https://thetyee.ca/News/2020/10/09/Australian-Invasion-Big-Coal-Plans-Alberta/)
_____

It’s truly unfortunate that our society pursues such self-evidently egregious exploits on our environment. You can’t continue to pollute your backyard without eventually destroying the complex ecological systems that support you — to say little about the finiteness of most resources we overly depend upon. And, certainly, we can’t continue to allow our sociopolitical ‘leaders’ to pursue such destructive policies and actions.

Yet, the issues and underlying dilemmas are much more complex than just exploitive foreign capital and revenue-seeking politicians. Yes, these are problematic; without a doubt. But they are one piece in a multi-layered puzzle that may or may not have a ‘solution’.

Society’s embracing of several self-destructive behaviours must be undone and reversed. Perhaps the most fundamental of these is the pursuit of ‘growth’. Economic. Population. Technological. Et cetera.

We do not live on a planet with infinite resources and the exponential increase of our activities continues to paint us further and further into a corner. While it is unlikely there will be a definitive ‘day of reckoning’ because of our blasting past our natural carrying capacity (since collapse is a process, not an event), the consequences of our actions will be felt as surely as day follows night.

In fact, it could be argued that we are already and have been experiencing the fallout of our expanding and increasingly complex activities for some time now. Decimated species required for food crop pollination. Expanding geopolitical tensions over resources, especially fossil fuels and water. Supply chain interruptions. Environmental disasters. Increasingly authoritarian government policies and edicts to control populations. Currency debasement. Global pandemics. And on and on.

A group of MIT researchers some years ago proposed that there were real biophysical limits to the pursuit of growth and that the time to alter our trajectory was upon us. That was almost 50 years ago (The Limits to Growth, 1972). Unfortunately, humanity has followed the ‘Business-as-Usual’ scenario outlined by the study. The path forward from this point does not look promising. Yet, it is virtually guaranteed to be the one we continue to follow since we have ignored the warnings.

In our haste to believe ‘this time is different’ or that ‘we are smarter’ (usually in the form of the trope ‘human ingenuity and technology’), we have continued to pursue growth in almost all its guises. And it’s almost all of us that are guilty. Yes, our ‘leadership’ has led the way and been the main cheerleaders of the idea that growth only has positive attributes. And, yes, the pursuit has been exacerbated by the fiat currency swindle imposed upon the world. But most of us, perhaps unwittingly, have been consumption machines, endlessly purchasing and expanding our environmental footprints.

Unless and until we all begin serious discussions about degrowth on a global scale (even just local/regional would be a great start), I fear we will continue along our current path; in fact, it would appear we have actually picked up speed in these exploitive and damaging endeavours as diminishing returns (see archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies) have made it necessary to invest more and more effort, energy, and resources into finding and retrieving the resources necessary to hold our complex systems together for a bit longer.

Australia’s investments in Canadian resources is a natural consequence of our growth pursuits. And politicians, whose primary motivator is the control, maintenance, and expansion of the wealth-generating systems that provide their revenue stream, will almost always encourage such activities. Negative consequences be damned.

If we cannot change the conversation and our behaviours, then we cannot change the eventual outcome. Nature will do for us what we are unable to accomplish ourselves. And we will likely not enjoy the way nature brings the planet back into balance.

Joseph Tainter on the Dynamics of the Collapse of Civilization

December 5, 2021

Joseph Tainter on the Dynamics of the Collapse of Civilization

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXXIV

November 28, 2021

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXXIV

*****

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How Do You Know When Society Is About to Fall Apart?

November 5, 2020

How Do You Know When Society Is About to Fall Apart?

Meet the scholars who study civilizational collapse.

When I first spoke with Joseph Tainter in early May, he and I and nearly everyone else had reason to be worried. A few days earlier, the official tally of Covid-19 infections in the United States had climbed above one million, unemployment claims had topped 30 million and the United Nations had warned that the planet was facing “multiple famines of biblical proportions.” George Floyd was still alive, and the protests spurred by his killing had not yet swept the nation, but a different kind of protest, led by white men armed with heavy weaponry, had taken over the Michigan State Legislature building. The president of the United States had appeared to suggest treating the coronavirus with disinfectant injections. Utah, where Tainter lives — he teaches at Utah State — was reopening its gyms, restaurants and hair salons that very day.

The chaos was considerable, but Tainter seemed calm. He walked me through the arguments of the book that made his reputation, “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” which has for years been the seminal text in the study of societal collapse, an academic subdiscipline that arguably was born with its publication in 1988. “Civilizations are fragile, impermanent things,” Tainter writes. Nearly every one that has ever existed has also ceased to exist, yet “understanding disintegration has remained a distinctly minor concern in the social sciences.” It is only a mild overstatement to suggest that before Tainter, collapse was simply not a thing.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Connected and vulnerable: Climate change, trade wars and the networked world

November 12, 2018

Connected and vulnerable: Climate change, trade wars and the networked world

The increasing connectedness of the global economic system has long been touted as the path to greater prosperity and peaceful relations among nations and their peoples. There’s just one hitch: Complex systems have more points of failure and also hidden risks that only surface when something goes wrong.

For example, our dependence on cheap shipping to move commodities and finished goods has resulted in a system vulnerable to environmental disruption, particularly climate change, and to rising political and military tensions.

The extreme drought in Germany last summer, the warmest ever recorded in the country, has resulted in such low water in the Rhine River that shipping has been greatly curtailed. Ships can only be loaded lightly so as to avoid running aground. Consequently, many more barges and other vessels have been pressed into service to carry the lighter but more numerous loads along the river. This has driven up the cost of shipping considerably. In addition, fuel tankers have not been able to reach some river ports resulting in scattered fuel shortages. Some industrial installations along the river have had to reduce operations.

The natural inhabitants of the river have also suffered as die-offs of fish and other marine life have spread along the river.

A world away trade tensions between China and the United States are resulting in an unexpected threat to the preparedness of the U.S. military. The neoliberal program of free trade embraced by one U.S. president after another regardless of party has resulted in curious vulnerabilities for the military.

Because of the hollowing out of American manufacturing—as much of it migrated to China’s low-cost labor market—the military can no longer fulfill certain needs from U.S. or even European manufacturers. Instead, the only place to source certain supplies is China, a country many now consider a potential military adversary of the United States.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Old Age and Societal Decline

January 18, 2018

Old Age and Societal Decline

People grow old and die. Civilizations eventually fail. For centuries amateur philosophers have used the former as a metaphor for the latter, leading to a few useful insights and just as many misleading generalizations. The comparison becomes more immediately interesting as our own civilization stumbles blindly toward collapse. While not the cheeriest of subjects, it’s worth exploring.

A metaphor is not an explanation.

First, it’s important to point out that serious contemporary researchers studying the phenomenon of societal collapse generally find little or no explanatory value in the metaphorical link with individual human mortality.

The reasons for individual decline and death have to do with genetics, disease, nutrition, and personal history (including accidents and habits such as smoking). We are all genetically programmed to age and die, though lifespans differ greatly.

Reasons for societal decline appear to have little or nothing to do with genetics. Some complex societies have failed due to invasion by foreign marauders (and sometimes the diseases they brought); others have succumbed to resource depletion, unforeseeable natural catastrophe, or class conflict. Anthropologist Joseph Tainter proposed what is perhaps the best general theory of collapse in his 1988 book The Collapse of Complex Societies, which argued that the development of societal complexity is a problem-solving strategy that’s subject to diminishing marginal returns. Once a civilization’s return on investment in complexity goes negative, that civilization becomes vulnerable to stresses of all sorts that it previously could have withstood.

There is a superficial similarity between individual aging, on one hand, and societal vulnerability once returns on investments in complexity have gone negative, on the other. In both cases, what would otherwise be survivable becomes deadly—whether it’s a fall on an uneven sidewalk or a barbarian invasion. But this similarity doesn’t provide explanatory value in either case. No physician or historian will be able to do her job better by use of the metaphor.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

What Problems Are We Solving by Increasing Complexity?

June 29, 2017

What Problems Are We Solving by Increasing Complexity?

The incremental increase in systemic complexity is rarely if ever recognized as a problem that additional complexity can’t solve.

The Collapse of Complex Societies fame has observed that societies increase complexity to solve pressing problems that cannot be resolved with existing solutions.

What is complexity in this context? More organization, more layers of management, higher levels of specialization, an expansion of roles and differentiated areas of expertise, more channels of communication, more feedback loops, and an increase in the quantity and types of communication.

All of which consumes more energy and more treasure, not just to build the infrastructure of this increased complexity but to train the staff and maintain the higher costs going forward.

Which raises the obvious question: how does increasing cost solve anything? Doesn’t increasing the cost of a system create the problems resulting from taking money from some other source to pay the higher costs?

There are several different answers to this question.

1. The problem that must be solved is an existential threat to the society, and therefore cost is no longer an issue. World War II offers a historical example of an existential threat requiring a vast expansion of complexity and cost.

The upside of this dynamic is the problem is resolved relatively decisively by either victory or defeat. The downside is the vast sums borrowed to fund the war effort must be paid, or at least the interest must be paid–or the enormous debts must be renounced, crippling trust and the credit system.

2. The gains reaped by increasing complexity more than offset the higher costs. Amazon seems to offer a commercial example of this dynamic. By investing heavily in complex technology, Amazon has created financial incentives for consumers to shop online and have their purchases delivered to their door.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Joseph Tainter: The Collapse Of Complex Societies

June 26, 2017

Joseph Tainter: The Collapse Of Complex Societies

What history predicts about our future prospects

By popular demand, we welcome Joseph Tainter, USU professor and author of The Collapse Of Complex Societies (free book download here).

Dr. Tainter sees many of the same unsustainable risks the PeakProsperity.com audience focuses on — an overleveraged economy, declining net energy per capita, and depleting key resources.

He argues that the sustainability or collapse of a society follows from the success or failure of its problem-solving institutions. His work shows that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their energy subsidies reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. From Tainter’s perspective, we are likely already past the tipping point towards collapse but just don’t know it yet:

Sustainability requires that people have the ability and the inclination to think broadly in terms of time and space. In other words, to think broadly in a geographical sense about the world around them, as well as the state of the world as a whole. And also, to think broadly in time in terms of the near and distant future and what resources will be available to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.

One of the major problems in sustainability and in this whole question of resources and collapse is that we did not evolve as a species to have this ability to think broadly in time and space. Instead, our ancestors who lived as hunter-gatherers never confronted any challenges that required them to think beyond their locality and the near term(…)

We have developed the most complex society humanity has ever known. And we have maintained it up to this point. I have argued that technological innovation and other kinds of innovation evolve like any other aspect of complexity. The investments in research and development grow increasingly complex and reach diminishing returns.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: Involuntary Simplicity

October 30, 2014

The Archdruid Report: Dark Age America: Involuntary Simplicity.

The political transformations that have occupied the last four posts in this sequence can also be traced in detail in the economic sphere. A strong case could be made, in fact, that the economic dimension is the more important of the two, and the political struggles that pit the elites of a faliing civilization against the proto-warlords of the nascent dark age reflect deeper shifts in the economic sphere. Whether or not that’s the case—and in some sense, it’s simply a difference in emphasis—the economics of decline and fall need to be understood in order to make sense of the trajectory ahead of us.

One of the more useful ways of understanding that trajectory was traced out some years ago by Joseph Tainter in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies. While I’ve taken issue with some of the details of Tainter’s analysis in my own work, the general model of collapse he offers was also a core inspiration for the theory of catabolic collapse that provides the basic structure for this series of posts, so I don’t think it’s out of place to summarize his theory briefly here.

Tainter begins with the law of diminishing returns: the rule, applicable to an astonishingly broad range of human affairs, that the more you invest—in any sense—in any one project, the smaller the additional return is on each unit of additional investment. The point at which this starts to take effect is called the point of diminishing returns. Off past that point is a far more threatening landmark, the point of zero marginal return: the point, that is, when additional investment costs as much as the benefit it yields. Beyond that lies the territory of negative returns, where further investment yields less than it costs, and the gap grows wider with each additional increment.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Tag Archives: joseph tainter

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XXXIV

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh XI

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh VI

Latest Posts