Thursday, February 16, 2017

Are We There Yet?

9 years ago, a magazine called "New Scientist" published an article that really interested me. I thought it would be of interest to a lot of other people too, but the magazine was a niche publication and didn't get wide distribution.

I contacted them and asked if I could post the article, provided I gave full and appropriate credit to the magazine. Their response was that if I were a subscriber, they would not object.  But it was a pretty expensive magazine subscription, as most small, sharply focused publications are. I pondered it and decided that I really wanted the article, so I signed up.

Events of the last few months reminded me of it.  I've put it in a post before, some years back. Still, I'm going to post it again for people who might not have seen it before.

It's long, but it's interesting and to my mind at least, it's germane to current events.

I have a little troll that comes by and leaves ugly comments ever so often. When I dump my spam filter, I actually go through sometimes and look for specific comments from this one particular person. He/She/It has gotten to be kind of like a mascot to me.

Yesterday, He/She/It sent me a comment concerning the preparedness topics I post on. It said "ha ha ha , blah, blah, blah you will be dead before you use any of these things." (The troll is a European and the English is "school room" but passable). Usually I would mentally have agreed with that thought, I keep everything on an even keel up here more for my kids to have access to in the future than because I expect to need it all myself at this period in my life.  But I'm not so sure, given the way things are going in the country now.  Things may happen that I had not anticipated.

So, without further ado:

Why the demise of civilisation may be inevitable

Source:  New Scientist Magazine
Date:  April 2, 2008
Byline:  Debora MacKenzie

DOOMSDAY. The end of civilisation. Literature and film abound with tales of plague, famine and wars which ravage the planet, leaving a few survivors scratching out a primitive existence amid the ruins. Every civilisation in history has collapsed, after all. Why should ours be any different?

Doomsday scenarios typically feature a knockout blow: a massive asteroid, all-out nuclear war or a catastrophic pandemic (see "Will a pandemic bring down civilisation?"). Yet there is another chilling possibility: what if the very nature of civilisation means that ours, like all the others, is destined to collapse sooner or later?

A few researchers have been making such claims for years. Disturbingly, recent insights from fields such as complexity theory suggest that they are right. It appears that once a society develops beyond a certain level of complexity it becomes increasingly fragile. Eventually, it reaches a point at which even a relatively minor disturbance can bring everything crashing down.

Some say we have already reached this point, and that it is time to start thinking about how we might manage collapse. Others insist it is not yet too late, and that we can - we must - act now to keep disaster at bay.

Environmental mismanagement

History is not on our side. Think of Sumeria, of ancient Egypt and of the Maya. In his 2005 best-seller Collapse, Jared Diamond of the University of California, Los Angeles, blamed environmental mismanagement for the fall of the Mayan civilization and others, and warned that we might be heading the same way unless we choose to stop destroying our environmental support systems.

Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington DC agrees. He has long argued that governments must pay more attention to vital environmental resources. "It's not about saving the planet. It's about saving civilization," he says.

Others think our problems run deeper.  From the moment our ancestors started to settle down and build cities, we have had to find solutions to the problems that success brings. "For the past 10,000 years, problem solving has produced increasing complexity in human societies," says Joseph Tainter, an archaeologist at Utah State University, Logan, and author of the 1988 book The Collapse of Complex Societies.

If crops fail because rain is patchy, build irrigation canals. When they silt up, organise dredging crews. When the bigger crop yields lead to a bigger population, build more canals. When there are too many for ad hoc repairs, install a management bureaucracy, and tax people to pay for it. When they complain, invent tax inspectors and a system to record the sums paid. That much the Sumerians knew.

Diminishing returns

There is, however, a price to be paid. Every extra layer of organisation imposes a cost in terms of energy, the common currency of all human efforts, from building canals to educating scribes. And increasing complexity, Tainter realised, produces diminishing returns. The extra food produced by each extra hour of labour - or joule of energy invested per farmed hectare - diminishes as that investment mounts. We see the same thing today in a declining number of patents per dollar invested in research as that research investment mounts. This law of diminishing returns appears everywhere, Tainter says.

To keep growing, societies must keep solving problems as they arise. Yet each problem solved means more complexity. Success generates a larger population, more kinds of specialists, more resources to manage, more information to juggle - and, ultimately, less bang for your buck.

Eventually, says Tainter, the point is reached when all the energy and resources available to a society are required just to maintain its existing level of complexity. Then when the climate changes or barbarians invade, overstretched institutions break down and civil order collapses. What emerges is a less complex society, which is organised on a smaller scale or has been taken over by another group.

Tainter sees diminishing returns as the underlying reason for the collapse of all ancient civilizations, from the early Chinese dynasties to the Greek city state of Mycenae. These civilizations relied on the solar energy that could be harvested from food, fodder and wood, and from wind. When this had been stretched to its limit, things fell apart.

An ineluctable process

Western industrial civilization has become bigger and more complex than any before it by exploiting new sources of energy, notably coal and oil, but these are limited. There are increasing signs of diminishing returns: the energy required to get each new joule of oil is mounting and although global food production is still increasing, constant innovation is needed to cope with environmental degradation and evolving pests and diseases - the yield boosts per unit of investment in innovation are shrinking. "Since problems are inevitable," Tainter warns, "this process is in part ineluctable."

Is Tainter right? An analysis of complex systems has led Yaneer Bar-Yam, head of the New England Complex Systems Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to the same conclusion that Tainter reached from studying history. Social organisations become steadily more complex as they are required to deal both with environmental problems and with challenges from neighboring societies that are also becoming more complex, Bar-Yam says. This eventually leads to a fundamental shift in the way the society is organised.

"To run a hierarchy, managers cannot be less complex than the system they are managing," Bar-Yam says. As complexity increases, societies add ever more layers of management but, ultimately in a hierarchy, one individual has to try and get their head around the whole thing, and this starts to become impossible. At that point, hierarchies give way to networks in which decision-making is distributed. We are at this point.

This shift to decentralised networks has led to a widespread belief that modern society is more resilient than the old hierarchical systems. "I don't foresee a collapse in society because of increased complexity," says futurologist and industry consultant Ray Hammond. "Our strength is in our highly distributed decision making." This, he says, makes modern western societies more resilient than those like the old Soviet Union, in which decision making was centralised.

Increasing connectedness

Things are not that simple, says Thomas Homer-Dixon, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, Canada, and author of the 2006 book The Upside of Down. "Initially, increasing connectedness and diversity helps: if one village has a crop failure, it can get food from another village that didn't."

As connections increase, though, networked systems become increasingly tightly coupled. This means the impacts of failures can propagate: the more closely those two villages come to depend on each other, the more both will suffer if either has a problem. "Complexity leads to higher vulnerability in some ways," says Bar-Yam. "This is not widely understood."

The reason is that as networks become ever tighter, they start to transmit shocks rather than absorb them. "The intricate networks that tightly connect us together - and move people, materials, information, money and energy - amplify and transmit any shock," says Homer-Dixon. "A financial crisis, a terrorist attack or a disease outbreak has almost instant destabilising effects, from one side of the world to the other."

For instance, in 2003 large areas of North America and Europe suffered blackouts when apparently insignificant nodes of their respective electricity grids failed. And this year China suffered a similar blackout after heavy snow hit power lines. Tightly coupled networks like these create the potential for propagating failure across many critical industries, says Charles Perrow of Yale University, a leading authority on industrial accidents and disasters.

Credit crunch

Perrow says interconnectedness in the global production system has now reached the point where "a breakdown anywhere increasingly means a breakdown everywhere". This is especially true of the world's financial systems, where the coupling is very tight. "Now we have a debt crisis with the biggest player, the US. The consequences could be enormous."

"A networked society behaves like a multicellular organism," says Bar-Yam, "random damage is like lopping a chunk off a sheep." Whether or not the sheep survives depends on which chunk is lost. And while we are pretty sure which chunks a sheep needs, it isn't clear - it may not even be predictable - which chunks of our densely networked civilization are critical, until it's too late.

"When we do the analysis, almost any part is critical if you lose enough of it," says Bar-Yam. "Now that we can ask questions of such systems in more sophisticated ways, we are discovering that they can be very vulnerable. That means civilization is very vulnerable."

So what can we do? "The key issue is really whether we respond successfully in the face of the new vulnerabilities we have," Bar-Yam says. That means making sure our "global sheep" does not get injured in the first place - something that may be hard to guarantee as the climate shifts and the world's fuel and mineral resources dwindle.

Tightly coupled system

Scientists in other fields are also warning that complex systems are prone to collapse. Similar ideas have emerged from the study of natural cycles in ecosystems, based on the work of ecologist Buzz Holling, now at the University of Florida, Gainesville. Some ecosystems become steadily more complex over time: as a patch of new forest grows and matures, specialist species may replace more generalist species, biomass builds up and the trees, beetles and bacteria form an increasingly rigid and ever more tightly coupled system.

"It becomes an extremely efficient system for remaining constant in the face of the normal range of conditions," says Homer-Dixon. But unusual conditions - an insect outbreak, fire or drought - can trigger dramatic changes as the impact cascades through the system. The end result may be the collapse of the old ecosystem and its replacement by a newer, simpler one.

Globalisation is resulting in the same tight coupling and fine-tuning of our systems to a narrow range of conditions, he says. Redundancy is being systematically eliminated as companies maximise profits. Some products are produced by only one factory worldwide. Financially, it makes sense, as mass production maximises efficiency. Unfortunately, it also minimises resilience. "We need to be more selective about increasing the connectivity and speed of our critical systems," says Homer-Dixon. "Sometimes the costs outweigh the benefits."

Is there an alternative? Could we heed these warnings and start carefully climbing back down the complexity ladder? Tainter knows of only one civilisation that managed to decline but not fall. "After the Byzantine empire lost most of its territory to the Arabs, they simplified their entire society. Cities mostly disappeared, literacy and numeracy declined, their economy became less monetised, and they switched from professional army to peasant militia."

Staving off collapse

Pulling off the same trick will be harder for our more advanced society. Nevertheless, Homer-Dixon thinks we should be taking action now. "First, we need to encourage distributed and decentralised production of vital goods like energy and food," he says. "Second, we need to remember that slack isn't always waste. A manufacturing company with a large inventory may lose some money on warehousing, but it can keep running even if its suppliers are temporarily out of action."

The electricity industry in the US has already started identifying hubs in the grid with no redundancy available and is putting some back in, Homer-Dixon points out. Governments could encourage other sectors to follow suit. The trouble is that in a world of fierce competition, private companies will always increase efficiency unless governments subsidize inefficiency in the public interest.

Homer-Dixon doubts we can stave off collapse completely. He points to what he calls "tectonic" stresses that will shove our rigid, tightly coupled system outside the range of conditions it is becoming ever more finely tuned to. These include population growth, the growing divide between the world's rich and poor, financial instability, weapons proliferation, disappearing forests and fisheries, and climate change. In imposing new complex solutions we will run into the problem of diminishing returns - just as we are running out of cheap and plentiful energy.

"This is the fundamental challenge humankind faces. We need to allow for the healthy breakdown in natural function in our societies in a way that doesn't produce catastrophic collapse, but instead leads to healthy renewal," Homer-Dixon says. This is what happens in forests, which are a patchy mix of old growth and newer areas created by disease or fire. If the ecosystem in one patch collapses, it is recolonised and renewed by younger forest elsewhere. We must allow partial breakdown here and there, followed by renewal, he says, rather than trying so hard to avert breakdown by increasing complexity that any resulting crisis is actually worse.

Tipping points

Lester Brown thinks we are fast running out of time. "The world can no longer afford to waste a day. We need a Great Mobilisation, as we had in wartime," he says. "There has been tremendous progress in just the past few years. For the first time, I am starting to see how an alternative economy might emerge. But it's now a race between tipping points - which will come first, a switch to sustainable technology, or collapse?"

Tainter is not convinced that even new technology will save civilization in the long run. "I sometimes think of this as a 'faith-based' approach to the future," he says. Even a society reinvigorated by cheap new energy sources will eventually face the problem of diminishing returns once more. Innovation itself might be subject to diminishing returns, or perhaps absolute limits.

Studies of the way cities grow by Luis Bettencourt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, support this idea. His team's work suggests that an ever-faster rate of innovation is required to keep cities growing and prevent stagnation or collapse, and in the long run this cannot be sustainable.

The stakes are high. Historically, collapse always led to a fall in population. "Today's population levels depend on fossil fuels and industrial agriculture," says Tainter. "Take those away and there would be a reduction in the Earth's population that is too gruesome to think about."

If industrialised civilization does fall, the urban masses - half the world's population - will be most vulnerable. Much of our hard-won knowledge could be lost, too. "The people with the least to lose are subsistence farmers," Bar-Yam observes, and for some who survive, conditions might actually improve. Perhaps the meek really will inherit the Earth.

From  New Scientist magazine, 02 April 2008, page 32-35

On the Same Topic:


  1. Very interesting read. The last paragraph provides some hope, at least to some of us!

    1. Yes, the further out from the cities, the better. I honestly can't think of any crisis situation where I'd want to be in a city. Especially a city infested with Morlocks.

  2. Hey Harry,


    That is ironic because since last night I have been trying read up more on 'John Mathusius' and Malthusian Theory.
    I stumbled upon a revelation when doing so. The Malthusian Trap' which essentially is, if government feeds and helps poor people. They become comfortable enough to breed and produce more poor people and eventual it leads to national backruptcy.

    This was written back in 1798!

    Mathusius was centuries ahead of his time! The more I read up on Malthusus the more I see the dilemma our country and civilization.
    The real problem with the world is overpopulation and fewer resources. That's the root of most of our problems from immigration from famine and collapsed goverments in Africa, Middle and and Persian Gulf to Central American illegal aliens. drug cartels and everything else.

    The world is too populated and it will only get worse. That is the single biggest reason why we are on our last good year's, I fear.

    1. Malthusian theory is not popular today. The left doesn't recognize the existence of"bocas inutil", or useless mouths. They like to believe that the earth can continue to support vast numbers of unskilled, uneducated consumers who essentially play the part of locusts. But the facts are on the side of Malthus. I think you are on the right track and we are on the same sheet of music.

  3. Interesting article, Harry. The thing that struck me the most is how they attribute collapse to centralized, complex social controls limiting response to changes or crises and then espouse governmental intervention as a cure. It seems that the educated academic intellectuals who are non-producers of real goods and services just cannot seem to realize that their solutions are the underlying problem. ---ken

    1. Ken, I think that people who spend their lives on college campuses, never having lived in the real world, are prone to thinking everything can be resolved if you plan and organise enough. I'm fairly certain that the issues this article identifies as being eventually fatal to a society are immutable. I don't think they can be offset.

  4. Too long for me. Besides, I figure ain't nothin' gonna happen the Lord don't allow.

    1. Well, sometimes he allows some pretty dreadful things to happen, Gorges. My wife having been living with her missionary mom and dad in Nigeria during the Biafran War, I know this from her. So I tend to adhere to the old maxim "The Lord helps those who help themselves."

      Here's a joke a guy told me once about that.

      There was a big flood, and this guy crawled up on the roof of his house as the water rose. A fellow in a boat came by, and offered to take him off to safety, but he said "No, I'll let the Lord take care of me."

      Then a helicopter hovered overhead, and tried to pick him up, but he decided to stay on the roof, saying "I'll wait for the Lord to save me."

      Then the water rose so high, the house collapsed and he was thrown into the current. Just before he went under for the last time, he cried out "Lord, why have you abandoned me" and he heard a voice say "Who do you think sent the boat and the helicopter."

      It was a pretty long article though....

  5. civilization is what you make of it

    the current major civilizations are in decline already

    while newer versions are starting up

    be prepared for the worst has help me live better for the last 35 years and so far it been mediorcer at most stages

    thank you so far for your views...


    1. WF, does seem like we are on a downward spiral. You're certainly right when you say being prepared for unexpected events takes some of the stress off daily life and improves it's quality.

  6. Hi Harry, Looks like the EU's top politicians haven't read this article as they are hellbent on more and more centralised power. As much as I want this experiment to collapse it concerns me that it will completely destroy European culture. Our brexit vote gave me some hope but it is gradually disappearing due to the complete disregard of our politicians and media to the result of the referendum. Very similar to the Trump win over there. At least you have the space to get a fair distance from the trouble spots and can also arm yourself for protection. We are in the most densely populated country in Europe and the only civilians with guns are mostly criminals.
    Best regards

  7. It is disheartening when the people say , loudly and clearly, that they want a certain philosophy to be employed in government, but the ruling class just ignores them.

    There's a lot of frustration here, as I'm sure there is in your country as well, Duncan. I guess we just have to keep plugging away at it. I read in a local paper that the old "Tea Party" is planning rallies in several cities to support President Trump. I sure don't want to go into Atlanta, but I suppose if they have one there I will car pool down with some fellows I know and participate. I'll carry a big can of bear spray, in case the "Scumbags for Schumer" try to disrupt things. Probably carry a few other safety devices as well.

    I'm way the hell out in the boonies, and largely safe from the immediate effects of any disruption. Even out here though, we have problems. I heard recently that MS-13, one of the worst of the Hispanic gangs, is moving in on the Latin Kings, a Mexican gang, in Gainesville, Ga which is only an hours drive from here. As if we didn't have enough trouble with that kind of thing already.

    We're all just along for the ride, you and me, and we do what we can. With Brexit and President Trumps election, we have a lot more to hope for, even if it's not smooth sailing.

  8. Interesting read. Not sure that's how I think it's going to go down though! I also don't believe in population bombs. The world will feeds itself and things are levelling off bit things will hAve to get a lot harder. Have you watched the documentary about population growth very interesting watch

    1. Kev, I have not heard of this documentary but I will certainly watch it. Thanks for the link.

      I get most of my information about overpopulation from this page: I can't figure out how to put it in here as a link but here's the URL

      I know here in the states, we have the following issues with population.

      Well educated, affluent people, the kind who wind up running any society for better or worse, are not having many children. (I guess I have to exempt Moslems from that statement). But the lower end of the spectrum, the people who contribute very little to a society, but consume much, have many children. Hispanics and blacks in my country have astronomical birth rates.

      So we have a non-productive segment of our society growing by leaps and bounds. Now we have to lump in the tens of thousands of "immigrants" who come here. Some of these people have skills, but the vast majority are the $1700 a month crowd. That's what the average welfare recipient here gets a month. They need free housing, free food, free power, and cash for other needs. But they don't pay back in to the public coffers because they don't pay taxes. Every extra "boca inutil" is a drain on our already teetering social structure.

      The amount of arable land in the U.S. is decreasing, due to chronic drought , while development, and the demise of the family farm, increase every year.

      So far we have managed to keep up, but in places like California, the vegetable bread basket of the U.S., farmers are moving from vegetable production to crops that use less water and bring in more money. That's exacerbating a shortage of certain foods in the U.S. that is in turn driving up the costs to the consumer.

      We have a big water problem here. The hideous situation in Flint, Michigan where people have been drinking badly contaminated water for some time, is indicative of that. The Colorado river is going dry and the lakes along it are at record low pools.

      Meanwhile the population keeps growing by leaps and bounds. Here's how one fellow explained it on his blog. If you take a chess board, and put two kernels of corn on the first square, then take the second square, and put 4 kernels, and keep doing that, squaring the amount of corn on each square, there won't be enough corn kernels in the whole world to reach the last square.

      In his book "Collapse" Jared Diamond looks at the ramifications of population expansion and he isn't optimistic. He says we've kept increasing production so far through massive use of petroleum based fertilizers, automation of the food production process, and the increasing use of "Franken Foods." But he thinks those have about reached their peak usefulness and sees nothing coming down the pike to replace them as force multipliers in food production.

      I'll check out the video you recommended. I can always use some positive news.

    2. Watch the link and hopefully it'll fill you with some hope. Population growth is nowhere near as bad as people are fearing. Don't get me wrong there are other things to contend with.

    3. I'm 64, so by the time people are like locusts, I hope to be long gone! ;-)