Nulan sends an interesting theory this-a-way. I think it makes sense.
This suggests a much more general, much more useful definition of civilization than any I have yet encountered: a civilization is a society which adopts increasing complexity as a general strategy.
Civilization's first response to any challenge is to increase complexity, whether that increased complexity is represented by research, development, new administrative levels or techniques, or technological innovation. The Green Revolution is an example of civilization answering a challenge technically; the Department of Homeland Security is an example of meeting a challenge administratively.
This strategy is flawed, however, because increasing complexity is subject to the same law of diminishing marginal returns as anything else--something Tainter illustrated with the graph above. Every aspect of complexity is subject to diminishing returns. Agriculture is a subject to the law in many ways we have discussed on this site in the past; indeed, it was in regard to agriculture that the law of diminishing returns was originally formulated. More interesting is its application to other aspects of complexity. In research, the most basic, fundamental research is the easiest to conduct, and it serves as a basis for all further research. That research tends to be more specialized, and thus, of less general use--even though it often costs a great deal more, since it is more specific, involved and complicated. The same applies to education. The most commonly used education is the general education we recieve when we are very young. This forms the basis for the much more narrow and specialized education and training we recieve later on--which is much more narrowly applicable. Reading, writing and arithmetic are necessary in any pursuit, but the esoteric commands of a UNIX command line have a much more narrow application. The simplest inventions--the wheel, the pulley, the lever, et cetera, are by far the most useful; more complex inventions, like an AC spark plug, have far fewer uses, but are much more difficult to put together.
However as this theory is used to bolster peak oil arguments and other fundaments of Western Collapes, I think it is counter-balanced by a number of simplicities and simplifying factors. Furthermore, I find this consistent with the conflict with my brand of Conservatism and what I have termed 'eclexia'.
I believe that corporate consolidation is simplification.
One Wal Mart instead of 17 smaller stores is reductive. There is less choice. Shirts from a few vendors can be found at Walmart, on the other end of the spectrum, Nordstrom, you have a greater variety because it provides the luxury of wide selection. That comes at a premium. Walmart employs many people and singular principles, which means that it's easier to run Walmart in a collapse than it is to run Nordstom which has fewer, more specialized employees.
Based on this principle, collapse is gradual and it is marked by centralization and lower variety of consumed goods.
This observation leads me to a startling possibility which is so very basic we almost never think about it. Why are there three grades of gasoline? Everywhere you go for years and years there have been three grades of gasoline at the pump. But the formulations of these grades have changed over the years. Once there was lead, now all is unleaded. Once the octane levels were up around 95 percent or better, now the best you can get is 91, unless you're a race car driver. Every jet aircraft however flies on one grade of fuel - Jet A. It occurs to me that if we simplified
There are probably a number of rationalizations for the current 'diversity' in gasoline. But I suspect that there is but one refining process and the various grades are merely a matter of adding water. If that is the case then there might not be a significant savings on the infrastructure side of the refining process. However nobody could deny that the overall cost of gasoline could be reduced by eliminating one or two grades, because of the reduction in the complexity of the logistics of delivering a single product. Instead of sending out the premium truck and the regular truck, you'd only send the premium. And if the refining process is the same, then premium would cost the same as regular.
As a driver, I have a performance vehicle which requires 91 octane. So I have no choice. But even when I did have a choice, I didn't employ it. I always by one grade of gasoline, and it's never the middle grade. Do you use the middle grade? Does anyone? Then why does it exist except to satisfy the illusion of plenty? Gasoline, as a commodity, isn't that important. Perhaps once upon a time when service stations offered service - now all they can offer me is Slim Jims and Krispy Kreme as a convenience, I don't care about the gasoline itself, and neither I think do you.
I generally look to matters of consolidation and reduction in variety as an economic sign of decline from the tendency for civilizations to complicate. I don't think it's an absolute rule, even in Western civilizations. I do think we have overcomplicated health care. I do think we have overcomplicated music. I do think we have overcomplicated education. But I think we have simplified construction. I think we have simplified transportation. I think we are in the process of simplifying agriculture. I could be wrong, but it is my contention that when the profit margins become slim, our system tends to dumb down and consolidate. This dumbing down and consolidation process makes for a more efficient system and it makes for robustness at the expense of sophistication and variety. Such things make civilization less interesting and more stable.
So as I have alluded in the matter of patent law and matters of eclexia, we as a society should not look to the leading edge of development if we truly desire sustainability. And this is where the current Left contradicts itself. For if we are to narrow the gap between rich and poor, we would become a more homogenized middle because there would be fewer people to sustain experimentation. There would be fewer margins of society. What is most sustainable is that which has longest survived human cultural change. Papal infallibility is more sustainable than "a cabinet that looks like America".
So in addition to adapting complexity, civilization also destroys knowledge, forgoes discovery and consolidates variety as a counterbalance. These changes enhance robustness, predictability and sustainability - they lower costs and they reduce confusion. For the West, the great challenge is not to avoid total collapse, but to consolidate without sacrificing the principle of Liberty.
Recent Comments