How Do You Know When Society Is About to Fall Apart? | Hacker News Reader

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

nytimes.com

56 pointsmakerofspoons38 comments

> Only complexity, Tainter argues, provides an explanation that applies in every instance of collapse. We go about our lives, addressing problems as they arise. Complexity builds and builds, usually incrementally, without anyone noticing how brittle it has all become. Then some little push arrives, and the society begins to fracture. The result is a “rapid, significant loss of an established level of sociopolitical complexity.” In human terms, that means central governments disintegrating and empires fracturing into “small, petty states,” often in conflict with one another. Trade routes seize up, and cities are abandoned. Literacy falls off, technological knowledge is lost and populations decline sharply. “The world,” Tainter writes, “perceptibly shrinks, and over the horizon lies the unknown.”

Complexity is a poor measurement for collapse as world population has grown vastly over time. A city reaching 1+ million people went from the center of an empire to something unremarkable. It’s the “seemingly inexorable trend toward higher levels of complexity, specialization and sociopolitical control.”

How many Americans let alone people in other countries know where San Jose for example is and roughly how big it is?

I don't. I've been away so long that I may go wrong and lose my way

Complexity in this case is less of a measure and more of a foundational definition: There exists a such thing as "complexity" that requires a certain level of upkeep, and if that upkeep surpasses the value gained from the complexity than the society is prone to a sudden loss of complexity when some kind of stress is imposed on society. It's pretty straightforward but gives us very little predictions because it's so abstract.

The issue is complexity doesn’t have a uniform cost over time. As farming became more efficient complex societies could support more overhead. Egypt was such an ideal location for growing and transporting food 4,000 years ago, but limitations changed over time.

So as you point out it’s not complexity that matters it’s a more complex and hard to quantify equation that includes complexity and several other terms. Further, societal collapse currently looks very different. Multiple countries experienced a collapse after a civil war, but they don’t fall in the same way Rome or even older civilizations did.

Yeah - to be frank whenever I hear complexity cited I can't help but think the whole meme-thesis is really a proud and intellectually lazy freak out - the world is too complex for them to understand without effort so rather than try to improve their understanding insist that because they personally don't understand it that it has to be fundamentally bad or wrong in some way. That sort of anti-intellectualism can be seen in marketing quite a bit with "natural" products, "localism" as a fear of logistics. Not the sole factor of course but certainly plays a role (someone may just like freshness for instance).

Not to mention complexity is peripheral to stability even in something relatively simple compared to a nation like electrical grids. They both gain resilence from interconnection and be taken down by them in chain reactions and there is a difference in complexity from say adding in a distributed series for reserve power, redundant power lines and say playing Enron with their "death star" fraud. It is kind of a silly metric to try to play oracle with as a proxy.

This reminds me of systems engineering and designing around recovering from inevitable failures.

I listened to a podcast with Joseph Tainter, and at the time Tainter was pointing to societal collapse occurring when the cost of administration was too high (too many elites and not enough incoming resources and energy to pay for a bloated administration). He argued that the breaking point was something like 2:1 and could be thought of as energy return on investment (EROI). At the time it gave me reason to believe that we could be hopeful for the future as the EROI of renewables was already above 8:1 on PV [1] and even higher for Wind. So hopefully we can build a sustainable society on renewables.

https://omegataupodcast.net/184-societal-complexity-and-coll...

Guest: Joseph Tainter Host: Markus Voelter

> Joseph Tainter, our guest in this episode, is an anthropologist and historian. In 1988 he wrote a book called The Collapse of Complex Societies in which he argues that societies inevitably increase their inherent complexity, and, if and when the complexity becomes too “expensive” (diminishing returns), a society will collapse. In this episode, Joe explains his rationale and provides historic examples for collapse. We then discuss his theory relative today’s world, concluding with a not alltogether positive outlook.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment#Ph...

I think the measure is pretty simple: when the society is no longer united by a common idea. Look at what’s going on in the US currently: we are the wealthiest nation on earth. This lead to a lack of a common struggle, without which what we have in common is some loose sense of patriotism. But patriotism means “I can do whatever the fuck I want, especially with my guns” for the people on the right, and “this country is fundamentally racist and we should fix that” on the left. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Contrast this with the last few grand unifying events in the US history: 9/11, the Apollo program, WWII, WWI, the American revolution, etc. When there is a common struggle people are more likely to display patriotism as forgoing exercising certain rights (holding onto all your rubber and copper during WWII in lieu of helping the war effort). When it’s peace and prosperity our brains look for a struggle and if it’s not against an external force, it becomes against each other.

>Contrast this with the last few grand unifying events in the US history: 9/11, the Apollo program, WWII, WWI, the American revolution, etc

one of those is not like the others. What achievements did the grand unifying event of 9/11 produce? Massively expanded government surveillance and a few wars?

substantive outcome of the war on terror aside, it really did "bring americans together" in the sense that it united the country against a common external force. america became outwardly aggressive (with all of its attendant costs) instead of inwardly aggressive, which we can observe in today's political climate

I agree that 9/11 is a different and unique thing on that list. But it did for a few years persist as a unifying event in the minds of a majority of Americans. Saying whether that unity resulted in anything positive wasn’t my intention. Obviously it was a tragedy and so was the ensuing violation of the rights of American citizens and anyone who had anything to do with the US. But while policies enacted might have been evil, the event was a focal point for a relatively long time.

A global pandemic is a pretty big deal, yet the US is bitterly divided over it. Maybe unity helps deal with big events like world wars rather than world wars causing unity. And disunity in the face of catastrophic events is what tears societies apart.

The one and only reason why the COVID pandemic had the divisive effect on the US is because of the inability of our soon to be prosecuted president to lead. He made it a political issue and tied it to identity politics.

That, and lack of education. Just because some people can’t understand science does not mean it doesn’t work. I saw post election comments about how some Arizonan was disappointed in his state because it legalized cannabis and raised teacher’s salaries. Said he was moving some place better. Think about that for a moment.

Climate change and the corona virus would be great candidates for this common struggle that you say is missing. Why were the 9/11 response, Apollo, WWII/I etc picked up but the current opportunity for common struggle is ignored? You might say that climate change is a slow rot but Apollo and American revolution came on very slowly as well.

Life extension, disease research (cancer, viruses, etc), new physics discoveries, astronomy.

Plenty of things would be exciting to work on that makes human society better.

A lack of leadership. All of the listed examples had the leaders of the country front and center on these issues, making each a clear national priority and devoting considerable federal resources to the issue.

Has that happened with COVID? Nope.

Because neither of those two things managed to unite us. COVID divided the US more than it was before. Climate change is on relatively few people’s minds and chances are that when it starts affecting lives of everyday Americans on a daily basis, it’ll simply become a finger pointing contest.

Has any free society ever been united by an actual common idea?

I suppose we can cite times when there were unifying single events or initiatives, but things have always been bursting at the seams. You cite the Apollo program, yet that straddles over some of the most turbulent social change the US has ever experienced. Don't take my word for it, just review all the stuff that happened in 1968 and compare it to now.

Look at today’s Germany.

When science, business, religion, and culture all row in the same direction progress is swift.

Look at somebody like Christopher Wren (1632-1723). He designed and built "the Monument to the Great Fire of London"(1677), a giant pillar. Hidden inside was a telescope, for carrying out scientific experiments. The astronomical work was used to enhance the the British navy, and navigation. Which was used by the new stock companies to build a large empire. He also designed churches.

The US went through periods of much higher division in the last 150 years. Whatever fuckery is being caused by Trump is nothing compared to the cultural wars and the Vietnam protests in the '70s, the anti-segregation movement in the '60s, and an entire generation of post-civil war cultural conflict.

If you thought this election was bad, you should read about 1876 when State governments were trying to choose electors after the election itself.

What comes to mind when I read this is some recent work titled, "Growing Neural Cellular Automata". There's a really cool demo at https://distill.pub/2020/growing-ca/ where it will grow a gecko and you can blast parts of it and it will grow back. It's fairly resilient to single blasts just about anywhere, tail, head, body and seems to be ok with two blasts in succession but you get a little more aggressive with the damage and you reach a point where it can't recover and if you get it just right it withers away and dies.

I feel like societies are like this. They're resilient. They can take damage to even seemingly vital places and recover but given enough blows to just the right places and they will die.

It's ironic that the US modeled itself after the Roman Empire, because I truly believe that we are all witnessing the fall/decline of the American Empire right now.

I would love to read what the history books in 100 years say about our current times.

[note to self: research longevity so I can read history books in the future. also learn mandarin, because that's who will be writing them]

Let me make is simple, the US isn't even remote close to falling part regardless of how many articles are written bemoaning the wealth held by a few hundred and even thousands of people.

The simple fact is there is so much wealth spread around the population as a whole that it provides an incredible buffer from it all coming apart.

Better yet, the poor we have to today are far better off than just a few generations ago. The difference is now we can easily find them and we also see just how government at all levels fails them. It isn't because we have billionaires it is because politician serve themselves first and only bring up the poor when they need more in their own coffers which magically still never fixes the issue with the poor.

Look at it from this standpoint, what nations around this planet have unraveled? Even Venezuela somehow fell off the RADAR of many but that may because their social experiment showed the folly of too much government intervention. It also showed the world that the one percent of any country is truly their politicians.

Yes we may be 'too comfortable' to have revolution etc. But there's some blind faith being put in 'employment', simultaneously automation has erased the need for most jobs. Administrations that don't understand this, risk stripping the comfort from a growing number of disaffected citizens. With empty goals of 'great again' and unfettered corporate action.

Any nation is only 3 meals away from revolution, said some famous guy.

Look at it from this standpoint, what nations around this planet have unraveled?

Very notably, wealthy Rome.

So long as people see things as better now than they used to be, they will continue to support the system indefinitely. Only when the system loses its momentum do people start thinking they may be better off without it.

A generation after the system stagnates, young adults start protesting but the bulk of society stays the course. You see the emergence of countercultures but not much real change. Often progress restarts just by chance and the society recovers.

Two generations of stagnation and now the bulk of society wants change, but the ruling generation is still contains many true believers. There is an obvious clamor for reform, which is met either with half hearted efforts or suppression. Such a society may endure a passing crisis, but usually it needs a strong kick in the butt to actually fix its systemic issues.

Three generations of stagnation and the disaffected are now in power, though true believers are still alive. Much more serious efforts at reform are made. However the oldest still hesitate, while the younger generations no longer see what's left to preserve. This is the last chance to turn things around, though more often than not there is political looting and kleptocracy as people start to doubt the system can be made to work again.

Four generations after stagnation there is no one left who wants to preserve the system, while those who want to go further than just reform are starting to enter power. The question is not if it will collapse, but when, and how violently. Typically if the society has maintained its plateau, it will slowly but mostly painlessly dissolve as the central power becomes irrelevant; if there is a sharp decline in the midst of a crisis then typically there will be a sudden series of relatively clean breaks; if decline has been slow and steady then the empire will violently rip itself apart in power struggles.

Typically some successor arises which is a nominal continuation of the society but has no realistic path to recovering its former glory, and any renaissance is really a new society seeking to use its connection to lend it legitimacy.

The trend is consistent but generation length is variable. In societies with slow communication and diverse populations, a cultural generation may encompass many biological ones. On the other hand for a fast communicating and relatively homogenous society, it may be less.

I certainly have thoughts about the narrative around collapse and the built in value judgements that it implies, but the last few days made this stick out to me:

> He writes of visions of “bloated bureaucracies” becoming the basis of “entire political careers.”

I'm sure this is a problem, but right now it feels like the inexorable momentum of American bureaucracy is the barrier between democracy and tyranny.

I dont think the core bureaucracy (politicians and the workings of the democratic system) of America are, by themselves, in any way bloated or harmful. They are complexity that gives us overwhelming returns by having a stable political system that, as you note, prevents outright descent into tyranny.

But there's layers of bloat built around this system, from power brokers to marketing firms to talk show radio.

Ultimately I doubt the bloat of our political system is that great, if anything I'd be more concerned about the bloat from our military system. If I ask myself how many people do I know building a career off military dollars, versus a career off political dollars, the former camp is much larger.

Looking at the photos from the election and the aftermath, it just struck me that our democracy is in the hands of career civil servants at folding tables sorting through piles of paper and bespectacled old ladies explaining how to fill out that paper. That is, as you say, preferable to a military industrial complex or lobbyists that seem to make the decisions so much of the time.

Technology creeps up; Internet, smartphones, digital banking, cheap plane tickets, refrigerated transport trucks, GPS, drone photography, glass top stoves, electric bicycles, cheap DSLR cameras, LEDs, heated car seats, stretch denim, programmable home thermostats, carbon fiber bicycles, cheap programmable gardening water systems, better indoor hydroponics, electric cars, cordless power drill, etc...

We become different people.

This reminds me of a talk I attended a few years ago about working with millennials. At one point the speaker said that millennials are "dependent on technology". I know what he meant was networked technology like smartphones, but it made me irrationally upset. He's dependent on the car he drove to get here. We're all dependent on the refrigerator and electric lights in our homes. That's what technology does, it makes us dependent on it. It's like arguing it's bad we're dependent on the wheel.

It's stepwise evolution. Long periods were new technologies gradually build-up without us noticing much. Then something like Covid happens and quickly we are forced to adapt, and utilize the new technologies more. Like online banking, Amazon. Then we never go back.

The change effects everybody. Republican and Democrats have both used social media and analytics.

The meaning of things also gradually changes ever so slightly. Even for simple things. "Let me get my coat". Did you mean a jacket for the office, like in the 1980s early 1990s. Or, did you mean a zipped up hoodie.

AD: When we all say it is, followed by the actions that prove it.

I admit I haven't read the article yet, so it's possible this is addressed there, but it seems to me that perhaps a question that needs to be answered before that posed by the headline is: What would it even mean for a society to "collapse" in the modern age?

In the far past, societies "collapsed" when they were sufficiently ravaged by disasters natural and man-made that they could no longer keep producing enough food to feed the people, and could no longer protect the people from raiders from outside, emboldened thieving groups within, and wild animals.

Short of a massive nuclear war that sees significant portions of the US being bombed or the entire surface of the planet unlivable without protective gear, we're not going to stop being able to produce enough food to feed everyone in the US. There are no violent barbarians at our borders waiting to attack by land, and the wild animals left here are easy enough to keep in check with tools and weapons that are fairly basic to us now. The only thing on that list that I could see being even remotely plausible is a breakdown of law enforcement (or even "law enforcement" joining in) allowing roving groups of home-grown raiders to make trouble inside the country...but I have a very hard time believing that that would be permitted to go on for long enough, or spread far enough, to be able to meaningfully say that American society had collapsed.

The combination of having settled/conquered essentially the entire land area of the continent (northern Canada notwithstanding), modern farming practices producing vast surpluses of food, and the level of interconnectedness that even the telegraph gave, let alone the modern mobile internet, means that the kinds of things that could have caused a societal collapse in earlier millennia just cause dents that get smoothed out over time.

My take on all of this: There isn't going to be some grand Event that breaks everything and lets someone come in and pick up the pieces. There isn't going to be a revolution, there isn't going to be a collapse, there isn't going to be a singularity. There's just us, and what we do to move forward. We need to find ways to come together and work toward a future where we all take care of each other. We have the resources to do so multiple times over, so now what we need to do is stop accepting that some people get to hoard hundreds, thousands, or millions of times more of those resources than the median, while others starve on the street. It will take time, and work—lots and lots of hard work—but we need to work, step by step, on pulling our society away from a model built around scarcity, and around money as the central concept, and toward one built around abundance, with human life, dignity, and happiness as the central concepts.

> "we're not going to stop being able to produce enough food to feed everyone in the US"

The Great Depression? Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic? I'm sure there are modern examples as well. There may be a plentitude of food and other products but if the societal and economic structures that process it and get it to where it needs to be collapse, that food might as well be on the far side of the moon.

And even producing that food is questionable. Modern production is reliant on mechanical and electronic systems nowadays, even farming. Without replacement parts and consumable supplies, everything rapidly grinds to a halt. We saw an example of this in the recent COVID-19 shortages; lack of packaging and other consumables from overseas blocked domestic production of products even when the actual content of the product was still available.

Everything is interlinked today. Everything. Watch episode one of James Burke's excellent documentary "Connections" to get an idea of what occurs when that breaks down: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XetplHcM7aQ

> There’s no doubt that we’re further along that curve: The United States hardly feels like a confident empire on the rise these days.

I always hate to just swipe random lines from an article to dispute them, but this seems pretty core to the article's thesis and I just don't agree it's true. The article's comparison point is the Spanish Flu and its aftermath, but people at the time did not believe that everything was going well - the steel industry shut down for months in 1919, terrorists bombed Wall Street killing 30 in 1920, and Harding took office in 1921 off the strength of his promise of a return to normalcy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com