In 1988, Joseph Tainter published “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” in which he published a prescient and simple argument with far-reaching implications:
1) Social complexity is a problem-solving mechanism.
2) Complexity has costs in terms of energy.
3) Societies tend to add rather than subtract complexity when facing new problems.
4) Complexity often reaches a point of diminishing marginal returns in relation to its energy costs.
5) When societies reach this point of diminishing returns, they are vulnerable to collapse to a simpler level of social organization, which is an economizing reaction to problems that can no longer be solved by adding more complexity.
1/8
I don’t agree with this, the answer is not collapse.
To me complexity is beautiful, creating and maintaining complexity is the essence of what it is to be alive.
Although I’m no fan of hierarchy or big capital, there are better systems for organising, balancing feedbacks, and we need to keep thinking about ways to do this (which is why we’re here on lemmy).
While medieval societies based more on tribal loyalty were more unequal and hierarchical than modern ones, as well as sustaining far fewer people until the next famine or pandemic.
I don’t agree with this, the answer is not collapse. To me complexity is beautiful, creating and maintaining complexity is the essence of what it is to be alive. Although I’m no fan of hierarchy or big capital, there are better systems for organising, balancing feedbacks, and we need to keep thinking about ways to do this (which is why we’re here on lemmy).
While medieval societies based more on tribal loyalty were more unequal and hierarchical than modern ones, as well as sustaining far fewer people until the next famine or pandemic.