Essay: Is Worldwide Collapse Inevitable?

Is Worldwide Collapse Inevitable?

By Tiffany Tong

Current globalization and international trade practices, which are frequently unsustainable, will only prolong a worldwide collapse, as defined by Joseph Tainter, not prevent one. According to Tainter, a collapsed society is one that “displays a rapid, significant loss of an established level of sociopolitical complexity[1].” Sociopolitical complexity is the differences in power structures and levels of ruling class. The indicators of a loss of sociopolitical complexity are a decrease in social stratification, economic specialization, centralized control, overall coordination of society, trading and redistribution of resources, and cultural activities such as art, buildings, and literature¹.

Although the reasons for a societal collapse seem varied, Tainter claims that, ultimately, it is caused by declining marginal returns of benefits from increasing sociopolitical complexity. The vicious cycle is started because human societies are problem solving organizations; we tend to collaborate whenever a problem arises to find a solution¹. However, this natural organizing tendency leads to increasing sociopolitical complexity, and thus increasing costs per capita¹. For example, additional costs of administration and coordination are required when layers upon layers of organizations are built to solve problems. The additional costs often reach a point of declining marginal returns, where costs required for each level of complexity added outweighs the benefits gained¹. Finally, when society cannot support the increasing costs for complexity, collapse occurs¹.

This intriguing explanation begs the question if our rapid increase in complexity due to globalization and international trade will cause an ultimate collapse of the global community of nations. We are much more complex than any other society that has ever existed in the history of the world; why have we not collapsed yet? Tainter’s answer may be that we are soon going to collapse because our complexity costs are already reaching declining marginal returns. Examples include increased military spending that yields no significant benefits. However, I believe differently: the major reason past societies collapsed is because they failed to find enough energy to fuel their increased complexity. As with the past societies, our current globalization practices are adding layers of complexity too fast for new sources of energy to keep up. There are two solutions, both require changing our current practices, to prevent collapse: firstly, we must only add new layers of complexity at the same rate as our technological advances in energy efficiency; secondly, we must strive to decrease our complexity by moving from a vertical hierarchical command structure to a more horizontal way of collaboration.

By limiting our increase of sociopolitical complexity to the pace of advances in energy efficiency, we can ensure that enough energy is available to fuel our progress without causing collapse. Non-renewable sources of energy should not be used because they are unable to sustain our complexity infinitely. We should strive to work within nature’s limits and increase our efficiency of energy usage rather than exploit new sources of non-renewable energy. Furthermore, new, inexpensive communication technologies, such as the internet, can reduce the complexity that a conventional vertical bureaucratic structure requires. Friedman, in his book “The World is Flat”, observes that nowadays, organizations strive for a more horizontal way of working, where individuals connect with other individuals, rather than companies with companies, so that collaboration costs can be minimized (Friedman 2006). This “spreading out” of complexity will further decrease our chances of a worldwide collapse. Other movements, such as the local food movement, also contribute to decreasing our complexity by cutting out many of the middlemen that market, process, and transport our food.

I believe whether or not a society collapses depends on the decisions and strategies the society adopts. Armed with the explanations of how a society collapses due to too much sociopolitical complexity, we can change our practices to prevent such an outcome from happening. Working within the limits of our technological efficiency and carefully shifting our use of resources from places of trivial need, such as marketing, to places of vital need, such as diplomacy to prevent wars, will ensure that our complexity can develop in a sustainable way.

References

Friedman, T. 2006. The World is Flat. London: Penguin Books.