Keep It Simple, Stupid
by Benjamin ShenderA while back I came to realize that people seem to want things to be complicated. Simple solutions are uniformly treated with skepticism, while complicated solutions are hailed as being salvation. And this routinely repeats itself despite comparative success rates. Simple and elegant solutions always work better than complicated and contrived solutions. Why? As you might expect, the answer is very simple.
The universe runs on very simple. Evolution, very simple. Gravity, very simple. Light, very simple. Every time a scientist comes up with a complicated way to explain something, a better scientist comes along later and explains it better and simpler. The universe seems to run on the axiom: keep it simple, stupid, if only because complicated things tend to run afoul of entropy, another simple thing. I think civilized humans just like making things complicated because it fits into the world view better than simple things. Perhaps the words of Niels Bohr will help us here: “Stop telling God what to do!” The universe is what it is; making it something it is not is quite the silly waste of time. There isn’t enough magic, beauty, and wondrous awe in the universe as is you have to make it excessively complicated to appease your idea of what the universe “should be”?
Think of various problems you have solved. Think of which solutions you are most proud of. I bet that they’re the simplest ones, the ones that work with the problem to solve it. I know mine are. Alternatively, civilization seems to run on contrived solutions. Instead of systemically solving problems we tack on a “fix” to the system that is already there. Which causes a substantial increase in complexity.
Take recycling for example. We found that our landfills were filling up and that we were running low on resources. So we tack recycling on to the end of the manufacturing process (gather resources -> create object -> use object). We do this instead of manufacturing items with multiple prolonged uses. Baby food jars are an excellent unintentional example of this. Once the food is eaten, the jars are the perfect size to store countless small items. We recycle instead of making more items that biodegrade. We recycle instead of not manufacturing disposable items. Think about the last one, if items weren’t manufactured as disposable and marketed that way, we wouldn’t throw them away unless they actually broke. We only throw away glasses when they are dropped and don’t survive the sudden stop. What if we didn’t make disposable grocery bags? Then everyone would simply buy and use the reusable ones, what other choice would they have? And we wouldn’t throw away 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic grocery bags every year worldwide. A simple solution to a problem. But instead we have instituted programs to recycle plastic grocery bags.
What am I suggesting? Here it is plain as day:
Steps to Solving Any Problem Well:
1) Analyze the problem, don’t assume you understand the problem, think about it first.
2) Clearly state what you are trying to accomplish, your goal is not the first solution to come to mind. The goal isn’t “recycling” the goal is “to eliminate waste.”
3) Brainstorm solutions.
4) Any tacked on or excessively complicated solutions should be eliminated as poor.
5) Try to work all the angles of whatever solutions are left, if they have multiple benefits and few if any costs, it’s a good solution. It’s the perfect solution if, once implemented, it will sustain itself with no need for later reinforcement.
6) Implement the solution.
There you go, simple as can be. I’m suggesting that solutions should be systemic. Meaning they work as a system with other systems and are self-reinforcing. Programmatic solutions, meaning solutions that involve adding programs to work against the systems already in place, should be avoided when at all possible.
BTW, don’t bother critiquing the recycling thing; I came up with that on the fly. Little to no thought went into it. If it’s really bad, no thought went into it, but it’s still an example of thinking systemically rather than programmatically.
Hey Ben –
Yes, yes, yes:-)
Another point that you hit sort of sideways… cycles are (generally) preferable to anything linear.
Back to recycling… that sounds cyclical, right? But the way we do it is not. We recycle materials into ‘different’ products. So instead of recycling paper into paper, we recycle it into ‘recycled paper’ with different qualities that are either ‘prefered’ (if you are liberally inclined) or ‘crappy’ (if you are conservatively inclined).
Jim and were talking — and I believe this is being done in some cases in Japan — what if electronics (appliances, computers etc) manufacturers made all of thier products so that they could be de-compiled with one simple tool. Then, they could take back ‘old’ products for a small returned deposit, and reuse the majority of the components directly with little or no additional modification. Recycling costs would plummet, production costs would plummet and the whole system would be ’simplier’
Janene
Comment by Janene — 19 November 2005 @ 10:55 AM
In terms of total system efficiency, energy, and complexity, the mantra has always been:
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In that order.
Remove a speck of “use” from the top of the production pyramid, and you eliminate the whole section of infrastructure underneath, supporting it.
Further, very little can be truly recycled without either: material degradation or large inputs of energy.
The earth takes care of reusing and recycling air/water/earth for us. While our culture’s production economy looks upon this a “freebie” or externalized cost - we know better… We’re stealing down the earth’s capacity to provide these “free” services and using the resources to make, essentially, only human shit.
Systemic limitation (crisis) approaches…
Comment by JCamasto — 19 November 2005 @ 2:34 PM
Simplicity is always the best solution.
But, you are assuming that “solution” is the goal when in fact it is consumption.
If left unchecked, greed consumes everything.
Comment by qrswave — 19 November 2005 @ 3:20 PM
Sorry, what does this mean?
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 19 November 2005 @ 3:58 PM
You said: “…solutions should be systemic.”
And, I was just pointing out that finding a solution is not everyone’s goal.
Those who make money from more consumption will always want more and more of it, regardless of the consequences. Consumption is their goal.
Utter disregard of consequences is characteristic of the malignant form of selfish greed that pervades our current economy.
Comment by qrswave — 19 November 2005 @ 5:50 PM
Leaving aside that perhaps there should not even be grocery stores or cars…
You pull into the parking lot and park the car. You grab a shopping cart and head back to the truck of your car. You take out the familiar wooden crate with its equally divided partions. Each partition holds one or more glass jars. The jars look like something between a caraf and a Mason jar. Your crate has a one liter jar which fills an entire partition, two half-liter jars in another partition, and four quater-liter jars in yet another. In two of the empty partitions you have crammed a few canvas shopping bags. One of the partitions has a stack of 11 metal lids.
Placing the crate into the shopping cart you head into the store. A greeter smiles and takes your crate. He hands you back your canvas bags and a small token with 5 small dots (3 for the jars, 1 for the crate and one for the lids) on it. Then he places an empty crate in your cart. You ask for another. It is a big shopping day for you.
You procede to shop placing produce into your canavas bags. You grab a liter of milk, a half liter of butter, a quater liter of sour cream and a quater liter of yogurt. Each comes in the same shape of jar. You know which is which by the color of the metal lids on each jar.
After placing some bread into your canvas bags you grab a jar of jam. You grab a shallow eighth-liter jar of creamed honey with its familiar yellow and brown lid. Each time you take a jar, you place it into your crates. When the crates are nearly fully, you head to checkout.
You place your crates on the counter and the checker peeks at each partition making a count of all your jars. When she cannot make out the colors of a lid, she just lifts the jars on top a little. After all your groceries are counted your total is brought up. Your hand the checker some money and a few tokens including the token that you collected on the way into the store. She hands you your change and you exit the store.
Comment by McKinley — 19 November 2005 @ 6:50 PM
Ohhhhh, but still, they have problems that they need solutions for. Solutions to how to achieve one’s goal, whatever that is.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 19 November 2005 @ 10:42 PM
I see.
I thought you were talking about sustainable solutions.
Comment by qrswave — 19 November 2005 @ 11:16 PM
I disagree with the broader implications of this post and the idea that simpler-is-better in general. Maybe this is just semantics or confusion on my part, but here goes…
1.) Healthy ecosystems are complex and must maintain their complexity. Stable and biologicaly rich ecosystems (especially those surrounding the grassland/forest ecotones where humans emerged and spent most of their time evolutionary speaking) are composed of an arguably countless number of species and, by extension, interactions between species and their surrounding hydro/geological resources. Simple ecosystems, i.e, those with fewer species and subsequently lower levels of biotic interaction are unstable and tend to either collapse or diversify as species from neighboring ecosystems move in. Of course some radically simplified ecosystems (monoculture) can be maintained if we engage in constant biological suppression through water diversions, the elimination of pests, weeds, etc.
The problem isn’t complexity; the problem is humans who seek to simplify the incredible complexity of natural bio-geo-chemical cycles.
2.) and to speak directly to this quote:
“The universe runs on very simple. Evolution, very simple. Gravity, very simple. Light, very simple. Every time a scientist comes up with a complicated way to explain something, a better scientist comes along later and explains it better and simpler.”
While “evolution” as a *concept* could be described as simple the actual process is not. The map is not the terrain in much the same way that our concepts/words are not the things they represent. Our concepts, especially in the scientific realm, are simplified abstractions that generally do not do justice to the processes they represent.
Also, our concepts of gravity and light have dramaticaly increased in complexity, and while we (arguably) have come closer to an understading of these phenomenoa we still can’t explain their tendencies to act differenly at macro and sub-atomic levels.
Overall, I think that our scientific explanations have become more complex since E=mc^2, and much more so since the days of a geocentric “solar” system.
Comment by michael — 20 November 2005 @ 12:33 AM
Systemic solutions are sustainable.
Michael:
1) I don’t really think of ecosystems as being that complicated. Stop trying to think of how everything can work together. Accept that it does it all makes sense. Simple sense. A forest. I add more water. The water table rises, the growth of certain plants increases, while other plants have problems. The animals related to these plants have problems, or an advantage. The animals related to those animals. etc, etc, etc. It’s not complicated, simply connected. Civilized people think of it as being complicated only because civilization teaches us to think only linearly. Which is silly, because nothing is really linear.
2) Light and Gravity are fairly simple too. We’re in a complicated phase right now, but it won’t last much longer. The last time this happened Maxwell brought all the relevant theories of the day together by adding a dimension on to the matrix. Simplfing everything, and it made for better predictions too.
Evolution is simple. If your genes suck you die. How much simpler can it be? If certain traits get you more tail, then your representation in the gene pool increases. It’s not complicated until we try and make it complicated, and that usually only happens when we start trying to give evolution a goal, of which it has none. Or almost none, your genes have a goal though: “have sex, will travel.”
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 20 November 2005 @ 2:16 AM
Very nice! I love this one, Ben. I’ve been doing a lot of thought on the subject of solutions myself, and might even post something. Here’s some thoughts:
Complexity (a dynamic nonlinear system) can exist as a result of simple actions and forces, but the contrivance of a complex solution will not be as effective as an understanding of the system’s function with a simple solution:
Think globally, act locally. Put a cog in a huge machine to stop it from working, as its a big system, but once you find the critical point, you can affect it with a relatively simple solution if your goal is to stop it from working.
Comment by LucidWanderer — 20 November 2005 @ 10:21 AM
Hey –
Michael, I think the ’simple attribute’ that Ben is trying to get at is that the more complex, rich, varied something is, the more likely it is comprised of many simple components.
Take ecosystems. It is not ‘complexity’ that beans secrete a sugary substance in thier roots. Nor is it ‘complex’ that certain bacterias like to eat those substances… but when the two work together, you end up with nitrogen building which enables the entire plant community to excel including both the plants themselves and insects, birds, mammals, reptiles amphibians… in other words, all life benefits from the simple sugars produced by a chick pea.
On physics… I can’t prove this, but I suspect, down in my bones, that one day they will discover (or not, depending on future history) that C is not a constant… rather, that it is a simple equation that they have treated as a constant. And so all of the complex relationships that they have tried to account for can be better, and more simply explained by that slight variability of C. So is this more complex or less? It is all a matter of perspective, really.
Nested Sets are very complex phenomena… but they are created through the application of very simple equations (or commands, biological and otherwise). Consider the tree form. Very complex to our eye — looking at a tree in our back yard. But the list of equations that create that complexity — very simple.
And so on and so forth….
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 November 2005 @ 10:26 AM
well, one big part of my critique of civilization is that it seeks simplicity and standardization rather than complexity and diversity. Stable ecosystems are more complex than cornfields and that isn’t just the “linear thinking” taking . Ecosystems are much more complex than the nitrogen fixing properties of legumes; there are literally thousands of overlaping (and overlaping to various degrees) cycles impacting and being impacted by all the other cycles around them. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts!
Civilization is uncomfortable with this; we (the civilized) need standardization (solid pavement and rows of corn). Our built environment is standardized and simplified to the point that natural processes are supressed or excluded.
…To make a long theory short: A lack of experiential knowledge of one’s place in the larger complexity of an ecosystem damages the human mind and implants the narrative of suppression onto ones psyche, i.e., “I must supress the organic complexity of myself and perform tedious tasks from 9-5 to be a ‘productive member of society’”
I wish I had more time to continue discussing this, but I’ll check back later.
Comment by michael — 21 November 2005 @ 3:51 AM
ok, just one more point
quote:
“Very complex to our eye — looking at a tree in our back yard. But the list of equations that create that complexity — very simple.”
the list of equations that create that tree would be enormous: what created that tree is billions of years of evolution and co-evolution/adaptation to predators and diseases that were also adapting to it, as well as climatic shifts and changes in soil composition. Even looking at the individual tree and it’s life span without taking into account its evolution, your list of equations would have to include everything from the structure of atoms to the solar system. Even without taking into account chemisty and astronomy, the list of all the biological inputs and interactions that are occouring and influencing the tree would be anything but simple.
In fact, many of our environmental problems are a result of our lack of ability to acknowledge just how complex the natural world is.
I’ll list some concrete examples when i get more time…
Comment by michael — 21 November 2005 @ 4:18 AM
Hey Michael –
Hmmm.. I don’t think I’m explaining myself well.
OF COURSE the natural world is very complex… much more so than we will ever be able to diagram, recreate or fully explain.
But all of that complexity is created throught the interaction of billions of ’simple’ principals and organizing ‘rules’
I’m not disagreeing with you that this complexity exists, I’m saying that there are different kinds of complexity and differenet definitions in use in this discussion. You are looking at the macro, top down, ‘wow is that complex’ side of this circle… and that is totally valid and I dig what you are saying. But I’m looking at micro, the bottoms up, ‘what did each step along the way look like’ side of the circle and each of those bits and peices is simple. Its elegant.
So of course an ecosystem is many millions of time more complex than the sugary excretion of a legume plant. But it is complex because of simple things: typified by that simple sugar.
When I mentioned the tree, I was actually refering specifically to its form — its shape. That shape is recreated over and over and over in nature… and the rules that govern the making of that shape are very simple. Yet it LOOKS complex.
So I think Ben is suggesting that we mimic nature by creating simple structures that have the ability to produce complex results
Look at the example I offered in the first response above. Replacing the rivets and glue and soder in a computer with removable screws is a simple thing — in practice, all it requires is a change in materials that already exist. So implementing it is as close to cost free as it gets (sure, yes, some restructuring of purchasing, retraining of personnel, perhaps a little retooling, but relatively minor) — but the result… 90%+ reuse of components, reducing the energy needs of ‘initial production’ by adding a tiny bit of energy to take apart and sort returned PC parts, decreasing the amount of raw material needed for each subsequent generation, removing all of these materials from landfills (perhaps eventually making ‘recycling’ and ‘landfill management’ obsolete if similar ideas can be adopted everywhere) and so on and so forth. Fundamentally, you can look at the energy cost, and that cost would plummet.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 21 November 2005 @ 9:27 AM
Complexity is the result of simplicity, just like predictability is the result of chaos. The result of cultural complexity is ecological simplicity (like monoculture). The result of cultural simplicity is ecological complexity.
It’s an undeniable fact that civilizations are more complex than tribes. There are most social roles, because social roles exist; there are more kinds of material artifacts; there are whole new fields of thought that need to be expressed. For example, the whole vocabulary of theodicy is completely irrelevant to animist thought. Civilizations are far more complex than tribes. To support that level of complexity, they need a certain absolute amount of energy running through, and a complex ecology that nurtures many kinds of life can’t provide that: a simple, monoculture field dedicated solely to us, can.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 21 November 2005 @ 9:48 AM
Ok, I’m back in. Let me try this one more time. I’m say two things here.
1) Nature creates simple sturctures. A tree may seem complicated to us, because we’re very stupid. Much stupider than the gods. But believe it or not, that tree is in it’s simplest state. Every thing is. Nature doesn’t work by making things excessively complicated. Everything in nature moves towards it’s lowest energy level. From atoms to stars. Trees are setup in the simplest way that still works. And all the rules that made it that way are also simple. Evolution is simply a fancy way of saying that anything that doesn’t work due to excessive complexity or excessive simplicity is recycled into the raw materials to try again. Most traits in the middle stay for a very long time, just in case. Dawn syndrom has been in the human genome for a long time, because it doesn’t cause the human in question to not function. But in a couple centuries the situation might change to make dawn syndrum a huge advantage, and everyone else gets it. A tree is in the simplest way it can be. Humans too. A star. Hydrogen. Hell, take a good look at chemestry. Electrons in an atom get bumped up an energy level all the time, and they immediately go back down releasing energy. Nature knocks anything excessively complicated down. Nature knocks anything excessively simple down. A tree may look complicated. But I triple dog dare you to find a more efficent way to collect sunlight than the pattern of leaves has already come up with.
2) Cultures are natural and subject to the same resrictions. Excessively complicated things get knocked off, in a universe with entropy they’re too large a waste. Excessively simple things can’t compete. Really simple. Now lets think about how this interacts with problem solving, another natural function. (I’m going to stop saying that and just say everything that exists is natural by defintion. Supernatural is a null word.) And so the best solution would be the simplest one that solves the problem. Which, if follow the logic, would ultimately have to be a systemic solution. Don’t tack something on to “fix the problem,” the extra complexity is a death wish. Add or change something that alters the entire meaning of the system. Look back at “Systems Thinking and the Food Race.” The bottom part is the way it is for all speices. We added something that changed the whole meaning of the system from one of balance to one of perpetual growth. And it is a systemic solution, just not a very good one as it turns out. Which is why it’s so hard to fix, it’s a part of the system, not contrary to the system. Adding on recycling and encuraging people to do so is hard, getting rid of it is easy. If recycling disappeared from the US, most people wouldn’t notice. It’s not a part of the system, it’s added on. Birth control is added on. Etc. Etc. Etc. The way to solve a problem to insure a fix is to deal with the system in question at a metalevel (nothing as simple as food = people, that ignores that +people = +required food) and try and understand what can be added, changed, or removed to alter the system to the way you need it to be. In the food race the simplest way would be to knock out “more food,” which would mean that, after a short delay, there would be fewer people until the balance is reacheived. This is not the most…appetizing solution perhaps, because it would require much in the way of death, but it is a solution. Daniel Quinn’s solution wasn’t bad either, slow down your response of “grow more food” until you’ve reintroduced a balance. And then slowly bring it down. The only problem with this solution is psychological. Even if they aren’t people will scream about starvation. The first famine the year after would be blamed on this new project, the fact that the famine was right on schedule and would have happened anyway (probably worse too) would be utterly irrevelvant to a population that can’t grasp something as obvious as evolution. I believe a third systemic solution would be useful.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 21 November 2005 @ 11:31 AM
okay, thanks for the claification Janene, I have a bit of trouble with your pharase, “…the rules that govern the making of that shape are very simple. Yet it LOOKS complex.”, because this can be said about anthing, say nuclear weapons, not just trees. I think ultimatly our disagreement on where to place things within our little simpicity v. complexity dichotomy is largely due to our definitions of said words and our differing viewpoints …
for example, Jason says : “It’s an undeniable fact that civilizations are more complex than tribes.”
I agree with this (except for the “undeniable fact” part) on many levels, but at the same time there are many aspects of civilization that are grossly simplfied compaired to the tribes that once occupied the same geographical area…Look at our housing and diet for example. All across the US and Canada people live in very similar types of housing regardless of bioregion or local climate. Also, we all know how civilized diets are very simplified (relying vast ammounts of a few staples) and generally similar to all civilized people regardless of bioregion. The same is true of the surfaces we walk on; natural ground cover is diverse in texture, color, angle, density, biota, and rates of water absorbtion. whereas the ground cover imposed by civilization is mostly pavement which is radicaly homogenous.
Benjamin said: “A tree may look complicated. But I triple dog dare you to find a more efficent way to collect sunlight than the pattern of leaves has already come up with.”
I completely agree; even our best PV designs cannot compare to leaves, but I would say that is evidence of how complex a leaf is, not how simple. …again, I guess its a matter how we define complexity.
Comment by michael — 21 November 2005 @ 8:11 PM
This discussion has been really enlightening.
I find merit to both sides of the equation; life is both simple and complex. It depends on which way you look at it; everything is relative to where you stand.
My earlier comment that solutions are not necessarily the goal was meant to draw attention to the fact that there are forces out there for which consumption is the goal, e.g., selfish greed. But, because they are unsustainable, these forces naturally die out and are replaced by those that are sustainable, i.e., allow for harmonious co-existence among organisms.
To me, this discussion is applicable to interest charged on money, which is incredibly simple but has evolved into a massively complex financial system that is decimating the global economy.
Ben, you’ve already stopped by once, but I invite you stop by again. I’ve posted some new material, and I invite everyone else to stop by. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on my arguments against interest.
Comment by qrswave — 21 November 2005 @ 8:53 PM
Ben: I tried unsuccessfully to find a definition of “metalevel�. I’m not a programmer and the only definitions were in that field. I already knew that metadata is data about data, so I guess that metalevel is information about a level. Again I’m guessing your talking about levels in the range of simple to complex.
At any rate +people = +required food is only true in the special case of a society that distributes food on a basis of need that has just enough food to reproduce at a stable rate. In all other cases birth rate, and to whom the food is distributed, are contributing, and often the major contributing factors, that determine whether and to what extent and even in which direction, a change in available food will affect the number of people.
Daniel Quinn’s solution of slowing down the response to more food likely would fail. A complicating factor is that the decisions to limit food and how to distribute it are made by the system or the powerful fools that control it. The decisions to have more or less children if possible are made by individuals.
An incremental drop in the ratio of food/people in our present political/economic system would cause a rise in the price of food. This would increase the number of deaths among those who are starving. These deaths would be offset by additional births among those who aren’t quite starving yet. For practical and cultural reasons this has been in recent times the observable situation in our real world. Poor people that are not actually starving, but consider it a danger, tend to have high birth rates. These decline if food security is assured.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 21 November 2005 @ 9:14 PM
Michael,
I was struck by your quote re: civilization being simplified because it forced me to have a revelation.
While, on the surface, it appears civilization is simpler in your examples (same houses, same food types), it’s actually more complex because it must supply substantial more energy sources to force one solution into different biomes.
For example, in the American Southwest, you’ll find standard European architecture, made for a colder climate, regardless of the fact that the eco-region here is hot. So how do you compensate for it? You have to damn up rivers to ship in power for air conditioners, reroute water from elsewhere to cool things down, and create thick insulators to try and reduce down the heat. Instead, you could do what the natives did — make houses out of abode. But that wouldn’t be civilized, would it? (despite the fact that even the Spaniards did it when they got here, it was abandoned when civilization really go rolling).
For foods, we throw fertilizer and other chemicals on top of regions unsuited to growing the food we are used to, instead of adapted to the foods that are already there.
Complex solutions applied to circumstances in order to make things seem simpler.
Fascinating.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 21 November 2005 @ 9:40 PM
The way we’re using “complex” (and simple) and “diverse” (and homogenous) are pretty ambiguous.
You could argue that our houses and diets are simple; I would say that they lack diversity. The amount of effort that goes into building a standard house, or the amount of energy that goes into getting my food from the ground and into my mouth are incredibly high. I would call that complex. Another aspect of these systems is that they are fairly homogenous cross-culturaly. I’d say that Civilization is both complex and homogenous, while tribes would be the opposite.
I can accept the merits of your argument, Michael (this name thing is going to get fun pretty soon…), and I think you make very good points. I’m just using different words to describe the same thing. Unfortunately, it’s not very easy to communicate exactly what one means all the time, or to be understood entirely.
Nature is both complex and diverse. I’m gonna start stabbing in the dark here, but maybe the complexity is because of the number of relatively simple organisms (diversity). Meanwhile, Civilization is made up of a whole bunch of the same organism that is attempting to complexify, and homogenize itself. I wonder if one society of organisms (one type) can be both complex and diverse at the same time.
If you look at this from the point of view that civilized humans consider themselves to know good and evil and are no longer living at the hands of the gods (or, out of nature’s bounty), perhaps we have taken it upon ourselves to create our own complexity, since we have been ostracized from the natural complexity. In a tribe, you are one part of nature’s complex system, and a simple part at that. In Civilization, you are forced to try to replicate that complexity, since you can’t have the natural complexity any more.
-Mike
Comment by WackyMorningDJ — 21 November 2005 @ 9:55 PM
Ok, I’m tired and am heading to bed soon. But before I do I thought I’d just say two things. 1) By metalevel I meant on a level that encompases all levels. In other words you have to understand the system from outside the system first. And then comprehend what each part means inside the system. For me at least, this often happens almost unconsiously. 2) I find it amusing that a post entitled “Keep it Simple, Stupid” has 22…oops…23 comments to it’s credit. Keep it coming.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 22 November 2005 @ 12:22 AM
Hey –
Ohhh… this is good. Bill… Mike… I think we have an emergent idea spataneously evolving before our eyes:-)
Bill:
Mike:
I think you are both trying to express what I have been trying to get at (without REALLY knowing what it was
Nature using simple ‘rules of behavior’ to create diversity and emergent complexity in the natural world.
Civilization, by contrast, creates complex structures to generate homogenous and un-complex results.
*click*
Very neat…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 22 November 2005 @ 9:41 AM
Ah, one of my favorite topics.
Life IS simple. People choose to make it complicated.
Taoism!
Comment by Martian — 22 November 2005 @ 10:30 AM
Janene - yeah, that was pretty neat. I noticed that Bob posted a very similar idea just before mine. Heck, my post was kind of unravelling before me, without knowing exactly what was going to come of it.
Fun!
-Mike
Comment by WackyMorningDJ — 22 November 2005 @ 12:48 PM
Simple, and small. Two words that should be applied to everyday life.
Comment by bml — 22 November 2005 @ 2:59 PM
bml,
Simple & local, I’d think. (just my 2 cents)
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 22 November 2005 @ 3:18 PM
Some of my all-time favorites from Jeff Vail are relevant here:
The Four Virtues
Concpicuous Simplicity
Just in case anyone’s stuck in that, “But if it’s not more complex, what are we supposed to do?” rut.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 November 2005 @ 4:46 PM
Jason:
Both of these are insightful simple solutions necessary for sustained and meaningful human living. If only people could understand this and act in this way.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 22 November 2005 @ 5:54 PM
In the spirit of Jeff Vail’s simplicity posts.
1.
To each new thing, born or created,
It is taught the truths for all to follow
Listen as the first ones did and remember.
2.
This is the Law.
Honor the Earth that is our mother. From her all things grow
That feed us, clothe us, heal us, and give us breath.
This is the law - Honor our Mother
CHORUS
Honor our Mother.
3.
Honor the Great Creator and Its Will upon the world.
Know that we are a part of creation, not apart from it.
This is the law - We are part of creation.
CHORUS
We are part of creation.
4.
Honor your brothers and sisters, the community of life.
We come from the same seed, their rights are ours as well:
To eat, to sleep, to live, to love, to play, to dream, to die.
We are all linked through the power of creation
Our fate is one.
This is the law - Respect life.
CHORUS
Respect life.
5.
In Unity, there is strength.
As friends, family, and community
United in faith and hope, we are strong.
Part of the greater whole,
Part of the worldfire
This is the law - In Unity, strength
CHORUS
In Unity, strength.
6.
In Diversity, there is strength.
The strength of the world
Comes from a cycle of life that feeds each other,
That supports each other,
That grows with each other,
Now and forever.
This is the law - in diversity, strength
CHORUS
In Diversity, strength.
7.
This is the final law, the Law of the Circle.
For life to continue
For time without end
When you feast, so must your brothers and sisters.
When you starve, so will your brothers and sisters.
This is the Law:
Take what you need.
Leave the rest.
CHORUS
Take what you need. Leave the rest.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 22 November 2005 @ 6:38 PM
Mouse chanted:
“We are circle, within a circle.
With no begining, and with no end.”
—–
I see the hair standing on the back of Michael’s cringing neck…
Comment by JCamasto — 22 November 2005 @ 8:32 PM
I’m not going to sit and read all of these posts, but what I see going on so far is a confusion of vocabulary. “Solution” is not the same as “process”. The solution is simple; the process involved may not be. The *solution* to the problem of developing a successful ecosystem is simple: develop a complex system. There’s no inherent conflict here–you guys are just making one by not carefully considering your vocabulary.
If you look deeply enough, *everything* is complex in some way or another, but as the original post immediately points out, some people will always insist on finding the complexity while trampling over the simplicity. The above series of responses is a perfect example of that. I’ll bet you that the people who insist the solutions to the problems mentioned above as complex would never find the solutions themselves, because of the complexity of the task that they insist on. Solutions are left to the people with direct, uncomplicated visions.
Comment by MichaelD — 23 November 2005 @ 8:58 PM
Right on MichaelD!
But this is an old recurring problem which has been noticed before:
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Comment by Anonymous — 24 November 2005 @ 2:16 AM
One more rumination…
I had Tainter’s book since it’s very year of publication and I think there is a grave and grievous error in the way it is (mis)understood by the “Anthropik” people on this blog.
It is not complexity per se which is detrimental, it is the cost of complexity.
Any living thing even the simplest bacteria is horrendously complex and yet it is perfectly fit and adapted to whatever life course is it’s own because this complexity does not cost anyone!
Not even the bacteria itself incurs costs in setting up it’s complexity, on the contrary it is it’s very complexity which gives it advantage over simpler life forms.
Don’t we as humans have an obvious overwhelming advantage over other life forms?
Up to the point of endangering ourselves, yes, but that problem will not be solved by dumbing us down…
Comment by Anonymous — 24 November 2005 @ 6:09 AM
Anonymous!!!
I think you are on to something very powerful!
you said, “this complexity does not cost anyone”
if it does not “cost anyone,” then it is sustainable; if it does, then it is not.
the reason why money loaned at interest is decimating our economy rather than facilitating the exchange of labor as money is designed to do is that interest does not exist; i.e., it is never issued; it is always charged.
And, since the money to pay for interest must come from somewhere, it must “cost” someone. Hence the zero-sum economy. And, the more people use it as an instrument to transfer money from others to themselves, the faster the transfer becomes, and the more quickly wealth becomes consolidated into a the hands of a few.
In the long run, which is now painfully obvious, this colossal transfer is completely unsustainable because those who are doing all the “paying” simply can’t pay anymore!
Comment by qrswave — 24 November 2005 @ 8:45 AM
MichaelD –
Well, it is very easy to come along and say ‘I’m not going to hear anything you say but your wrong.’
Its very easy to say some things are simple and some things are complex. But saying it does not make it so.
Gravity is simple. Simple rules of behavior. But the orbits of the planet are complex. Why? Because you have multiple sources of gravity interracting to create a complex system.
Natural selection is simple: whatever works best survives. Yet natural selection creates incredibly complex biological and sociological behavior.
If you want to learn something take part in the discussion — I know I learned soemthing from this and it was very interesting. If you simply want to maintain your beliefs, then I don’t know why you are bothering.
Anonymous wrote:
Yes. And I believe this is eactly the issue we have been addressing. However, I would disagree that complexity gives it an advantage… rather complexity can lead to a reduced energy cost (per unit of mass) in a biological organism and this can be the reason that natural selection selects it.
Janene
Comment by Janene — 24 November 2005 @ 10:15 AM
Anonymous,
If you believe the distinction between complexity, and the cost of complexity, is something new to me, then I must have had a massive failure in my attempts to communicate those ideas. I thought I was in fact emphasizing that distinction….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 November 2005 @ 10:27 AM
Bill: definitely. I think “small” somewhat implies that, but not directly.
Comment by bml — 24 November 2005 @ 9:07 PM
You know, people keep telling me this, but I still have no idea what they’re talking about.
Thanks, twichcraft galore. I have to say that so far it seems like your opinion is the most common. The biggest problem people have been having is the title. I’ll have to be more careful from now on.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 26 November 2005 @ 12:29 AM
Jason Godesky:
As I am new to this blog (only a few weeks) I would be very pleased if you could give me some pointers of where you are indeed “emphasizing that distinction”.
Up to know I have only seen all the team members pushing their primitivist agenda whith no more common sense than christian fundamentalists pushing “intelligent design”.
Also, the KISS rule which serves as the heading of this post and which, under various flavors, is common lore of the business has been conveniently truncated to fit the primitivist agenda, the full rule is actually:
Keep It Simple Stupid And Supply Service!
If you scrap everything you do get ultimate simplicity at the penalty of not getting anything done, not even sustaining your own life.
Benjamin Shender:
Are you pretending to be that stupid for rhetorical purposes, or are you truly?
Our capabilities at dominating other species is the very core of the problem.
We are engulfing the whole eco-sphere without regard for our own sustainability and this is the new lethal context for collapse.
Otherwise it would not matter that much if yet another so-called “civilisation” has to collapse like the Myceaenians, Mayas, Romans or whatever.
The primitivist “solution” would have indeed been a good idea volens nolens, it worked before.
But today the overlall world ressources are already so badly damaged that primitivists will buy themselves only a few months (if not only weeks…) survival with their silly proposals.
And do count on the hard-core survivalists to come to steal your carrots, mushrooms and chickens, fucking and killing you as a bonus before going themselves extinct.
Good Luck…
Comment by Anonymous — 26 November 2005 @ 11:21 AM
I agree entirely, with one qualification. Do not count me in as part of “WE.” I am not selfishly greedy. I believe in taking every externality into consideration in accounting the value of conduct.
That’s really the bottomline. Selfish, greedy people ruthlessly ignore costs, and their lunatic accountants make very attractive income statements and balance sheets to mask those costs. But, the trouble arises when their creative accounting runs up against reality and cannot get around it.
And that is because the conduct in question is unsustainable, it is based on a false accounting.
Nothing but a true accounting can correct the systemic problems humanity faces. And it is not clear that that remains possible.
Comment by qrswave — 26 November 2005 @ 12:00 PM
Anonymous,
No it’s not. If that were so, we’d have seen the problem 100,000 years ago, when mankind first spread out. Instead, anthropology shows that we made no more impact than any typical alpha predator — an extinction here, an environmental upset here. And then, mankind settled in. So sorry, my friend. You’re wrong.
Wow. You’re kinda grim there, Anonymous. Tell you what, on a practical matter, I’d suggest either attending some hardcore survival courses or buying a gun with a single bullet for when things go bad.
OR…
You could pay attention to some of the primitivists’ “silly proposals” and examine the science behind them. Many of the things proposed by the permaculture movement are quite sound, practical and logical. Many of them are also based on time-tested techniques which will even survive a post-modern world.
Hm. What a dilemma! I suppose they’ll come in right after the screaming hordes of cannabilistic city dwellers. Except for a couple of problems.
1) They have to find us. I doubt many hardcore survivalists are spending their time keeping track of permaculture sites.
2) They have to steal, fuck, and kill us. Possible, but assumes that we don’t get them first and since we’re talking tribal stuff, we’ll probably outnumber the one or two who come after us. Unless they’re Rambo, remember they will be coming on our territory.
3) They’re not willing to trade. Which would be the logical thing for them to do. Give up a couple of bullets and we provide them with chicken. Come down to the local party / ritual / gathering and maybe get laid. Help guard the compound / teach the kids to kill and be called a Big Damn Hero. Now, doesn’t that sound like more fun that taking a chance of getting hurt?
Just thought I’d point out these minor points to you. Best to you & your survivalist friends this holiday season.
Bill
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 26 November 2005 @ 12:54 PM
qrswave,
You are counted in as part of the “We” because you are still part of Mother Culture, which is busy greedily devouring the world even as you write your words.
Consider this, the use of energy the computer you typed your message on comes from a source that damages the world. So yep, you’re part of the problem. As am I. As are my children. Which really sucks.
The problem lies not solely with the selfish greedy people. My ancestors were, to all accounts, generous, selfless and generally far-sighted folks. And yet, they still had slaves, oppressed the natives, financed (and built) the railroads, developed Los Angeles and generally tore up the land as seriously as any other Taker.
Yet, at each point, they did it because they felt (and everyone supported them in this!) that they were part of a greater destiny. That the pain (unintentional or intentional) was part of a growth that would benefit mankind (-all- mankind) now and forever.
Had my ancestors truly had access to and understood the Ishmael philosophy, they would have embraced it and given up Mother Culture. But instead, they became her ‘good face’ — the ones that would cut down trees but feed the poor. The ones who would have others serve them but treat them with dignity and respect.
Still just as destructive.
A sad final note, I never mean to come out as harsh on my family as I sound. They were trapped in a system they (and others) didn’t understand. That’s what makes me so furious about civilization. It takes the incredible human potential and twists it into something obscene.
You probably already know this site but…
True Cost Economics
I’ve contacted the local Green Party at the university and asked them if they want to litter the school with the True Cost Manifesto.
All I’m saying, my friend, is culture jam, culture jam, culture jam!
You’re talking to the primitivists when you should be papering every business school around you. Fight for a new tomorrow!
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 26 November 2005 @ 1:08 PM
Thanks, Bill!
I like your sense of humor!
And, thanks for the link. I had run across it before but lost it with my last laptop..:(
I agree we are all part of the problem…:( But I am hoping that my positive contributions will help turn the tide.
I chat in forums like these to test the soundness of my propositions and acquire new perspectives that I can apply to my own theories. I am diligently working at other sites to spread knowledge and dispel illusions.
And, I agree– selfish greed would go nowhere fast if not for ignorance and gullibility.
Peace.
Comment by qrswave — 26 November 2005 @ 1:41 PM
Actually, I am quite stupid. It’s really an overwhealming advantage. You see, it allows me to sacrifice any hope of long-term benefits for a temporary illusion of advantage. If I was actually any smart I’d concentrate on the long-term stability of a smaller advantage.
Granted, the fact that we have the potential to destroy all multicellular life on Earth is a bad thing. The fact that we couldn’t even begin to kill off even 90% of all life on the planet is quite demonstrative of how small we are.
Ummmm, dude? I am that hard-core survivalist stealing the carrots. As far as going extinct. If I’m going to be killed due to lack of carrots I’m not really much of a hard-core survivalist. Unless the majority of multicellular life on Earth really does die off, humans have a solid chance of survival. Sorry, but we have a wide variety of food stuffs, are adaptable (and have adapted) to every environment on Earth, except the truely extreme ones. By extreme I mean the bottom of the ocean, in volcanoes, etc.
Homest to God, I’m never going to put a title on my posts ever again. From now on they will be categorized by number. And the next jerk who mentions the damn title as destroying my main point will be ripped a new one. By the way, you act like only business and me use that one. Everyone uses KISS. Writers use it. Scientists use it. Mathematcians use it. ETC. ETC. AD INFINITUM. Business stole it from Occam to begin with anyway.
Well, that’s so unbelievably stupid as to not even warrent an actual response. So I’ll simply reiterate that that’s a very very stupid thing to say. Very stupid. Why would we do that? Stupid. Just stupid.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 27 November 2005 @ 2:53 AM
Bwah-hah-hah-ha-ha!
Denial, scorn and smear (I am no friend of survivalists).
Very telling!
The bozos who join other’s treacherous agendas will find out.
Lots of Darwin Awards to be granted, this is the decisive benchmark…
Comment by Anonymous — 27 November 2005 @ 4:17 AM
“Janene says:
November 24th, 2005 at 10:15 am
MichaelD –
Well, it is very easy to come along and say ‘I’m not going to hear anything you say but your wrong.’
Its very easy to say some things are simple and some things are complex. But saying it does not make it so. ”
—————–
Nope, again. I didn’t say I wasn’t going to *hear* you—I said I wasn’t going to *read* everything. People who get things done don’t have time to read 168 posts about straighforward issues, either.
Which is why I searched for my name to see if there were any responses. Now I’m simply going to *do* something.
Comment by MichaelD — 27 November 2005 @ 9:54 AM
Ok…so…do you have an actual point to make or is this more a case of “I like to see my words magically appear on the screen?”
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 27 November 2005 @ 10:08 AM
Ah Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous. Let’s play a game!
It’s called “Does this have a point?”
You seem hell bent on attacking anything and everything, yet, all your arguments seems to be lacking one key element. What was that again? Oh yeah, a Point!
A survivalist, primitivist “bozo” is going to be the one that knows where the carrots are and knows how to get them, and once they have them, will know how to protect them. Not to mention a hard core survivalist will know how to steal them as well.
Now, some survivalists that perhaps aren’t quite as prepared for the time when all hell breaks loose, may turn to one another and say “Oh wow, my brother looks like he’d be good to eat” Or “My child….my sister..” and so on.
But for us here?
Oh, you bet we’re going to be prepared.
And we have something better than that.
We’re together.
So, I don’t believe it’s those of us that are here that are going to be preparing speaches for the acceptance of the Darwin Adwards.
Nope, it will be those people that laugh in the face of the very people that will survive.
=)
Have a nice day!
Comment by Miranda — 27 November 2005 @ 10:26 AM
Yes, even several, but for this I need an answer to my yet unanswered question to Jason:
(was “the distinction between complexity, and the cost of complexity”)
P.S. Some of you don’t seem to know much about Darwin Awards
http://www.darwinawards.com/
You will have to prepare your acceptance speechs in advance
Comment by Ah no nymous — 27 November 2005 @ 12:49 PM
Actually, I do happen to know exactly what the Darwinawards are.
Like I said.
I wont have to be preparing my speech.
Comment by Miranda — 27 November 2005 @ 1:00 PM
Hey, I kind of like this Ah-no-nymous person! Can we keep him (her) as a pet? It’s kind of like having a parrot.
“Awk! You’re wrong! Awk! You’re wrong!”
Neat!
Now, dear Ah-no-nymous, don’t complain too hard about my sentiment. After all, you brought it on yourself with the stereotypical villian laugh at the beginning of a post.
But hey, here you’re just paying attention to Jason when the rest of us have posted some nice things to you too. For example, I’ll posit this little question. Who’s most likely to win the Darwin Award? People who stay with a civilization in the middle of causing the single greatest mass extinction in the history of the planet? OR those who try to find a different way?
Hm.
I wonder.
Well, hey friend, good luck to you sitting in the city watching TV when the lights go out. I’m sure the blank screen will continue to be a good companion even after the images go away.
Of course, I might be mistating your position. Perhaps you live alone in an abandoned ICBM silo somewhere in Wisconsin, suffering from survivalist envy. Or you’re a disgruntled Mennonite youth working off of a public library computer. I don’t know. The trace programs haven’t finished running yet.
So hey, best of luck. I’ll just hang out here with my homeboys, talking about the day after tomorrow (the actual event, not the movie.)
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 27 November 2005 @ 3:55 PM
“Awk! You’re wrong! Awk! You’re wrong!”
Snicker.
Oh the amusement surrounds me.
See, it is funny. It reminds me of so many other arguments of the same damn thing being said over and over, yet lacking much of a point the entire time. “You are wrong because I said so!”
That argument is simply not cogent.
Why will the people hear not be winning the Darwin Award?
Well, because we’re planning for the shit to the fan. We’re family, we’re friends, we’re a tribe. We stick together.
That’s what a tribe does.
The people that will be winning the Award, however, are those people that think they are immune to any disaster movie type incidents that are rapidly coming our way.
Once it’s upon us, it’s those people that wont have a clue.
It’s those survivalists, the primitivists, the tribalists that will know how to make it through, will know how to survive till “the day after tomorrow” =)
Comment by Miranda — 27 November 2005 @ 4:12 PM
qrswave
Good for you! (Hey… send some of those folks on other sites here, too.
)
Be careful when you say this. Remember, you’re talking about real people here. (and yes, I’ve made the same verbal mistake before and will probably make it again)
For example, I could take your post to mean my parents and grandparents are “ignorant and gullible.”
My father’s an ex-intelligence officer for the military. My grandmother (in part) ran several large businesses. My great-grandfather owned and managed part of Los Angeles.
These are not gullible people, nor are they idiots. However, they, like many, many others, are trapped in a twisted, horrible paradigm.
Let’s phrase this another way. I hang out with some members from the First Nations. Among them, there’s a -lot- of talk about what those “Europeans” are doing. More than once, someone has asked “Why do they have to do what they do?”
My answer is this: “The Europeans do what they do because they have to be right. If they’re wrong, they must admit they are part of the greatest mistake in the history of mankind, a mistake that has lead to billions of deaths and mass extinction. They can’t do that. They can’t admit that. It’s too much.”
A number of my non-native friends don’t take credit for what their ancestors did (and, to be fair, a number of their ancestors were just as oppressed as anyone else). But I do. I do because someone has to say “Yup. My folks were responsible.” And then we have to fix it.
So just be careful when you choose your words. At their core, many of these Takers are sick with the thought that they might be wrong, that this world might f—ed up because of them.
They need healing, not contempt.
(and now I return back to my corner…)
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 27 November 2005 @ 6:12 PM
Dear Bill,
Thanks, for your thoughtful and meaningful reply.
You are right, I was wrong. There are many reasons why selfish greed has the upper hand. Ignorance and gullibility are not alone to blame.
But to be clear, when I use those terms, I do not use them disparagingly; not at all.
Much too often, ignorance is merely a condition that results from the same crime it perpetuates. For example, during the first three quarters of 2005, the federal government spent $335 billion to pay interest on US Treasury Bonds. During the same period, it spent only $6 billion on education.
Gullibility, on the other hand, is a state of mind that reflects not only lack of knowledge, which is not a fault but merely a condition, but it also reflects a sense of trust which, in fact, is a virtue not a vice. When someone trusts me, it says to me that they are trustworthy. People tend to believe that others have the same values as their own. Of course, the gullible ones are always in for a rude awakening. But, their gullibility is at once their weakness and their strength.
So yes, those two groups of people do not makeup the full gamut of folks out there besides the selfishly greedy; some refuse to see, or cannot see because they are looking from the wrong perspective.
Also, I do not harbor contempt for anyone. We are all without exception human beings.
I despise false and destructive instruments, not people. Interest is one of the worst kinds.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and aknowledging the problem. I too would like to fix it.
Comment by qrswave — 27 November 2005 @ 6:59 PM
Well, all the articles I’ve written on the subject–”The Mechanics of Collapse” and thesis #14 primarily–have not dealt with complexity so much as the costs of complexity. In my comments and in my articles, I have often said that complexity is very often an excellent problem-solving strategy. I have also said that any one problem-solving strategy, pursued to the neglect of all others, will likely suffer from this same effect.
False analogy. Christian fundamentalists pushing ID make no claim of their own; they merely try to cast aspersions on evolutionary theory, while lacking any real understanding of said theory. We understand technology and culture all too well–I have degrees in anthropology and computer science, so one could hardly ask for a more tailor-suited education in this regard–but we are not simply denying it wholesale. In thesis #16, I specifically challenged the position of some primitivists that technology is evil in and of itself. This is patently not the case.
My scenario of collapse is, actually, the mainstream one. My application of that theory, and my conclusion that we face that crisis now, rather than later, is the only point where I have deviated from conventional wisdom on this subject. Nor have I strayed so very far on that account, either.
Besides the fact that the title was a rhetorical shorthand (thus making your literalism extremely pedantic), your “full version” must be a vernacular form you have had personal experience with. I have never heard this rendition, and neither, apparently, has Wikipedia, though several versions are provided. Your etymology is incorrect; it was adopted by business, but was developed in the Apollo space program, was a founding principle of UNIX design philosophy, and has always had stronger etymological roots in computer science.
But, to address the meat of your dissent, I believe that is precisely what Ben addressed in the article above, which, if I might attempt a more formal codification, would be: that system functions best which maintains functionality with the greatest simplicity.
True, and I think taken as an assumption above left unspoken because it is so patently obvious. But thank you for stating it explicitly for anyone who might have missed it.
The ability to exert such short-term dominance is something any animal would be capable of. To describe it as a peculiar feature of humans is either myopic in the extreme or simply rhetorical grand-standing. That we, and we alone, have done precisely that does not speak for anything other than the fact that we were in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
I believe you meant nolens volens: “Whether unwilling or willing.” You seem to have a knack for invoking words and phrases you don’t really understand….
While we certainly have little in the way of direct evidence of what a global collapse from an industrial state would entail–as such a thing has never happened before–we do have a great deal of indirect evidence to indicate the general shape of things to come with somewhat greater clarity than any mere imaginings that you or I can dream up, no matter how “colorful” our language may wax. For example, we know the robustness of the earth’s ecology: how a rain forest can grow back from a smoldering heap of ash to a full rain forest again in a mere 25 years, how so many of the forests of the eastern United States were barren wastelands and then covered in new growth forests in as little a space of time, or how the air quality in central Pennsylvania increased so markedly only 24 hours into the August 2003 blackout (see Marufu, et. al, 2004. [PDF]). I believe that life is incredibly resilient, and will begin rebuilding almost immediately, should we ever stop trying to destroy it at every turn–essentially, that the wound will heal (and quickly!) if we would ever pull out the blade. Such is my evidence. Where is your counter-evidence, that life is being propped up even now only by our environmental benevolence, and without the support of an industrialized economy, all would die? By all means, please supply us with your evidence indicating that all of ecological science is a lie.
Carrots, mushrooms and chickens? Do you take us for farmers? We’ve identified agriculture as the single worst mistake in the history of humanity, and while some of us have an interest in permaculture as a means of “rewilding” our domesticates, I have my suspicions of such endeavors, and favor foraging entirely.
I will grant you, your scenario is the premise of many science fiction movies. Fiction being the operative word. There are places even now–in the continental United States, even–which have not seen a human foot in centuries. And in all previous collapse scenarios, civilizations contract–they do not expand. Your scenario of rampaging barbarians makes for excellent fantasy–but it is precisely that. Every previous iteration of the collapse cycle indicates that those of us who look outside the cities will have little competition for those spaces no one else sees as resources at all. But, anything is possible, and maybe this will be the first time, out of all those dozens of times it’s happened before, where you’re proven right.
But the odds are decidedly against it.
That said, what would be the best hope of defending ourselves from such a horde? A small group in a remote area is difficult to find. A nomadic group can simply move in the face of aggression. A guerrilla force on its own hunting grounds is nigh unstoppable. These are precisely the traits we will naturally possess. Our military superiority to any intruder is a natural byproduct of our chosen way of life.
Give me ten people, my pick of our land, and ten years to become its people–in short, everything I plan to have before this all happens–and I would gladly stack us against any hundred commandos you care to pick.
But I see Bill’s already addressed the multiple levels on which this is merely a paranoid flight of fancy with little realistic possibility.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 November 2005 @ 8:59 PM