3 ms·

> Complex, self-reinforcing systems do not fail linearly. I am with you. This is called the criticality of a complex adaptive system. It is the grain of sand

> Complex, self-reinforcing systems do not fail linearly. I am with you. This is called the criticality of a complex adaptive system. It is the grain of sand that will collapse a sand heap into chaos. The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is, nor we qualify the knowability of that point, nor we know if the critical point is the most important thing to focus on, e.g. incremental degradation could just as well saturate our harm tolerance without really reaching a phase-shift point. The reason I am bringing these up is not to use skepticism to induce apathy, but to underline the fact that all of these axes require drastically different policy responses. There is a risk in trying to invest the entire political, psychological and moral capital into an all-or-nothing apocalypse-countermeasure-policy-A if the system at hand actually needed a set of incremental countermeasures with policies B, C .. Z. This is the main objective in focusing on proportionality, to ensure our response is the appropriate one. Incrementalism doesn't make headlines the way apocalypticism does and over-salience of criticality might be distracting us in a way that brings us closer to it. Demonstrated time and again, it doesn't rally people to action, it doesn't seem to enchance our agency, and maybe even hurts it.

kannanvijayan 5y ago
> The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is We know that given the inertia we have currently, we are almost guaranteed to hit it. We cannot stop on a dime, and even if we did, the existing inertial effects will continue. > Incrementalism doesn't make headlines It also doesn't really work, as evidenced by the complete failure of the incrementalist "reduce, recycle, reuse" campaign, which effected nothing and might well have acted as a safety blanket to prevent serious policy. But the failure here lies more in a politically dominant demographic that was not ready to understand any reality that might involve policy that impacted material costs or the conveniences, combined with the fact that any relevant solution necessarily would involve those sacrifices. Alarmism works just fine as a political tool, and it has worked to spur action on many issues - legitimate or not. In this particular case, the alarmism is certainly warranted. And generational shifts allow for a more receptive audience for that message.

kannanvijayan 5y ago

> The problem is we don't know where the criticality point is We know that given the inertia we have currently, we are almost guaranteed to hit it. We cannot stop on a dime, and even if we did, the existing inertial effects will continue. > Incrementalism doesn't make headlines It also doesn't really work, as evidenced by the complete failure of the incrementalist "reduce, recycle, reuse" campaign, which effected nothing and might well have acted as a safety blanket to prevent serious policy. But the failure here lies more in a politically dominant demographic that was not ready to understand any reality that might involve policy that impacted material costs or the conveniences, combined with the fact that any relevant solution necessarily would involve those sacrifices. Alarmism works just fine as a political tool, and it has worked to spur action on many issues - legitimate or not. In this particular case, the alarmism is certainly warranted. And generational shifts allow for a more receptive audience for that message.