5 ms·

My understanding of the article is that complex systems don't collapse faster, they simply need a lot more time to be built and collapse faster than that But i

My understanding of the article is that complex systems don't collapse faster, they simply need a lot more time to be built and collapse faster than that But in the end Roman Empire did not collapse very fast, it kept existing in a different form (the eastern Roman Empire) for an additional thousand years and did not fail after all. Roman Empire heritage is huge and spans from culture to engineering, from military tactics to religious beliefs, from political systems to law systems, even languages were heavily influenced by Latin, especially in continental Europe, and the process is still going on. So probably it's not really that complex systems collapse faster, but that they are able to undergo to radical changes without disappearing from history. They have the ability to reshape themselves and somewhat survive even if their original form does not. A simpler system would not be able to do that but OTOH it would be much simpler to rebuild it from scratch or reboot/replicate it.

fuzzfactor 4y ago
>need a lot more time to be built and collapse faster than that I think this is a very good judgement. It's a lot easier to deplete resources than to allow them to retain their value, or with even more difficulty achieve growth.. Sometimes things really fly off the shelf (viral) but mostly it takes a lot of work with a focused mindset for growth to be initiated to begin with and continue to take place for any length of time. For a large multi-generational system like that the tremendous strength required to get it flying and keep it going will often have to result in some remarkable upward momentum. The initiative required can sometimes be lost over one or more generations and the average person may not notice as the upward momentum alone prevents things from faltering immediately. Until it's too late because the collective talent's focus needed to be retarding collapse as soon as the elusive initiative was lost, but that event did not register against the macro upward momentum still remaining. So the whole thing comes crashing down while presided over by those who seemed OK at stewarding upward trends, while they were actually not capable of continuing the mindset or making equivalent contributions over one or more generations, and completely out of their element when downward pressure arises that would otherwise be overcome.
skohan 4y ago
Intuitively it makes sense to me that more complex systems collapse faster because potentially they have more points and modes of failure. For instance, due to advances in technology, many aspects of our current modern global society depend on the availability of Cobalt as a component in battery tech. This is a relatively rare element, with concentrated extraction. Lots of things in modern society depend on having small, cheap, powerful batteries. Lots of systems are built upon systems which have that dependency. This creates a single point of failure which can have reverberating effects throughout the whole system. I suppose the more complex and interconnected a system is, the more likely it is that you have many of these weak points floating around.
- yakak 4y ago
  It seems to me like this relates to how much emphasis there is on competition monopolizing the entire market and eliminating less efficient solutions. In the 1980s it seemed like every quirky solution would kind of survive, maybe being too bulky and too expensive (to fabricate) but not licensing X, Y or Z for an exorbitant price.. That greatly added complexity but meant redundancies. In the current form, I feel like the highest efficiency solution maker (or maybe the one in second place) is usually trying to do extremely low licensing with the idea of winning the whole market. That's great in terms of efficiency and actually lowers complexity but means monoculture with exactly identical dependencies.
- mirceal 4y ago
  yes and no. complex systems are not designed to be complex from the start. they are in fact successful simple systems that have evolved. Any complex system that is around for a while will have build in redundancy and, as a matter of fact, will run in degraded mode. So I don't buy into the complex system collapse faster idea. I would say that if you were to look at a simple system and and a [working] complex system the simple system is going to collapse faster in case of a failure, while you may not notice failures as a complex system works around them). What the author here observes is the catastrophic collapse in the late stage of the system where something leads to the almost simultaneous collapse of multiple subsystems. Here is one of my favourite writings that ties complex systems with failure: https://how.complexsystems.fail/ https://how.complexsystems.fail/
PheonixPharts 4y ago
The best example of a complex system is the human body. It's useful to juxtapose such a complex system to a "complicated machine" such as a car as far as you they breakdown (i.e. collapse). A single part failure can easily cause a car to become completely undrivable, whereas a surprisingly amount can go wrong with human body and it works more or less the same. Not enough fuel and a car stops. It's completely binary, either you enough gas to go, or you can't go. For a human there is an incredible range of failure modes for not having enough fuel. Humans can survive an absurdly long time when they are 'empty' of food. However once that human body does fail, it's over. Additionally all parts of it collapse together. A car is more or less the sum of it's parts. You can take each individual part and take it off and reuse it, like wise each failing impacts primarily it self. The engine can go find with a flat tire, you can use the headlights on car with no gas and no wheels until the batteries fall out. When an essential component for driving the car fails, all of the other components are still useful. This also means that any piece that is necessarily for the car to drive causes complete failure for the system when it fails. But it also means you can restore the system trivially by repairing a single part. The human body is more than the sum of it's parts. You can't trivially remove or replace parts. The upside is it is wildly resistant to failure. You can lose an eye and still see, you can lose huge parts of the brain and still function, you can damage a leg running a marathon and still find a way to finish rather quickly, the entire system can be under attack by an invader and automatically defend it self. But there are limit and when they are cross the entire system fails completely and irreversibly. And in this sense they do collapse faster because once that limit is crossed the system rapidly starts to fail and can never be restored.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  I agree on some of the points. My point was that complexity is not a single face phenomenon and can't account alone for risk of failure. I believe we should look at why complexity is there and what purpose it serves. Human body is a complex machine, but the fact that failure can bring it down to the extreme is because human body is fragile and once single organs start failing things cascades to the point of no return very quickly. We are in fact not build for extreme resiliency, but for extreme adaptability (not even the most extreme nature created) A simple system most of the times is built with simplicity in mind (sorry for the tautology) and sometimes because of simplicity is more efficient. It can also happen to more complex systems, like for example our body which is very energy efficient at the expenses of resiliency. Klingons OTOH have two livers, an eight-chambered heart, and two stomachs. They are bigger, consume more energy and need to eat (and drink) a lot more. Redundancy adds complexity, but have its purpose. Klingons do not exists obviously, but nuclear factories are another example of complexity serving safety, not more efficient operations. Simpler systems usually exhibit single point of failures, like for example now with the war our very complex supply chain can shield us better from the consequences than countries that don't have them or can't afford them. Historically they died sooner and we haven't records of their sudden fall, because they never reached the point were it mattered enough. So complexity - I would call it complex redundancy -, which is very costly, depends a lot on the ability of gathering the resources. Going back to the Romans, at one point they stopped making new steel and warships because the huge amount of wood necessary was not sustainable and Europe witnessed the first massive deforestation of its history. So, before collapsing, they had to add another layer: recycling. Which can be simpler as a process but also requires a longer chain of supply. Add to that the will of their enemies to conquer them, the lost knowledge on how to reboot failing systems because they were so old that people took them for granted and things can go south pretty rapidly, but that's not an inherent property of complexity, but of fragility. The Universe is immensely complex, but I believe it's still going strong after 13 billions years from its birth.
trakl 4y ago
What about the Late Bronze Age Collapse?
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  That's a very interesting topic. We still don't know what actually happened, but the scholars studying it are discovering piece by piece that it was a "perfect storm" and no single event can be assumed as the root cause of the collapse. The most interesting part of it, for me, is that it was a cascade failure caused by "globalization" of the times. Maybe if we really understand what happened it can help us prevent a collapse of our current society (assuming it's not already too late)
inglor_cz 4y ago
Yeah, the author sort-of deforms actual historical data to his own needs. The Roman empire in the West was rather slow to collapse, even the fact that it survived the crisis of the third century [0] speaks more to its resilience than fragility. As late as 460, Western Roman commanders were able to subdue hostile barbarians and reattach their territories to the Empire proper [1]. The Roman empire in the East, as you notice, survived for another thousand years. If the author wanted an example of an empire that collapsed really fast, it would be the USSR. That was indeed rather fast. In 1985, Moscow controlled not just the USSR itself, but several important European satellite states east of the Elbe, plus it held a lot of sway in the developing world. Six years later, the empire was gone. Not even Western Kremlinologists expected such a fast unraveling of the Soviet system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian
- jdkee 4y ago
  You are spot on with the collapse of the USSR. See https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691121178/everything-was-forever-until-it-was-no-more https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691121178/ev...
- chejazi 4y ago
  I am not a history expert but it is interesting to hear that re: Rome, given the author's background > Ugo Bardi is professor of physical chemistry at the University of Florence, Italy. He is a full member of the Club of Rome, an international organization dedicated to promoting a clean and prosperous world for all humankind, and the author, among other books, of The Seneca Effect (2017), Before the Collapse (2019), and The Empty Sea (2021).
  - MikePlacid 4y ago
    The Club of Rome is not composed of specialists in Rome history though. It is a "club" that held its organizational meeting in Rome, in 1968 - hence the name.
- 4y ago
high_5 4y ago
Agreed. When I saw Pisa Cathedral from 11th century in person it made me think ... There was no dramatic collapse in 5th century. Yes, a lot of upheaval, but I guess a lot of engineering knowledge from the Roman Empire period was preserved which in turn means that complex society in Italy remained quite sophisticated through the so called "dark ages".

fuzzfactor 4y ago

>need a lot more time to be built and collapse faster than that I think this is a very good judgement. It's a lot easier to deplete resources than to allow them to retain their value, or with even more difficulty achieve growth.. Sometimes things really fly off the shelf (viral) but mostly it takes a lot of work with a focused mindset for growth to be initiated to begin with and continue to take place for any length of time. For a large multi-generational system like that the tremendous strength required to get it flying and keep it going will often have to result in some remarkable upward momentum. The initiative required can sometimes be lost over one or more generations and the average person may not notice as the upward momentum alone prevents things from faltering immediately. Until it's too late because the collective talent's focus needed to be retarding collapse as soon as the elusive initiative was lost, but that event did not register against the macro upward momentum still remaining. So the whole thing comes crashing down while presided over by those who seemed OK at stewarding upward trends, while they were actually not capable of continuing the mindset or making equivalent contributions over one or more generations, and completely out of their element when downward pressure arises that would otherwise be overcome.

skohan 4y ago

Intuitively it makes sense to me that more complex systems collapse faster because potentially they have more points and modes of failure. For instance, due to advances in technology, many aspects of our current modern global society depend on the availability of Cobalt as a component in battery tech. This is a relatively rare element, with concentrated extraction. Lots of things in modern society depend on having small, cheap, powerful batteries. Lots of systems are built upon systems which have that dependency. This creates a single point of failure which can have reverberating effects throughout the whole system. I suppose the more complex and interconnected a system is, the more likely it is that you have many of these weak points floating around.

yakak 4y ago
It seems to me like this relates to how much emphasis there is on competition monopolizing the entire market and eliminating less efficient solutions. In the 1980s it seemed like every quirky solution would kind of survive, maybe being too bulky and too expensive (to fabricate) but not licensing X, Y or Z for an exorbitant price.. That greatly added complexity but meant redundancies. In the current form, I feel like the highest efficiency solution maker (or maybe the one in second place) is usually trying to do extremely low licensing with the idea of winning the whole market. That's great in terms of efficiency and actually lowers complexity but means monoculture with exactly identical dependencies.
mirceal 4y ago
yes and no. complex systems are not designed to be complex from the start. they are in fact successful simple systems that have evolved. Any complex system that is around for a while will have build in redundancy and, as a matter of fact, will run in degraded mode. So I don't buy into the complex system collapse faster idea. I would say that if you were to look at a simple system and and a [working] complex system the simple system is going to collapse faster in case of a failure, while you may not notice failures as a complex system works around them). What the author here observes is the catastrophic collapse in the late stage of the system where something leads to the almost simultaneous collapse of multiple subsystems. Here is one of my favourite writings that ties complex systems with failure: https://how.complexsystems.fail/ https://how.complexsystems.fail/

PheonixPharts 4y ago

The best example of a complex system is the human body. It's useful to juxtapose such a complex system to a "complicated machine" such as a car as far as you they breakdown (i.e. collapse). A single part failure can easily cause a car to become completely undrivable, whereas a surprisingly amount can go wrong with human body and it works more or less the same. Not enough fuel and a car stops. It's completely binary, either you enough gas to go, or you can't go. For a human there is an incredible range of failure modes for not having enough fuel. Humans can survive an absurdly long time when they are 'empty' of food. However once that human body does fail, it's over. Additionally all parts of it collapse together. A car is more or less the sum of it's parts. You can take each individual part and take it off and reuse it, like wise each failing impacts primarily it self. The engine can go find with a flat tire, you can use the headlights on car with no gas and no wheels until the batteries fall out. When an essential component for driving the car fails, all of the other components are still useful. This also means that any piece that is necessarily for the car to drive causes complete failure for the system when it fails. But it also means you can restore the system trivially by repairing a single part. The human body is more than the sum of it's parts. You can't trivially remove or replace parts. The upside is it is wildly resistant to failure. You can lose an eye and still see, you can lose huge parts of the brain and still function, you can damage a leg running a marathon and still find a way to finish rather quickly, the entire system can be under attack by an invader and automatically defend it self. But there are limit and when they are cross the entire system fails completely and irreversibly. And in this sense they do collapse faster because once that limit is crossed the system rapidly starts to fail and can never be restored.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
I agree on some of the points. My point was that complexity is not a single face phenomenon and can't account alone for risk of failure. I believe we should look at why complexity is there and what purpose it serves. Human body is a complex machine, but the fact that failure can bring it down to the extreme is because human body is fragile and once single organs start failing things cascades to the point of no return very quickly. We are in fact not build for extreme resiliency, but for extreme adaptability (not even the most extreme nature created) A simple system most of the times is built with simplicity in mind (sorry for the tautology) and sometimes because of simplicity is more efficient. It can also happen to more complex systems, like for example our body which is very energy efficient at the expenses of resiliency. Klingons OTOH have two livers, an eight-chambered heart, and two stomachs. They are bigger, consume more energy and need to eat (and drink) a lot more. Redundancy adds complexity, but have its purpose. Klingons do not exists obviously, but nuclear factories are another example of complexity serving safety, not more efficient operations. Simpler systems usually exhibit single point of failures, like for example now with the war our very complex supply chain can shield us better from the consequences than countries that don't have them or can't afford them. Historically they died sooner and we haven't records of their sudden fall, because they never reached the point were it mattered enough. So complexity - I would call it complex redundancy -, which is very costly, depends a lot on the ability of gathering the resources. Going back to the Romans, at one point they stopped making new steel and warships because the huge amount of wood necessary was not sustainable and Europe witnessed the first massive deforestation of its history. So, before collapsing, they had to add another layer: recycling. Which can be simpler as a process but also requires a longer chain of supply. Add to that the will of their enemies to conquer them, the lost knowledge on how to reboot failing systems because they were so old that people took them for granted and things can go south pretty rapidly, but that's not an inherent property of complexity, but of fragility. The Universe is immensely complex, but I believe it's still going strong after 13 billions years from its birth.

trakl 4y ago

What about the Late Bronze Age Collapse?

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
That's a very interesting topic. We still don't know what actually happened, but the scholars studying it are discovering piece by piece that it was a "perfect storm" and no single event can be assumed as the root cause of the collapse. The most interesting part of it, for me, is that it was a cascade failure caused by "globalization" of the times. Maybe if we really understand what happened it can help us prevent a collapse of our current society (assuming it's not already too late)

inglor_cz 4y ago

Yeah, the author sort-of deforms actual historical data to his own needs. The Roman empire in the West was rather slow to collapse, even the fact that it survived the crisis of the third century [0] speaks more to its resilience than fragility. As late as 460, Western Roman commanders were able to subdue hostile barbarians and reattach their territories to the Empire proper [1]. The Roman empire in the East, as you notice, survived for another thousand years. If the author wanted an example of an empire that collapsed really fast, it would be the USSR. That was indeed rather fast. In 1985, Moscow controlled not just the USSR itself, but several important European satellite states east of the Elbe, plus it held a lot of sway in the developing world. Six years later, the empire was gone. Not even Western Kremlinologists expected such a fast unraveling of the Soviet system. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian

jdkee 4y ago
You are spot on with the collapse of the USSR. See https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691121178/everything-was-forever-until-it-was-no-more https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691121178/ev...
chejazi 4y ago
I am not a history expert but it is interesting to hear that re: Rome, given the author's background > Ugo Bardi is professor of physical chemistry at the University of Florence, Italy. He is a full member of the Club of Rome, an international organization dedicated to promoting a clean and prosperous world for all humankind, and the author, among other books, of The Seneca Effect (2017), Before the Collapse (2019), and The Empty Sea (2021).
- MikePlacid 4y ago
  The Club of Rome is not composed of specialists in Rome history though. It is a "club" that held its organizational meeting in Rome, in 1968 - hence the name.
4y ago

high_5 4y ago

Agreed. When I saw Pisa Cathedral from 11th century in person it made me think ... There was no dramatic collapse in 5th century. Yes, a lot of upheaval, but I guess a lot of engineering knowledge from the Roman Empire period was preserved which in turn means that complex society in Italy remained quite sophisticated through the so called "dark ages".