| Muck and Mystery Loitering With Intent |
blog - at - crumbtrail.org |
Conservation News links to this Jared Diamond article which asserts that "The parallels between Easter Island and the modern world are chillingly obvious". Diamond has been flogging this idea about for a few years and it hasn't improved with time.
The collapse of society on Easter Island when their Polynesian culture proved unsuitable to the small and isolated island on which this band of immigrants landed has provoked speculation ever since it was discovered by Europeans in 1722, approximately 800 years after discovery by Polynesians. Diamond cites ideas by Heyerdahl and von Däniken that supported their respective grand theories of human development. Diamond has one too but it isn't convincing, not even for Diamond.
Thanks to globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet, all countries on Earth today share resources and affect each other, just as did Easter's eleven clans. Polynesian Easter Island was as isolated in the Pacific Ocean as the Earth is today in space. When the Easter Islanders got into difficulties, there was nowhere to which they could flee, or to which they could turn for help; nor shall we modern Earthlings have recourse elsewhere if our troubles increase. Those are the reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our own future.Diamond cites reasons for collapse consistent with his theory, generalized to apply to all failed civilizations.
Diamond fails to illuminate or understand the system failures since his intent is to communicate a morality tale of exploitation which he can generalize to the human condition. He focuses on population increase and socio-political systems which led to deforestation, and attributes the collapse of the food production system to these factors. For want of trees the islanders lost the ability to harvest the sea for food and for want of forests the land eroded. His implied advice is that they should have made sacrifices earlier to avoid greater sacrifice later.
A more thoughtful analysis of collapse is presented in this paper, Overexploitation of Renewable Resources by Ancient Societies and the Role of Sunk-Cost Effects - Janssen, M. A. and M. Scheffer. 2004.
One of the most persistent mysteries in the history of humankind is the collapse of ancient societies. It is puzzling that societies that achieved such high levels of development disappeared so suddenly. It has been argued that overexploitation of environmental resources played a role in the collapse of such societies. In this paper, we propose an explanation why overexploitation seems more common in ancient societies that built larger structures. This explanation is based on the well-studied sunk-cost effect in human decision making: decisions are often based on past investments rather than expected future returns. This leads to an unwillingness to abandon something (e. g., a settlement) if a great deal has been invested in it, even if future prospects are dim. Empirical study suggests that there are indications of sunk-cost effects in the histories of several ancient societies. A stylized model is used to illustrate under which conditions societal collapse may be expected. Finally, we discuss the consequences of these insights for current societies.Diamond's ideas seem anemic in comparison. Humans aren't ignorant of their circumstances and aren't weak willed, they are irrational. Seemingly intractable problems in explaining human behavior melt away once we abandon the mistaken idea that humans are rational actors that are part of a rational system. Both of these assumptions are false. Humans don't behave like machines, rationally making sensible choices based on accurate analysis of precise data, but even if they did the rest of the system doesn't and can't be accurately analyzed or precisely measured. The kings and priests of Easter Island dominated the population by convincing them that wise rulers with a direct link to gods need only be obeyed, praised and celebrated with monumental constructs and everything would be O.K. Diamond is selling the same snake oil in an updated package as preachers have done everywhere and every when.
People are not rational, they do not all draw the same conclusions from the same information and do not all want the same things. This isn't an unfortunate defect, an evolutionary spandrel we should strive to suppress or even one day engineer away, it is an absolutely appropriate adaptation to an irrational universe. Life persists because it is diverse.
To enhance human performance, given these realities, the most effective approach is to increase bandwidth, get more information to more people. Good and plentiful information will provoke a variety of responses, some good and some not. Bad responses can be improved on subsequent iterations. We don't just face problems once, we face them repeatedly and can learn from mistakes so long as the scope of the error isn't so large that society collapses. It's like marching across a bridge: we must intentionally vary the cadence to avoid lockstep and magnified impact.
In the paper cited above this concept is formalized.
Tainter proposed an economic explanation of collapse. During development, societies increase in complexity. That is, they comprise more parts and more kinds of parts, and they develop greater integration of parts. At a certain level of complexity, the costs of increasing complexity surpass the benefits, leading to a collapse (Tainter 1988).Tainter's idea of complexity hinges on what he refers to as "greater integration of parts". By this he seems to mean specialization, coordination and centralization of control. Janssen and Scheffer argue that the reason people engage in this sort of behavior beyond reasonable constraints is their unwillingness to abandon a failing course of action in which they have made substantial investment.In this paper, Tainter's concept is extended using insights from research on human decision making. The central question we address is “why” ancient societies invested beyond an optimal level of complexity, leading to overharvesting of their renewable resources. In our view, an important factor that might explain these systematic dynamics is the “sunk-cost effect”—where human decision making is typically influenced by the level of prior investments (in a wide sense, including capital, experience, and spiritual values). According to conventional economic theory, only the incremental costs and benefits of the current options should be included in decision making. However, as explained in some detail later, numerous examples show that humans do take into account prior investment when they consider what course of action to follow.
With regard to human behavior, this is called the sunk-cost effect (cf. Arkes and Ayton 1999) and, in animal studies, it is referred to as the “Concorde fallacy” (cf. Dawkins and Carlisle 1976). ...Subsequent studies have refuted the “Concorde fallacy” for lower animals to the satisfaction of many, but for humans it is clearly true and a big problem. The Easter Islanders, like many other ancient civilizations that collapsed, made the irrational decision to continue their socio-religious system in which they had invested so much - raising giant statues etc. - rather than cutting their losses and behaving in more appropriate ways. There's also a second reason for irrational behavior that is a characteristic of groups.The poor financial prospects of the Concorde were known long before the plane was completed, but the governments of the United Kingdom and France decided to continue production anyway on the grounds that they had already invested a lot of money...
Escalation of commitment occurs when people or organizations who have committed resources to a project are inclined to “throw good money after bad” and maintain or increase their commitment to the project, even when its marginal costs exceed marginal benefits (Teger 1980, Camerer and Weber 1999). Escalation of commitment is very similar to the sunk-cost effect. Most research is focused on individual decision making. The main explanation for observed escalation is self-justification (Brockner 1992). The idea of self-justification is that people do not like to admit that their past decisions were incorrect and, therefore, are trying to reaffirm the correctness of those earlier decisions.
One might expect that irrational behavior would be corrected in groups. However, many studies suggest that groups make riskier decisions than the mean of decisions made by individuals. In fact, escalation of commitment is found in group decision making (Bazerman et al. 1984). Members of a group strive for unanimity. A typical goal for political decisions within small-scale societies is to reach consensus (Boehm 1996). Once unanimity is reached, the easiest way to protect it is to stay committed to the group’s decision (Bazerman et al. 1984, Janis 1972). Thus, when the group is faced with a negative feedback, members will not suggest abandoning the earlier course of action, because this might disrupt the existing unanimity.This explains the importance of the "greater integration of parts" in Tainter's idea that "the costs of increasing complexity surpass the benefits, leading to a collapse". Groups are dumber than individuals and less able to admit error. They not only face the loss of their investments in failing projects, they face the loss of their mob mentality which also required significant investment.
There is a historical example of a society that was able to cut its losses and avert total collapse.
During the crises of the 7th century, the Byzantines lost half their empire and their rulers realized they could not continue business as usual. The simplification of the complex society was implemented by removing the structure of ranks and honours, simplifying the civil administration, reducing governmental transaction costs, and cutting the costs of the army. All these changes reduced complexity and (sunk) costs, and were made despite past large investments.As stated earlier, Diamond isn't convinced by his own analysis and is still perplexed. I am perplexed why we should pay much attention to the prescriptions of someone who is bewildered by the problem he seeks to cure.
Why were Easter Islanders so foolish as to cut down all their trees, when the consequences would have been so obvious to them? This is a key question that nags everyone who wonders about self-inflicted environmental damage. I have often asked myself, "What did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it?" Like modern loggers, did he shout "Jobs, not trees!"? Or: "Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we'll find a substitute for wood"? Or: "We need more research, your proposed ban on logging is premature"?No, they didn't want to abandon their projects in which they had invested so much already and they didn't want to disrupt their group consciousness. They couldn't bear that double loss even though in the end it meant that they would lose everything. It is the self justification noted by Brockner: "when the group is faced with a negative feedback, members will not suggest abandoning the earlier course of action, because this might disrupt the existing unanimity." The individual human susceptibility to the "Concorde fallacy" is amplified by group consciousness.
It isn't the "globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet" that Diamond worries about that are the problem, it is the “Concorde fallacy”, big projects entered into for flimsy reasons and maintained even when it is crystal clear that they are nothing but resource sinks. It's important to grasp this because Diamond's solution is to engage in even "greater integration of parts" so that he can enforce his proposed bans on logging or whatever. Group behaviors are less intelligent than individual behaviors for such problems and the larger the group the more this is true.
A large social mind is a valuable thing but it isn't achieved fully or usefully by "greater integration of parts", by consensus group behavior. A more useful concept of a large social mind capable of association and cooperation is neighborly behavior, ad-hoc and temporary joint efforts for specific purposes. With modern "globalization, international trade, jet planes, and the Internet" we are all potentially neighbors. We are no longer limited by time and space to direct engagement with just a few geographically near people and there is no longer a reason to maintain hierarchy and group affiliations that lead inevitably to diminishing returns and collapse. We can steal a march on the Byzantines and do our simplifying and reductions before being forced to do so by circumstances.
Diamond scoffs at technological solutions to current threats but they are in fact the answers we seek. This is hardly surprising since the problems are a result of immature technologies which amplified irrational human behavior. We have minds evolved for eons to survive in small, weak societies but our recently improved techniques give us more power than we know how to use well. Learning to use our power well requires greater understanding of who we are.
We can have the benefits of a large social mind without the bureaucracy, ranks and honors, and transaction costs. Direct person to person communication and broad distribution of information allows social behavior without integration into large groups. It allows people to focus on their local circumstances, to intimately engage with reality and see it as it is rather than through the fuzzy filter of group judgement. It reduces the effects of both the “Concorde fallacy” and the unwillingness to disrupt unanimity by criticizing failing projects.
Update:
See this post at FuturePundit for another take on the general subject.
Based on your article, things are bound to get pretty bad fairly quickly in direct relation to the amount of power granted to/taken by the United Nations or similar global power structure.
The UN: consensus building, big emotional/ideological investment, ever-growing monopoly on planetary-scale ideas.
If the UN's bureaucracy or their clientele of ONGs and researchers happen to catch their own Concorde, they are likely to pursue it till the bitter end, regardless of consequences. Kyoto, anyone?
{{{ This is a fake e-mail address / never gets read
Hi Xavier,
Organizational complexity in the Tainter sense may be an unavoidable human problem. Eventual collapse is predicted by many long-view thinkers - from Marx to Mancur Olson. It may be that the best we can do is to limit the scope of collapse by limiting the scope of organization and so reduce the depth and duration of barbarism. We may all fail at some point but if we don't all fail at the same time then we can help one another recover.
It's frustrating in a sense that there are no perfect answers, no way to avoid all pain. Perhaps we can mature and take comfort in resilience, the ability to recover from local loss while avoiding global collapse?
Posted by: back40 at March 27, 2004 12:09 PMIn the very very long term, collapse is probable, despite determined and well thought-out efforts to permanently limit the scope of organization.
Not all peoples will jump with eyes closed into the larger organization syndrome.
Consider U.S. federalism, for example, before Marshall's New Deal Court opened the floodgates of the Necessary and Proper Clause; and before the 16th Amendment made possible the funding of a large central government.
Also noteworthy was the fiercely independent Venetian republic, which enabled the city's inhabitants to live 1,000 more civil and prosperous years than all of the surrounding neighbors.
Add to these examples 800 years of (quickly eroding) willful Swiss independence.
***.***
Certainly collapse is many generations away, so isn't it a bit premature to be feeling "their" pain?
Posted by: Xavier at April 1, 2004 09:12 PMLOL, yes it may be too early to send flowers. I plead insanity due to having recently reread Deepness in the Sky.
Posted by: back40 at April 2, 2004 01:22 AM