The problem with words…

The WorldWatch Institute recently published the article “Our Panarchic Future” by Thomas Homer-Dixon, adapted from his book “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization”. The article primarily discusses the work and thinking of the eminent ecologist Crawford Stanley (Buzz) Holling, specifically his concept of “panarchy theory”.

The article gives a cogent description of the panarchy theory; here’s a synopsis: As a complex system like a forest develops, it self-optimizes to minimize redundancy (e.g. fewer species occupying each specific niche) and maximize efficiency (increasing percentages of the total water and nutrient flow are used). The resulting forest is a highly interconnected supply chain (food web), with decreasing ability to handle a disruption (the loss of a species), because each species is playing a unique and essential role.

The efficient, but decreasingly resilient, system can be severely impacted by an external shock, like a wildfire. While disrupting the system to the extent that its original structure (e.g. species) may not be able to reestablish itself, these shocks also clear out space for new species and a new structure to emerge. In the less common case of several simultaneous shocks, such as a wildfire during a drought, the system might never recover.

The article draws the parallel between ecosystems and societies, suggesting that as societies become more complex, they become less resilient and more likely to be disrupted by external shocks (like climate change), or permanently snuffed out by multiple simultaneous shocks. An argument is then made that this is likely the reason that Rome fell.

Holling’s experience in ecology is strong and deep, and his views on the evolution of forest systems are drawn from a lifetime of work and probably some of the best understanding we have. And Homer-Dixon’s attempt to draw the parallel to civilizations is thought provoking, and possibly scary. But how can we tell if this is an accurate application of the analogy? Civilizations are self-aware and can diagnose problems and take proactive steps to fix them. Yes, Rome did decline, but how much of their situation and its potential progression into the future were they able to understand at the time?

Hopefully the article and the book will stimulate a good discussion, but words can only take us so far. Suppose we could build models of ecosystems and civilizations, and compare and contrast them to see where the analogy holds and where it doesn’t; see each other’s assumptions in the light of day, put them into motion, find out where they break down, revise them and try again. Yes, these models are complex and limited in accuracy because the world is so much more complex and unmeasured in so many ways, but discussing in models can take us so much further than discussing in words.