I would also add the tendency to long term weariness or a kind of national depression. A perhaps self imposed feeling of " we can't do it" "we are past our prime" "our best days are behind us"..one thing feeds on another. Real resource constraints and real personal economic problems (lack of jobs, threats to the middle class, no positive view of the future ) bring about and reinforce psychological limits in a kind of spiral downward.
Arthur From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:07 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: [Futurework] Empires on the Edge of Chaos The Ferguson paper (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24874.htm ) that David Delaney posted is interesting, but in my opinion its emphasis is too much on short term events that bring empires down and not nearly enough on the longer term factors that make them vulnerable to collapse. In many cases, the reason that empires are brought down is because they have so overextended themselves that they can no longer really work. At that point any little event can prove fatal to them. An important factor is that EROI (energy return on investment) has become negative, so negative that the empire lacks the resources to keep itself going. Another is complexity. In many cases, empires have become so complex that they can no longer function as coherent systems. This is what Thomas Homer-Dixon argues in the case of Rome (see my review of his book "The Upside of Down", attached). While the Roman Empire might have muddled on in a peaceful world, the world was not peaceful. Any number of minor events could then move it into a state of collapse. One might also look at the collapse of the Soviet Union. After spending a month at a university level institution in Moscow in 1994, shortly after the collapse of communism , I concluded that the Soviet Union had, like Rome, greatly overextended itself and had become so complex as to be ungovernable. Two things had played major roles. First, with the war in Afghanistan and the suppression of rebels in Chechnya and other states, it had taken on more than its economy could handle. Secondly, the planning system that had been installed to run the Soviet economy after the revolution was no longer manageable. Initially intended to provide for modernization and growth, it had become a vast, inflexible and static bureaucratic machine, a true drag on economic activity. You had to use it, for example, to get a spare part for an oil rig or an engine. Months later, when the spare part finally arrived, it wasn't the right kind and the process had to be repeated, perhaps several times. You had to use the system because there was no market economy, at least not on the surface. So, while I agree with Ferguson that when an empire (nation, economy, whatever) is ready to collapse, almost anything can bring it down. Yet I would put far more emphasis than he has on the long process that brings the empire to the threshold of collapse. Ed
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
