Perfect Storm Conjecture

Abstract:

Observations of resilience in more complex societies are accompanied by observations of increased tolerance to risk factors. They appear to be correlated. Complexity being the source of resilience, that bolsters the security of societies, appears to produce allowances for more risk factors to accrue. As added complexity results in additional security, the apparent result is lesser concern for risk factors. As risk factors accrue, concerns then return; as multiple inferred consequences equate to higher risk in summation. There appears to be an emergent consequence of complex social systems; where the degree of stable, established complexity is proportional to the tolerance of accruing risk factors. The “Perfect Storm” metaphor refers to the upper limit. This meme from the collective consciousness may be a useful addition to predictive tools in risk management.

Characteristics:

The Observer Effect:

Every member of a complex society is an observer of general conditions. By modern theory, each is expected to influence their observations. With observations of potential risk factors, this should be expected as well. With a distribution of observers, it may be useful to consider what degree of risk would produce a consensus among the distribution that adaptation is warranted.

Evolutionary Theory:

The driver for adaptation is of course risk of extinction; as it is the ultimate defeater to passing on genes. The question for more complex life may be, how is risk assessed? What degree of entropy in the system is likely to be addressed as risk. Since entropy is the bulk of instances in nature and risk is common, where does complex life draw the line and endeavor to adapt with its’ behaviors?

Development:

Complex societies have been developing at a much faster pace than humans have been evolving. It would stand to reason that the risk against development would be loss of established complexity; as development occurs as increases in established complexity, through novel complexity amending normative complexity. Where humans assess sufficient risk to warrant adaptation in this context might be a useful question as well.

Risk Assessment:

Economics vs Finance:

Economics is generally based in stable equilibrium. One of the more common theories utilized is Supply and Demand. Finance however can disrupt both; as it borrows from the future. It has a tendency to create both faux supply and demand. With this, data becomes convoluted; for the purpose of Economics, which paves the way for bubbles in the Business Cycle and the more destructive effects of the Economic Cycle. This can result in severe Depression in individual countries, or in a number of countries, a Global Depression and Reset.

Environmental Impact:

Now that humans are so numerous and influential in the general ecology, there is an expectation that risk factors arise with lack of coordination with it. These risk factors appear to be accruing. From supply and demand issues like over fishing and the losses in agriculture, to climate change and destruction of biodiversity, the risks are accruing to a very serious sum. In remote antiquity, when Economic Collapse resulted in Societal Collapse, the population just moved on to another region to try again. In modern times however, that is no longer an option. We now adapt in place. The fact that environmental influence is now global increases the risk for all life on the planet. We have reached the point at which our failures can be Global Terminal or X.

Closing:

It’s clear that both complexity in economies affects the resilience of an economy, and risk factors accrue in proportion to complexity. The question is whether or not they correlate in that context. It stands to reason that the normative influence would be weighed against the entropy in the system; but the fact that seriousness of the risk factors that accrue in scale needs to be explained as well.

The extinction and existential risk factors are to be expected to be drivers for adaptation in evolutionary theory; however development tends to out pace it… or does it? Could it be that evolutionary change in species is somewhat abrupt with respect to change in that which is normative; and species require time to develop behaviors that implement their potential in a normative way? Humans are unique in our ability to both adapt and develop. The evolution of the Genus Homo appears to be an enormous leap in the evolution of primates; with respect to adaptation potential. We are extremely unique in our ability to use the resources in our environment. We have been demonstrating this unprecedented potential for millions of years. Could it be that this has instilled confidence in our potential that is beginning to crest? Are we just overconfident through having millions of years of “hot hands”?