Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter

What Hacker News said

Strong rec seltzered_ · 2020-05 · on “Demand Nothing Less Than a Visionary Future”

The best way to think about this is the classic Buckminster Fuller quote "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." Spend some time watching Tainter's speech on complexity and collapse: [this video] . Particularly the adult conversations we need to have at the end of the talk. Also try Kate Raworth's explanation of the 'three horizons' framework: [LINK]

Recommends faizshah · 2015-04 · on “Is global collapse imminent? (2014) [pdf]”

This is incorrect, societies have collapsed regularly throughout history. A collapse doesn't have to be a total destruction of the society, it's most often a fast transition to a lower level of social complexity. One of my favorite books (and a book referenced by the link above) is "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph A Tainter, he gives a great study on the nature of collapse with lots of examples (note, some of the examples are a little dated and dubious like the Ik). He also gave a few presentations on this: [this video]

Recommends jontas · 2016-12 · on “Are ideas getting harder to find? [pdf]”

This video [1] has a great explanation and exploration of why innovation seems to be slowing down. He uses data coming from the patent system over a period of 100 years. The video touches on much of what is in this study and does a great job of explaining it. [1] [this video]

Recommends monday_ · 2017-11 · on “Theories of civilisational ‘collapse’ grow less convincing when scrutinised”

The author's position seems to be that the very notion of civilizational collapse is flawed because people often come up with reductionist, poorly supported ways of explaining it. The unspoken implication here is that whoever brings up a threat of collapse in a political argument hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. Stephen Bannon referencing Gibbons work comes to mind, and, come think of it, that's probably what prompted the author to write this piece. Denying a historical phenomenon for political gain is as bad as selectively citing a two century old book to justify xenophobia. It is revealing that the author mentions Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies", and then dismisses it's

Recommends myshpa · 2023-07 · on “How, Mathematically, We’re Fucked: Exponential growth on a finite planet”

> Burn it all down and start over We won't be the ones doing that. > We're going to have to figure this sustainability thing out though It may be already late. I wish it wasn't so. I think we could have chance at repairing it ... if only we would do what's necessary. But we're not doing what's necessary, we never started even discussing it, and I'm starting to doubt that we'll ever do. We're talking only about climate change, but that's only one of the symptoms of the overshoot. Even people @ hacker news mostly don't have a clue. > we can't just ignore the problems We've been ignoring them for 50-70 years. The limits to growth / club of Rome was in 1972? So far ... we did nothing but ignored

Cites Litost · 2015-12 · on “99% of Costa Rica's electricity came from renewable energy in 2015”

Much as i don't want to cause any further depression in an already quite depressing thread, but if you follow Joseph Tainters work on The Collapse of Complex Societies. [this video] a) Complexity has killed off pretty much every major society prior to ours. b) People's innate desire to problem solve increases complexity. c) Cheap energy has enabled this process. So there's an argument, an unlimited source of free energy would actually be a major problem because 1) It would enable more complexity, which is already pretty unmanagable. 2) You've still the problem of out of control resource usage.

Cites MichaelMoser123 · 2016-01 · on “The Refragmentation”

>Not everyone who gets rich now does it by creating wealth, certainly. But a significant number do, and the Baumol Effect means all their peers get dragged along too. [23] And as long as it's possible to get rich by creating wealth, the default tendency will be for economic inequality to increase My question is: significantly more wealth seems to be generated by big corporations by means of financial 'instruments' rather than by value creation; is that correct? Also this lecture [1] says that scientific and technological breatkhroughs are much harder to achieve these days - because all the shallow fruit is already taken and it costs more to digg deep. Now doesn't that make value creation har

Cites mythrwy · 2017-03 · on “David Rockefeller has died”

Except local elites have less real power. Corruption or "real motives" of a global elite aside, I look at it as the difference between monolithic code bases and well designed separation of concerns. One is less prone to catastrophic failure and easier to repair when failure does occur. Joseph Tainter I think hits the troubles with centralization right on the head. [this video]