Complexity and Sustainability: Joseph Tainter

This paper, quoted in its entirety, deserves a much larger audience. Too bad Chaos has been so lax lately, that readers have probably fled! Oh well...anyhow, here is the eminent authority of collapse, on sustainability:

Human Resource Use: Timing and Implications for Sustainability
Joseph A. Tainter
Department of Environment and Society, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322, U.S.A.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Few questions of history have been more enduring than how today’s complex societies evolved from the foraging bands of our ancestors. While this might seem of academic interest, it has important implications for anticipating our future. Our understanding of sustainability depends to a surprising degree on our understanding of the human past. My purposes today are to show that the conventional understandings of cultural evolution are untenable, as are assumptions about sustainability that follow from them, and to present a different approach to assessing our future.

Cultural complexity is deeply embedded in our contemporary self image. Colloquially it is known by the more common term “civilization,” which we believe our ancestors achieved through the phenomenon called “progress.” The concepts of civilization and progress have a status in the cosmology of industrial societies that amounts to what anthropologists call “ancestor myths.” Ancestor myths validate a contemporary social order by presenting it as a natural and sometimes heroic progression from earlier times.

Social scientists label this a “progressivist” view. It supposes that cultural complexity is intentional, that it emerged through the inventiveness of our ancestors. Progressivism is the dominant ideology of free-market societies. But inventiveness is not a sufficient explanation for cultural complexity, which requires facilitating circumstances. What were those circumstances? Prehistorians once thought they had the answer: The discovery of agriculture gave our ancestors surplus food and, concomitantly, free time to invent urbanism and the things that comprise “civilization”–cities, artisans, priesthoods, kings, aristocracies, and all of the other features of early states.

The progressivist view posits a specific relationship between resources and complexity. It is that complexity develops because it can, and that the factor facilitating this is surplus energy. Energy precedes complexity and allows it to emerge. There are, however, significant reasons to doubt whether surplus energy has actually driven much of cultural evolution.

One strand of thought that challenges progressivism emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries in the works of Wallace (1761), Malthus (1798), and Jevons. The economist Kenneth Boulding derived from Malthus’s essay on population three theorems: the Dismal Theorem, the Utterly Dismal Theorem, and the moderately cheerful form of the Dismal Theorem. The Utterly Dismal Theorem directly challenges the progressivist view:

Any technical improvement can only relieve misery for a while, for as long as misery is the only check on population, the improvement will enable population to grow, and will soon enable more people to live in misery than before. The final result of improvements, therefore, is to increase the equilibrium population, which is to increase the sum total of human misery (Boulding, 1959: vii [emphases in original]).

The implication of this strain of thought is that humans have rarely had surplus energy. Surpluses are quickly dissipated by growth in consumption. Since humans have rarely had surpluses, the availability of energy cannot be the primary driver of cultural evolution.

Beyond a Malthusian view, there is another factor that undermines progressivism. It is that complexity costs. In any living system, increased complexity (involving differentiation in structure and increasing organization) carries a metabolic cost. In non-human species this is a straightforward matter of additional calories. Among humans the cost is calculated in such currencies as resources, effort, time, or money, or by more subtle matters such as annoyance. While humans find complexity appealing in spheres such as art, music, or architecture, we usually prefer that someone else pay the cost. We are averse to complexity when it unalterably increases the cost of daily life without a clear benefit to the individual or household. Before the development of fossil fuels, increasing the complexity and costliness of a society meant that people worked harder.

The development of complexity is thus a paradox of human history. Over the past 12,000 years, we have developed technologies, economies, and social institutions that cost more labor, time, money, energy, and annoyance, and that go against our aversion to such costs. Why, then, did human societies ever become more complex?

At least part of the answer is that complexity is a basic problem-solving tool. Confronted with problems, we often respond by developing more complex technologies, establishing new institutions, adding more specialists or bureaucratic levels to an institution, increasing organization or regulation, or gathering and processing more information. While we usually prefer not to bear the cost of complexity, our problem-solving efforts are powerful complexity generators. All that is needed for growth of complexity is a problem that requires it. Since problems continually arise, there is persistent pressure for complexity to increase.

Cultural complexity can be viewed as an economic function. Societies and institutions invest in problem solving, undertaking costs and expecting benefits in return. In problem-solving systems, inexpensive solutions are adopted before more complex and expensive ones. In the history of human food-gathering and production, for example, labor-sparing hunting and gathering gave way to more labor-intensive agriculture, which in some places has been replaced by industrial agriculture that consumes more energy than it produces. We produce minerals and energy whenever possible from the most economical sources. Our societies have changed from egalitarian relations, economic reciprocity, ad hoc leadership, and generalized roles to social and economic differentiation, specialization, inequality, and full-time leadership. These characteristics are the essence of complexity, and they increase the costliness of any society.

In the progressivist view, surplus energy precedes and facilitates the evolution of complexity. Certainly this is sometimes true: There have been occasions when humans adopted energy sources of such great potential that, with further development and positive feedback, there followed great expansions in the numbers of humans and the wealth and complexity of societies. These occasions have, however, been so rare that we designate them with terms signifying a new era: the Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. It is worth noting that these unusual transitions have not resulted from unbridled human creativity. Rather, they emerged from solutions to problems of resource shortages, and were adopted reluctantly because initially they created diminishing returns on effort in peoples’ daily lives.

Most of the time, cultural complexity increases from day-to-day efforts to solve problems. Complexity that emerges in this way will usually appear before there is additional energy to support it. Rather than following the availability of energy, cultural complexity often precedes it. Complexity thus compels increases in resource production. This understanding of the temporal relationship between complexity and resources has implications for sustainability that diverge from what is commonly assumed. I will explore these implications shortly. It is useful first to present a historical case study, the Western Roman Empire, that illustrates these points.

The Roman Empire collapsed in the mid 5th century A.D., but its last 200 years of existence had been a reprieve. It had been nearly destroyed in the 3rd century. In the half-century from 235-284 the empire was repeatedly breached by invasions of Germanic peoples from the north and the Persians from the east. When these invaders were not being repelled, Roman armies were fighting each other in the service of would-be emperors. Many cities were sacked and productive lands devastated. For a time, rival empires broke away in the east and the west. It seemed that the Roman Empire would not survive much longer.

The Roman government had a clear sustainability goal: the survival of the empire. In response to the crises, the emperors Diocletian and Constantine, in the late third and early fourth centuries, designed a government that was larger, more complex, and more highly organized. They doubled the size of the army. This was very costly. To pay for this sustainability effort, the government taxed its citizens more heavily, conscripted their labor, and dictated their occupations.

With the rise in taxes, population could not recover from plagues in the second and third centuries. There were chronic shortages of labor. Marginal lands went out of cultivation. Faced with taxes, peasants would abandon their lands and flee to the protection of a wealthy landowner. The Roman Empire survived the 3rd century crisis and achieved two centuries of sustainability, but at the long-term cost of consuming its capital resources: producing lands and peasant population. When crises emerged again in the late 4th century, the empire lacked the resources to respond adequately and in time collapsed.

The Roman Empire is a single case study in complexity and problem solving, but it is an important and representative one. It illustrates the basic process by which societies increase in complexity. Societies adopt increasing complexity to solve problems, becoming at the same time more costly. In the normal course of economic evolution, this process at some point will produce diminishing returns. Once diminishing returns set in, a problem-solving institution must either find new resources to continue the activity, or fund the activity by reducing the share of resources available to other economic sectors. The latter is likely to produce economic contraction, popular discontent, and eventual collapse. This was the fate of the Western Roman Empire.

This understanding of complexity and resources has implications for understanding sustainability. Both popular and academic discourse commonly assume that (a) future sustainability requires that industrial societies consume a lower quantity of resources than is now the case, and (b) sustainability will result automatically if we do so. Sustainability emerges, in this view, as a passive consequence of consuming less. Thus sustainability efforts are commonly focused on reducing consumption through voluntary or enforced conservation, perhaps involving simplification, and/or through improvements in technical efficiencies.

The common perspective on sustainability follows logically from the progressivist view that resources precede and facilitate innovations that increase complexity. Complexity, in this view, is voluntary. Human societies become more complex by choice. By this reasoning, we should be able to forego complexity and the resource consumption that it entails. Progressivism leads to the notion that societies can deliberately reduce their use of resources and thereby achieve sustainability.

The fact that complexity and costliness increase through mundane problem solving suggests a different and startling conclusion: Contrary to what is typically advocated as the route to sustainability, it is usually not possible for a society to reduce its consumption of resources voluntarily over the long term. To the contrary, as problems great and small inevitably arise, addressing these problems requires complexity and resource consumption to increase. As illustrated by the Roman Empire and other cases, this has commonly been the case.

Many advocates of sustainability will find it disturbing that long-term conservation is not possible. Naturally we must ask: Are there alternatives to this process? Regrettably, no simple solutions are evident. Consider some of the approaches commonly advocated:

1. Voluntarily Reduce Resource Consumption. While this may work for a time, its longevity as a strategy is constrained by the fact that societies increase in complexity to solve problems. Resource production must grow to fund the increased complexity. To implement voluntary conservation long term would require that a society be either uniquely lucky in not being challenged by problems, or that it not address the problems that confront it.

2. Employ the Price Mechanism to Control Resource Consumption. This is currently the laissez-faire strategy of industrialized nations. Since humans don’t commonly forego affordable consumption of desired goods and services, economists consider it more effective than voluntary conservation. Both approaches, however, lead eventually to the same outcome: As problems arise, resource consumption must increase at the societal level even if consumers as individuals purchase less.

3. Ration Resources. Because of its unpopularity, rationing is possible in democracies only for clear, short-term emergencies. This is illustrated by the reactions to rationing in England and the United States during World War II. Moreover, rationed resources may become needed to solve societal problems, belying any attempt to conserve through rationing. Something like this can be seen in the fiscal stimulus programs enacted recently.

4. Reduce Population. While this would reduce aggregate resource consumption temporarily, as a long-term strategy it has the same fatal flaw: Problems will emerge that require solutions, and those solutions will compel resource production to grow.

5. Hope for Technological Solutions. I sometimes call this a faith-based approach to our future. Members of industrialized societies are socialized to believe that we can always find a technological solution to resource problems. Technology, within the framework of this belief, will presumably allow us continually to reduce our resource consumption per unit of material well-being. Conventional economics teaches that to bring this about we need only the price mechanism and unfettered markets. The flaw here was pointed out by William Stanley Jevons: As technological improvements reduce the cost of using a resource, total consumption will actually increase.

In conclusion, sustainability is not the achievement of stasis. It is not a passive consequence of having fewer humans who consume more limited resources. One must work at being sustainable. The challenges that any society (or other institution) might confront are, for practical purposes, endless in number and infinite in variety. This being so, sustainability is a matter of solving problems.

In the conventional view, complexity follows energy. If so, then we should be able to forego complexity voluntarily and reduce our consumption of the resources that it requires. This approach to sustainability implicitly sees the future as a condition of stasis with no challenges.

In actuality, major infusions of surplus energy are rare in human history. More commonly, complexity increases in response to problems. Complexity emerging through problem solving typically precedes the availability of energy, and compels increases in its production. Complexity is not something that we can ordinarily choose to forego.

Applying this understanding leads to two conclusions. The first is that the solutions commonly recommended to promote sustainability–conservation, simplification, pricing, and innovation–can do so only in the short term. Secondly, long-term sustainability depends on solving major societal problems that will converge in coming decades, and this will require increasing complexity and energy production. Sustainability is not a condition of stasis. It is, rather, a process of continuous adaptation, of perpetually addressing new or ongoing problems and securing the resources to do so.

It is useful to think of sustainability in the metaphor of an athletic game: It is possible to “lose”–that is, to become unsustainable, as happened to the Western Roman Empire. But the converse does not hold. Because we continually confront challenges, there is no point at which a society has “won”–become sustainable in perpetuity, or at least for a very long time. Success, rather, consists of staying in the game.

An Answer To Technocopians

Of all those living in denial, there are few who Chaos finds so completely annoying as the Kurzweil technocopians, those who have an unshakable faith that technology will enable humanity to transcend laws of nature, physics, and arithmetic. The smug ignorance of these beings simply defies rational and logical thought, simply because they are true believers in a different kind of religious cult. To debunk this ridiculous system, here's a nice rebuttal, albeit written a few years back. Funny stuff, and true, as well.

Collapse Update: Dmitry Orlov

Our friend, mentioned often here, has a new book on the verge of publication, entitled Reinventing Collapse. A brief excerpt reveals just why our friend is so sought after as a speaker: his wry wit and invaluable insights on the subject of the Empire's imminent collapse are without peer (ok, Kunstler is a close competitor...). Since the book is not yet available, the author has kindly published an excerpt online here. For your enjoyment, and enlightenment....

More Vital Than Gasoline

The most very excellent and perceptive Tom Whipple of the Falls Church News-Press has a very nice roundup of the state of electricity around the world (or more properly, the lack of electricity). A preview of coming attractions, in Chaos' view, although it is pretty much widely acknowledged that the poorer nations and people of the planet will do the suffering first.

The Empire Declines

Here's a special issue of the Edge, dedicated to the declining US. First, a somewhat long and thoughtful article on the new world order (sorry), you know, the one that arose while the US was busy "projecting" American power by starting up and continuing wars throughout the globe, ignoring vital needs at home, becoming the most despised evil empire abroad, and just generally doing what empires do before they collapse. Kindly ignore the "prescriptions" at the end; they will not be undertaken in any event. Up next is the oft-cited Chalmers Johnson, author of the Blowback trilogy, and general chronicler of US military overreach, on how the vast sums spent on the US military will be the downfall of the Empire (and who could doubt it, really?). Do not fail to click on the embedded video interview link within the post; the man makes for a fascinating subject.

What's Wrong With Airport Security?

To preserve this for posterity (since it comes from a NYTimes blog, and also because it's just plain excellent) Chaos will quote it in its entirety...note the accurate references to the somnolent public:

"Six years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, airport security remains a theater of the absurd. The changes put in place following the September 11th catastrophe have been drastic, and largely of two kinds: those practical and effective, and those irrational, wasteful and pointless.

The first variety have taken place almost entirely behind the scenes. Explosives scanning for checked luggage, for instance, was long overdue and is perhaps the most welcome addition. Unfortunately, at concourse checkpoints all across America, the madness of passenger screening continues in plain view. It began with pat-downs and the senseless confiscation of pointy objects. Then came the mandatory shoe removal, followed in the summer of 2006 by the prohibition of liquids and gels. We can only imagine what is next.

To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings.

In years past, a takeover meant hostage negotiations and standoffs; crews were trained in the concept of “passive resistance.” All of that changed forever the instant American Airlines Flight 11 collided with the north tower. What weapons the 19 men possessed mattered little; the success of their plan relied fundamentally on the element of surprise. And in this respect, their scheme was all but guaranteed not to fail.

For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers.

No matter that a deadly sharp can be fashioned from virtually anything found on a plane, be it a broken wine bottle or a snapped-off length of plastic, we are content wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and untold hours of labor in a delusional attempt to thwart an attack that has already happened, asked to queue for absurd lengths of time, subject to embarrassing pat-downs and loss of our belongings.

The folly is much the same with respect to the liquids and gels restrictions, introduced two summers ago following the breakup of a London-based cabal that was planning to blow up jetliners using liquid explosives. Allegations surrounding the conspiracy were revealed to substantially embellished. In an August, 2006 article in the New York Times, British officials admitted that public statements made following the arrests were overcooked, inaccurate and “unfortunate.” The plot’s leaders were still in the process of recruiting and radicalizing would-be bombers. They lacked passports, airline tickets and, most critical of all, they had been unsuccessful in actually producing liquid explosives. Investigators later described the widely parroted report that up to ten U.S airliners had been targeted as “speculative” and “exaggerated.”

Among first to express serious skepticism about the bombers’ readiness was Thomas C. Greene, whose essay in The Register explored the extreme difficulty of mixing and deploying the types of binary explosives purportedly to be used. Green conferred with Professor Jimmie C. Oxley, an explosives specialist who has closely studied the type of deadly cocktail coveted by the London plotters.

“The notion that deadly explosives can be cooked up in an airplane lavatory is pure fiction,” Greene told me during an interview. “A handy gimmick for action movies and shows like ‘24.’ The reality proves disappointing: it’s rather awkward to do chemistry in an airplane toilet. Nevertheless, our official protectors and deciders respond to such notions instinctively, because they’re familiar to us: we’ve all seen scenarios on television and in the cinema. This, incredibly, is why you can no longer carry a bottle of water onto a plane.”

The threat of liquid explosives does exist, but it cannot be readily brewed from the kinds of liquids we have devoted most of our resources to keeping away from planes. Certain benign liquids, when combined under highly specific conditions, are indeed dangerous. However, creating those conditions poses enormous challenges for a saboteur.

“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”

Yet that’s exactly what we’ve been doing. The three-ounce container rule is silly enough — after all, what’s to stop somebody from carrying several small bottles each full of the same substance — but consider for a moment the hypocrisy of T.S.A.’s confiscation policy. At every concourse checkpoint you’ll see a bin or barrel brimming with contraband containers taken from passengers for having exceeded the volume limit. Now, the assumption has to be that the materials in those containers are potentially hazardous. If not, why were they seized in the first place? But if so, why are they dumped unceremoniously into the trash? They are not quarantined or handed over to the bomb squad; they are simply thrown away. The agency seems to be saying that it knows these things are harmless. But it’s going to steal them anyway, and either you accept it or you don’t fly.

But of all the contradictions and self-defeating measures T.S.A. has come up with, possibly none is more blatantly ludicrous than the policy decreeing that pilots and flight attendants undergo the same x-ray and metal detector screening as passengers. What makes it ludicrous is that tens of thousands of other airport workers, from baggage loaders and fuelers to cabin cleaners and maintenance personnel, are subject only to occasional random screenings when they come to work.

These are individuals with full access to aircraft, inside and out. Some are airline employees, though a high percentage are contract staff belonging to outside companies. The fact that crew members, many of whom are former military fliers, and all of whom endured rigorous background checks prior to being hired, are required to take out their laptops and surrender their hobby knives, while a caterer or cabin cleaner sidesteps the entire process and walks onto a plane unimpeded, nullifies almost everything our T.S.A. minders have said and done since September 11th, 2001. If there is a more ringing let-me-get-this-straight scenario anywhere in the realm of airport security, I’d like to hear it.

I’m not suggesting that the rules be tightened for non-crew members so much as relaxed for all accredited workers. Which perhaps urges us to reconsider the entire purpose of airport security:

The truth is, regardless of how many pointy tools and shampoo bottles we confiscate, there shall remain an unlimited number of ways to smuggle dangerous items onto a plane. The precise shape, form and substance of those items is irrelevant. We are not fighting materials, we are fighting the imagination and cleverness of the would-be saboteur.

Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late.

In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say.

The airlines, for their part, are in something of a bind. The willingness of our carriers to allow flying to become an increasingly unpleasant experience suggests a business sense of masochistic capitulation. On the other hand, imagine the outrage among security zealots should airlines be caught lobbying for what is perceived to be a dangerous abrogation of security and responsibility — even if it’s not. Carriers caught plenty of flack, almost all of it unfair, in the aftermath of September 11th. Understandably, they no longer want that liability.

As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation.

How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve."

This piece comes from an airline pilot, who obviously has an outstanding grasp of the issues. Think that airport security will change anytime soon? Doubtful...

The Increasing Power of Diminishing Marginal Returns

Chaos likes this post quite a bit: Sharon Astyck of the Energy Bulletin explains why we (the collective "we") don't have the resources (or "money," to be reductionist) to accomplish the tasks we need to in order to address the converging catastrophes that loom in front of us. Anyone who's read Tainter will immediately get it, but the rest of the somnolent public will continue to be clueless. However, a look around will provide ample evidence of the principle of diminishing marginal returns on complexity: freeway building, for one; healthcare, for another. Any others that spring to mind?

An "Action" Post: Carolyn Baker, The Spirituality of Collapse

For those who have read the relevant literature (and videos, see Chaos' bibliography...), and have that all-too-common response: "what can we do," here is an article which will address that, perhaps in spades. Beware: Carolyn Baker is a fast-crash doomer who fully embraces the concept of imminent collapse and is articulate enough to be dangerous, in the manner of a Derrick Jensen, let's say. In other words, be careful what you wish for...relevant quote:

"The first thing I'm not going to tell you is that collapse can be avoided or that human ingenuity and technology will come up with something to spare us from it. I'm not going to tell you that there will be some mass movement-some magic http://www.collapse.org/ that will organize progressives into a groundswell of protest, writing letters to Congress, creating blogs and websites, supporting the "right" candidate, and asking for donations. No, what I'm going to tell you is that as a nation and as a planet, we are screwed, fucked, and shit out of luck, or if you prefer Spanish, estamos jodidos."

Read the rest at your peril, or perhaps, enlightenment.

The Upside of Down Online!!

You can now read (you can read, can't you?) the entire book, The Upside of Down, the brilliant and insightful Thomas Homer-Dixon, who has quite obviously studied other authors mentioned in Chaos' bibliography (in fact, that's a fun exercise...to figure out which ones), and more than any recent author, is skilled in presenting the issue of why our civilization, which depends mightily on huge flows of energy, is at risk for catastrophic failure. A long and extremely important read.
(Update) The link has now been removed, for unknown reasons (copyright, perhaps? giving away books is not a good business model), but not before Chaos had a chance to finish it. The work is outstanding, so much so that Chaos will buy it anyway and lend it out to local readers. The usual entry into this field of study is technical and difficult to peruse, but Homer-Dixon's work is imminently readable for non-experts. Chaos cannot recommend this book enough.

Collapse Scenarios Revisited, Defined

Chaos has mentioned Dmitry Orlov several times in the past, and in truth there is not very much that is completely new in this latest presentation of the US v. the Soviet Union; nevertheless, it is still a highly entertaining presentation (with slides and bullet points), which gives one an interesting perspective of someone outside the vast US media bubble. Pursuing the theme a bit more is this summary of approaches to collapse in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia; an entertaining page for those who are interested in the concept. Finally, here is a fascinating piece on the spirituality of collapse which incorporates some Buddhist and Jungian principles in assessing the likely effects of such an event.

The Definitive Edge Bibliography

Recently it occurred to Chaos that, what with new readers appearing every now and then, it might be useful to spotlight a "reading list" for those unfamiliar with the underpinnings of the tacky comments put forth on the site. (Veteran visitors might want to pick up and read a few of these, too; Chaos can summarize all day long but the value lies in actually reading the work itself). Here, then, is the seminal list:

Arithmetic, Population and Energy: Video Presentation by Dr. Albert Bartlett
Note by Chaos: this is the most important piece of any on this site. If you do nothing else, watch this video in its entirety.

Peak Oil (technical):
Twilight in the Desert, Matthew Simmons
Beyond Oil: The View From Hubbert's Peak, Kenneth Deffeyes
The Oil Drum(Website)

Peak Oil (sociological):
The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler
Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, Richard Heinberg

Collapse:
Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond
The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph Tainter
Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Evolutionary Change, William Catton
How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse, John Michael Greer (web essay)
Energy and Human Evolution, David Price (web essay)

Ecological Destruction:
When the Rivers Run Dry, Fred Pearce
Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble,
Lester R. Brown (also available as a free download--search)
Beyond the Limits, Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jorgen Randers
A Language Older Than Words, Derrick Jensen

American Character/Empire:
Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire, Morris Berman
American Theocracy, Kevin Phillips
Empire of Debt: The Rise of an Epic Financial Crisis, William Bonner, Addison Wiggin
The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson
(Kunstler has quite a bit to say on this subject; Joe Bageant is also brilliant and insightful)

Religious Delusions/Atheism:
The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins
Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris

Well that is quite a reading list; perhaps Chaos should teach a class or something. Synthesizing these is what has been taking up Chaos' time recently, to culminate in quite a long upcoming post (soon now). Happy reading, readers (and Chaos uses that in the most complimentary sense).

The State of the Nation: Healthcare

Chaos had occasion on the night of the winter solstice (last night, for the rest of you) to speak privately with a Congressional staffer of the soon-to-be-ruling Democratic party concerning the topic of healthcare. More specifically, Chaos was curious of this person's views on how likely a major change was in this area. And the answer was....not very. This person admitted what Chaos has long suspected: that powerful forces which derive great profits from the present system make political change highly unlikely. In absence of any such change (and there is no reason to surmise otherwise), Chaos must assume that the system will continue to devolve, leaving more devastation in its wake. Healthcare is one of several converging crises likely to engulf the Empire in the coming years, and as such, is worthy of interest here at the Edge. Oh, and a happy winter solstice to faithful readers...

(Update:) Chaos just noticed this article in one of the nation's premier (maybe not for long, but still...) newspapers on the growing trend of insurers denying healthcare policies for persons who have such risky conditions as jock itch, swelling from a spider bite, seeing a psychologist for a few months after a breakup, breast implants, sleep apnea, ear infections, and varicose veins. Predictably, the results are people deliberately not seeking treatment, remaining at or seeking employment based solely on health insurance availability, and witholding information from doctors. Look not to the future, for it is here, and a bad thing it is too.

One Final Holiday Message: Nawida at 2150

Continuing on in the series of utterly frightening glimpses of the future, our favorite archdruid, John Michael Greer, dramatizes the long slow catabolic collapse with a look at 2150, in which Antarctica has melted completely, flooding most the southeast US. The continuation of loss of knowledge and the reversion to more primitive ways make this post (and the accompanying interview of the primary character) essential reading for students of the subject. Use this, perhaps, to reflect on the fleeting nature of time and how fortunate you are to be able to concern yourself with celebrities, sports teams, and how much cheap goods you acquired yesterday and today.

Winter Solstice: 2100 A.D.: The Catabolic Collapse

A continuation of the previous posts of Christmas 2050 referred to here a couple of weeks ago, collapse blogger Greer of the Archdruid Report brings us up to date 50 years later. As you might expect, things have not gotten better, and much knowledge available earlier has been lost. If reading these tiny projections into the future engenders some discomfort, Chaos suggests you examine where the feelings might be coming from. If the topic disturbs, consider that a sign that you might pursue the subjects a bit further, or you could just return the head to its previous position in the sand. BTW, here is the interview with the character in 2100.