Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability

The basic concept of this model was suggested to me by Richard Sanders.

Under this model, the complexity of our lives and the limitations on our freedom arise from constraints imposed by the limitations of sustainability. Where most people imagine that individuals have the most freedom and that society is constrained by this, the model demonstrates how the individual is the most contrained element in the system.

An individual person is constrained by the economy, the society and the ecology (ie the environment). Similarly, the economy is constrained by the society and the ecology. Finally, the society as a whole is constrained by the ecology.

This model captures the increasingly strict limitations on individual freedoms as societies grow and become more complex. In the simplest hunter-gatherer societies,  people have the most freedom and are only constrained by the ecology – by the struggle for life and death. As people group together into extended families, tribes, villages etc, limited career specialisation takes place. The society must impose limitations on individuals in order to function. This is necessary for people to live together in larger, denser groups. Murder for example becomes taboo, and eventually complex laws arise to deal with this. Private ownership and the concept of theft begins to arise. These laws remain today and are generally regarded as moral or ethical bounds. The soceity functions on trust, reputation and social feedback. The society as well as the individual is still constrained by the ecology, by the society places new constraints upon the individual and makes their life more complicated. Individuals are bound not only by the constraints inherent in nature and the need to live sustainably withing the ecology, but are also constrained by the need to sustain the society on which they now depend. Failure to live in a way that sustains both the ecology and the society results in people dying, the collapse of the society, and a return to the simpler lifestyle governed only by ecological constraints.

As societies become larger and denser, more complexity arises. The society can no longer function on trust, reputation and social feedback alone and an economic system must be introduced to handle the fair exchange and distribution of goods. This economic system must function within constraints imposed by both the society and the ecology. That is, it must not undermine them if it is to work. It must be sustainable. It imposes further restrictions on individuals and adds to the complexity of their lives. Eventually more abstract concepts of value (ie money) are invented or imposed on people, to the extent that people work for 'imaginary' wealth. People's basic needs are met by increasingly complex networks of exchange. The actions of individuals must be sustainable from an economic, social and ecological perspective. New laws which restrict people's freedom must be imposed for the good of not only the ecology and the society, but also to support the economy.

I'm glad that somebody else have noticed the joy of globalisation process.
It is also interesting to apply to it the social template of the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which makes it clear where the globalisation will end.

I hate it when people try to apply the laws of thermodynamics to social or biological systems.

Quote:

An individual person is constrained by the economy, the society and the ecology (ie the environment). Similarly, the economy is constrained by the society and the ecology. Finally, the society as a whole is constrained by the ecology.

HAH HA HA!

You are constrained by an elite group of mostly men, who manipulate society corruptly for their own particular gain. They do it so masterfully though, it is poetry in motion. You don't even realise it.

I once spoke with a senior government official about whether they were worried by the unlimited media available through youtube and so on, given there was no possibility of censorship, they could not control the flow of information. He said 'You don't need to control the information when you control what people think about it.' Of course, I thought.

Unless you step outside that box, you will always think what they want you to think. Which suits them, just fine.

Calanen wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 3:59am:

I once spoke with a senior government official about whether they were worried by the unlimited media available through youtube and so on, given there was no possibility of censorship, they could not control the flow of information. He said 'You don't need to control the information when you control what people think about it.' Of course, I thought.

Well that's complete sh!t right there. Your 'senior government official' must live in a very small country town with an average IQ of 60.

Tell that to the Iranian Guardian Council.

Quote:

'You don't need to control the information when you control what people think about it.' Of course, I thought.

You sound jealous, Calanen.
Struggling to get the masses to fall in line with your anti-muslims jihad?

I've got a lot of support, a lot of support. The question is whether I care enough to do anything about it. The answer of 'No' is winning for the moment.

I've got plenty of money, can do what I want, why should I care. People seem to want gang rapes, increased crime ridden ghettos and the march of sharia. Be just like Sweden, Netherlands, Paris, much better places to visit 20 years ago than today. The price of worshipping the Holy Multiculti is that you let anyone into your country, including people who are only here to destroy it. But that is what being open minded is all about, open your mind sufficiently until your brain completely falls out of your head.

So - life is pretty good for me. Putting that aside to help people who apparently do not want to be helped, at least the chattering chardonnay socialists, maybe not. Getting a lot of urging though from people around me. We'll see.

The same people that took to the streets in Cronulla, still have the same views, and a lot more besides.  

Calanen wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 11:36am:

… The same people that took to the streets in Cronulla, still have the same views, and a lot more besides.

Pity that our government is so far up their policy that are unable to see what happens in real life.

It almost looks that any future anti-muslim protest will be their fault.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 9:23am:

I hate it when people try to apply the laws of thermodynamics to social or biological systems.

Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about.

tallowood wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 12:58pm:

Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about.

Pressure cooker, all depends if there is a safety valve and how good is it?

Happy wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 1:48pm:

tallowood wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 12:58pm: Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about. Pressure cooker, all depends if there is a safety valve and how good is it?

It isn't closed system if there is a safety valve that opens outside the system.

tallowood wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 1:55pm:

Happy wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 1:48pm: tallowood wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 12:58pm: Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about. Pressure cooker, all depends if there is a safety valve and how good is it? It isn't closed system if there is a safety valve that opens outside the system.

If pressure gets too big it will be nasty.

Happy wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 1:57pm:

tallowood wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 1:55pm: Happy wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 1:48pm: tallowood wrote on Jun 24th, 2009 at 12:58pm: Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about. Pressure cooker, all depends if there is a safety valve and how good is it? It isn't closed system if there is a safety valve that opens outside the system. If pressure gets too big it will be nasty.

For those inside the cooker?  I think they would be cooked by the time.

Quote:

Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about.

No they don't. They don't even come close. No-one who actually understands thermodynamics would make this claim. But feel free to try anyway - please explain for our benefit how you can analyse this model with the laws of thermodynamics. Feel free to make up the numbers.

freediver wrote on Jun 26^th, 2009 at 10:08pm:

Quote: Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about. No they don't. They don't even come close. No-one who actually understands thermodynamics would make this claim. But feel free to try anyway - please explain for our benefit how you can analyse this model with the laws of thermodynamics. Feel free to make up the numbers.

Yes they do. They assumed that system is closed and therefore supply is constraint. Anyone who actually understands thermodynamics would see the parallel and of course those who  don't understands thermodynamics don't see it.

It reminds me of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Wasn't that based on mathematical models of society?

If you want reasonably complex models of society, they have already been developed for the insurance industry and mass marketing.

Quote:

They assumed that system is closed

That's an odd assumption, especially from a thermodynamic perspective.


Quote:

and therefore supply is constraint

It sounds like you are confusing economics and thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about energy, enthalpy, entropy etc.


Quote:

Anyone who actually understands thermodynamics would see the parallel

Parallel? So you can't actually analyse it with the laws of thermodynamics as you suggested, just draw some parallels? If you can't explain the thermodynamics, perhaps you can explain the parallel? Or is it the sort of paralel you can only see if you really believe it exists?

freediver wrote on Jun 29^th, 2009 at 4:30pm:

Quote: They assumed that system is closed That's an odd assumption, especially from a thermodynamic perspective. [quote]and therefore supply is constraint

It sounds like you are confusing economics and thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about energy, enthalpy, entropy etc.


Quote:

Anyone who actually understands thermodynamics would see the parallel

Parallel? So you can't actually analyse it with the laws of thermodynamics as you suggested, just draw some parallels? If you can't explain the thermodynamics, perhaps you can explain the parallel? Or is it the sort of paralel you can only see if you really believe it exists?[/quote]

I don't analyse it with laws of thermodynamics but you have to know the laws to see the parallel and yes, I realise that you don't see it and I know why.

I know the laws of thermodynamics. I do not see any interesting paralells. Most of the attempts I see to draw parallels are clumsy at best and rest on using the same terminology but applying a completely different meaning to it.

You appear to be backpedalling on your orginal statement and won't elaborate on it other than saying that if I knew then I would know but if I didn't know then I wouldn't know. Can you explain what you meant by this:


Quote:

Hate it or not but the laws of thermodynamics play with the closed system concept and that is what "Top down model of constraint, complexity and sustainability" is about

?