(This is Part 19 of a series. Go back to Part 18.)
The number and variety of stresses that the universe can present to a society are, for all practical purposes, without limit. All societies over time encounter stresses of various kinds, which can take forms such as external threat or internal unrest, declining agricultural productivity, greater difficulty in obtaining vital commodities and so on.
A society invests in organizational complexity in order to meet the challenge of such stresses. In the nature of things, those organizational solutions that are the easiest, most accessible and least expensive will be tried first.
However as new stresses arise, those solutions that are more difficult, more expensive and more burdensome must be attempted. To administer these more expensive and difficult solutions, the existing hierarchy expands in size, specialization and complexity.
At first a society's investment in greater complexity tends to be very successful, as Rome's was during its expansion phase. Rome obtained new wealth and resources—new energy—from its conquests.
During this period Rome's benefit-to-cost ratio was high; its marginal return on investment was increasing. For a fairly minimal cost it was obtaining spectacular benefits. This was the primary, the immediate effect.
However, the costs Rome incurred continued long after the immediate benefits and increased over time as new stresses arose; this was the secondary effect. Rome had to defend its new borders; recruit, train, deploy and supply new legions; build and repair an extensive network of roads, bridges and canals; quell unrest in the provinces and so on—all at much greater distances.
All this required an increasingly larger, more complex and more expensive organizational structure as time went on and new stresses arose. Rome's marginal return began to decline—its ever-greater investment yielded ever-smaller increments of return.
When a society's marginal return becomes negative the society becomes vulnerable to collapse. A society in this situation finds itself with fewer reserves with which to meet unexpected stresses and adversities.
Given the passage of time, large stresses are inevitable. This being so, sooner or later a society with declining marginal returns will be faced with an adversity that it is not prepared to meet. With little or no reserves, it will have to meet the stress from its current operating budget —an action always damaging to the overall system.
The stress may be successfully met in this way, but at the cost of a further weakening of the society—so that it is even less well-equipped to meet the next large adversity. Thus once a society enters a stage of declining returns its eventual collapse becomes highly probable, either from disintegration or military defeat.
As marginal returns become negative, symptoms of it begin to show: Roads and bridges show signs of disrepair. The energy network becomes less reliable. R&D declines. The educational system suffers. Productive investment declines. Because more and more of society's resources are going into simply maintaining the status quo, fewer are available for economic investment in the future.
Ultimately, collapse becomes a method of adapting to declining returns. As it becomes apparent that local entities can be more efficient and can deliever greater returns at lower cost, regions begin to break away from the overall structure—or begin to welcome invasion, as much of the empire eventually did.
Looked at in this way, disintegration of a society into smaller units is actually a rational economic decision; it's a way to raise marginal returns. Indeed, when barbarians took over Rome and set up various petty kingdoms they were able to beat back invaders (Huns and Arabs) that the empire itself could not—and do so at a lower cost.
(This is the end of Part 19. Go to Part 20.)
—jim sloman, 10.14.04 for Apr 13
|
