Does efficiency lead us on a path to hell?

silverharp

I was reading a book a book by James Kunstler “The Long Emergency” and he had a couple of paragraphs in a discussion about entropy that making processes more efficient also makes the system more unstable, an example he had is a natural lake that has an ecosystem that if left untouched would last for 1000’s of
years however introduce factory farming in the lake and although you increase the fishing efficiency you also increase the chances that the lake will be cease to exist as an eco system within a generation. Another example is Wall Mart replacing the mom and pop shops in the US, although now more efficient, the inefficiencies in the old system were important in maintaining local employment and the various structures that benefited from the arrangement. I never thought about economic issues in this context before but given that globalisation, the world bank, the WTO and even the EU are dedicated to making things more “efficient” are they continuing a process that will ultimately lead to the downfall of the societies they claim to be helping.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

I was reading a book a book by James Kunstler “The Long Emergency” and he had a couple of paragraphs in a discussion about entropy that making processes more efficient also makes the system more unstable,

What about making systems more efficient?

an example he had is a natural lake that has an ecosystem that if left untouched would last for 1000’s of
years however introduce factory farming in the lake and although you increase the fishing efficiency you also increase the chances that the lake will be cease to exist as an eco system within a generation.

Here's the thing, though. I bet he didn't point out that if you decrease the fishing efficiency you also increase the chances of destroying (or - more correctly - radically altering) the eco-system.

Systems consist of a set of processes. Stable systems exist where the processes have settled into a balance. Modify any process up or down and you impact the system.

I never thought about economic issues in this context before but given that globalisation, the world bank, the WTO and even the EU are dedicated to making things more “efficient” are they continuing a process that will ultimately lead to the downfall of the societies they claim to be helping.

Societies change. They always have and always will. As above, what you refer to as "downfall" is just a major perturbance in the overall system. Here's the thing though...lets say we didn't do it. Lets say we fought radically against any major increase or decrease in "efficiency" - that we adopted the ultra-conservative "never change anything" line.

What would happen?

What would happen is that external pressures that we minimise through adaption would grow in effect, ultimately causing a major perturbance in the system.

Looks like lose-lose, eh?

There is a third option, however. That option is to opt for reasonable, considered change, at a mangeable rate. Accept that the system will change, that we cannot keep it the way it is. Accept that society tomorrow cannot be what society today is, nor will it ever return to the society of yesterday.

Of course, the problem with that is that even if successful, there'll always be enough people to say that they want more, now, and they don't really care about the impact some generations down the road because its not their problem.

silverharp

QUOTE - Systems consist of a set of processes. Stable systems exist where the processes have settled into a balance. Modify any process up or down and you impact the system.>


I guess his point is that very little is in balance. Another example he mentioned was the US prairies, that increasing amounts of fertilizers and ground water are being used to maintain production, meanwhile the soil is being leeched of minerals. There is nothing stable about this type of agriculture. Stability will be reached when the soil is blown away or abandoned by it’s farmers


Quote - There is a third option, however. That option is to opt for reasonable, considered change, at a mangeable rate. Accept that the system will change, that we cannot keep it the way it is. Accept that society tomorrow cannot be what society today is, nor will it ever return to the society of yesterday.
Of course, the problem with that is that even if successful, there'll always be enough people to say that they want more, now, and they don't really care about the impact some generations down the road because its not their problem.>

My take is similar as you have outlined a solution and why it won’t work, is that society is incapable of anticipating major changes, what normally happens is that the problem creeps up until a crises event occurs or it slowly eats away at the society, either way society is left to react to the consequences, one of his examples is the Russian revolution being a reaction to industrialisation in Russia

Lennoxschips

It depends how you define efficiency. The examples you give define efficiency only as maximising short-term profit.

I would say that overfishing is inefficient in the long term.

Equally, mom & pop shops are probably more energy efficient (in terms of food mileage and sustainability) than your average Wall Mart.

silverharp

Lennoxschips wrote:

It depends how you define efficiency. The examples you give define efficiency only as maximising short-term profit.

I would say that overfishing is inefficient in the long term.

Equally, mom & pop shops are probably more energy efficient (in terms of food mileage and sustainability) than your average Wall Mart.

That's it, The way he puts it in term of entropy is that the “Wallmarts” in the US are simplifying an otherwise more complex system thus increasing the Entropy or reducing the economic potential of the US