Seeing the bottleneck as a selection mechanism for sapience

[GliderGuider]

I am in awe of George Mobus. I've always felt that the bottleneck our species is about to go through is an evolutionary selection event. I just couldn't figure out what the salient fitness trait was, and how the selection would work. This blog-post cast a new and very clear light on that topic.

How Will People React to a Collapsing Civilization?

It isn't until we examine the nature of a uniquely human mental capability that we see a hint of a more transcendent approach to escaping the dictates of the biological mandates (one and two). Humans evolved a mental capability that, while biological in origin, goes far beyond the ordinary dictates of biology. It expands the spatial and temporal scales of ordinary survival of the individual to include many others over much longer scales of time. That competency is sapience. It is what defines us as biological creatures with a difference.

We humans appear to be the first creatures on Earth to exhibit this new capability. And as evolution tends to be a process of incremental progress, our capabilities in this new dimension are merely emergent and not very well developed. We are a first, hesitant step into a new framework of evolution. We represent evolution becoming aware of itself, but only haltingly. Much more must surely be possible.

Evolution, however, proceeds when taxa are exposed to conditions for which they are, on average, poorly adapted. In this special case, there needs to be an environmental shift in conditions that would tend to favor (select for) higher sapience. I have considered the impending population bottleneck for which our own cleverness has set the stage as the principal event that will lead to such conditions. Of course we can't know for certain that this will be the case, but some evidence seems to point in the direction that it could be so. This includes the very fact that we can engage in a discourse about the subject and that we mere low sapients have discovered the fundamental mechanisms of inheritance that might make it possible to be active participants in nudging evolution along these lines. For me, this is my form of hope. Seeing no way to alter the trajectory that we humans have set ourselves on, I can only hope that the whole scenario precedes the unfolding of a new (and value-laden ‘better’) level of emergence.

In truth, I think the sense of something being fundamentally different has already started building in the general population. Not many can articulate what the problem is, let alone what might be the cause. Talking heads are still pointing fingers at whatever scapegoat their ideology calls for. Liberal-minded ideologues blame bankers and greedy CEOs and the growing disparity in incomes as THE cause of all the problems. Conservative-minded ones point to big government, too many regulations fettering free enterprise, and too much tax as THE cause. They are all convinced that they know what is wrong but the only thing they are both right about is that something IS wrong. Beyond that they haven't a clue.

[Demeter]

1. How will people react to a collapsing civilization? As ever, very badly

Those on the outskirts will survive (assuming no ecological collapse coincides with the economic and social collapses, like irradiation of the air, water and ground, or nuclear war, or even exploding chemical factories). They will most likely not be the best examples of humanity. They will only be the best placed for survival at the time of crisis. It will not be a planned, life-boat of survivors (unless there's a deeply underground organization we haven't heard of planning such an effort).

Little bits of technology will be hoarded, as they will be more precious than gold, for a generation or two, unless the anti-science crowd prevails, in which case a true darkness will descend upon the survivors, and possession of technology will be a sin against humanity...

If you want evolution of the species, you want a social Darwinian evolution, a better people arising from conscious selection not to do the expedient or the momentarily "winning" thing, but the right thing.

Aside from a rigorous program of moral eugenics, it ain't gonna happen naturally. We aren't that smart a sapient species.

[GliderGuider]

2. One alternative possibility

Perhaps those who exhibit advanced sapience (those who are far-sighted, altruistic and wise) in the face of increasing chaos and risk will be a little more likely to survive than the less-sapient. This could happen because they are more likely to form relationships from unilateral, unearned trust, that will elicit trust responses in return.

The species doesn't need much of a differential in order to begin evolving in the direction of higher sapience overall. A 1% higher survival rate among the more sapient would do it.

I can see a great survival value in sapience, even for the individual. In the long run, which will you be better off having - bullets or friends?

Planning doesn't even enter the picture. There simply is no way to plan for an event that could end up carrying off 90% of the population.

From this point of view, limiting our population growth right now could even be construed as a bad idea, since it would reduce the pool of selection candidates that might carry the fitness trait. Of course that comes with severe tradeoffs, but frankly, we've already made those tradeoffs. The damage is already done, and what remains is to see what the "reward" will be for the species.

Yes, the majority will react poorly ("react" being the operative word). Individuals may care about the result of that, but all the species cares about is that the less-fit members are pruned more heavily than those who are more fit.

[Demeter]

3. Only a man has the luxury of foresaking bullets for friends in a crisis

a woman needs protection for herself and her children and loved ones. And given the kind of "friends" I have known and been betrayed by, I don't expect things to get better under stress.

[GliderGuider]

4. I didn't say to forsake bullets. If you need 'em, use 'em.

I just meant that for most people in most places being part of a long-term community of friends will be a better assurance of survival than being able to kill a few people. After all, if somebody needs killing, one of your friends is also likely to have a gun, right? Or a good sharp schmuck-gutting knife, or something equally as deterrent.

No man or woman is an island...

[Nihil]

7. That's a hopeful possibility ...

> Perhaps those who exhibit advanced sapience (those who are far-sighted,
> altruistic and wise) in the face of increasing chaos and risk will be a little
> more likely to survive than the less-sapient.
> ...
> A 1% higher survival rate among the more sapient would do it.

I'm not optimistic that such a slight increase in survival rate will outweigh
the severely negative pressure from the sheer numbers of less sapient
(more numerous, more aggressive and more easily led).

Still, hope is good!

[GliderGuider]

8. A lot depends on what time frame you're willing to consider.

I understand that most people are focused on their own lifetimes and that of their children. Evolution is an idea rooted in deep time, especially if what we're talking about is a gradual change in physical human brain structure.

In George Mobus' considered opinion, what is being selected for in this event is an expansion of Brodmann Area 10, which has been speculated to be the seat of sapience. So we may be talking about 10 to 20 thousand years before that comes to full fruition. While people may not care much about what happens over that long a period of time, it may help some if they can see the coming difficulties in a deeper context.

The fact that we're in the process of fundamentally altering the Earth's environment means that the evolutionary selection pressures are going to be maintained for at least that long. As long as 50,000 of us survive the process (in suitable reproduction clusters of course) a 1% difference in intial survival rates due to sapience could be enough to seed the emergence of a new, wiser species.

[happyslug]

5. We have had such a "Bottleneck" it is called the fall of the Roman Empire.

Rome was a sophisticated society, with extensive Empire wide trade. Most Empire last 100-150 years, then collapse. We are seeing this in Saudi Arabia today. King Saud I, created Saudi Arabia by uniting the various tribes of Arabia together into one "Empire" with King Saud as their leader (I will refer to King Saud as the First generation). At his death, his sons took over (I will call them the Second Generation). Siblings (Sisters are also a factor) tend to work together for they grew up together. They do NOT want to kill each other, even when they hate what is happening to the "Empire" they have inherited. "Empires" tend to fall when the last member of the Second Generation die and the third generation (The grandchildren of the original founder) take over. The problem with the Third Generation is they tend to NOT view each other as siblings (as their parents had been) but as groups within the ruling circle that fight each other for their sub-groups advantage.

In Saudi Arabia we are starting to see this process at work. In Russia Stalin had killed off the Revolutionaries that had been the key to the Communist take over in 1917, during Stalin's purges of the 1930s. Thus the Soviet Union "First Generation" was Stalin. With Stalin death in 1953 the Second Generation took over. This time it was NOT a blood relation but that they had worked under Stalin and been promoted to high places by Stalin. Most of these "Second Generation" were young men during WWII, most in the 20s, thus they stayed in power till the 1980s when they started to die off from old age. Gorbachev was the first leader of Russia that was born after WWII and did NOT participate in WWII for that reason. Other factors kicked in, but the fight among these third generation Stalin successors is what did in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev wanted to go one way, Yeltsin wanted to go another and the Soviet Military-Industrial complex wanted to go a third. The Old line Communist party leaders wanted to go a forth way. The infighting lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Red China had a similar problem. The First Generation was tied in with Mao. He died out (along with his fellow leaders of the Chinese revolution) and was replaced by the young men who survived the "long march" of 1927. These young men held onto power til the 1990s when Tiananmen Square scared the third generation. In fighting is continuing among the third generation but the subsequent economic boom made the big problem as how to divide up the economic gain, not diving up economic decline (As what was happening in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s do to the decline in the price of oil) thus the infighting was covered up, but careful reading shows a massive amount of infighting among the ruling elite, often at the expense of the working class.

I bring the above up, only to show you why most Empire last just over 100 years. A military or economic crisis (Generally both at the same time) during the rule of the third generation of the Empire, tend to lead to its collapse (or the formation of a new Empire with a New First Generation Emperor).

During the time of the Roman Empire, just three generation can be seen, Augustus was the first generation (Building on what Julius Caesar had built, but what Augustus did made Augustus the First Emperor of his Empire). Augustus ruled for 70 years, then succeeded by the Second generation of Tiberius. Tiberius died then you had the in fighting from Caligula to Nero (With Claudius a return to the Second Generation, between the two). With Nero the first real crisis saw him overthrown and after a series of infighting Vespasian came out on top. Vespasian was another First Emperor, but his two sons, each represented the second and third generation. Titus was the second, ruled well, then Tiananmen Square was young enough to be third generation and a major crisis lead to his undoing.

I can go on (Constantine I, his son Constantinus II and then his nephew Julian II, we can see the three generation at work again).

I bring this up, for most Empire tend to collapse with the infighting of the third generation leads to economic problems and then military problems (The peasants tend to be taxed to much, revolt and over throw the Empire, for the Empire is to divided to put down the revolt). At that point the Empire tend to collapse, or a new Empire is made OR some sort of Republican rule is set up, throw some time this is called an Empire with an Emperor (The Medieval Holy Roman Empire was such a government, the Roman Empire under the Nervan-Antonian dynasty, and during the Crisis of the Third Century seems to be such a "Republic" in practice if not in name).

Rome was thus unique, it tended NOT to collapse or form a New Empire (through it did do that at times) but tended to want to stay together as a large international Republic. All of the Emperors made an effort to keep trade following, people working and feed.

As we get to the Constantine Dynasty, the need for even more unity became even clearer, thus the push for Christianizetion of the Empire, to further unite its various parts. Thus when the Empire finally did Collapse, it did it is a way fairly unique. Parts of the Empire survived even in parts ruled by non-Romans. At the same time, trade collapsed.

The big thing for the Roman Empire was the taking of Carthage in 560 AD by the Vandals. Carthage, from its re-founding by Julius Caesar till its fall to the Vandals had been the Second largest City in the Western Empire (and third overall, behind Rome and Alexandria. Carthage was even larger then Constantinople till sometime after 400 AD, when Constantinople started to obtain much of the old population of Rome as the Western Empire went into decline after Rome fell to the Goths in 410 AD).

The Fall of Carthage, meant the end of most East-West Trade, the Vandals were an impediment to such trade. With the lost of Trade, overall revenue fell, especially in the Western Empire. The Unity of the Roman Empire was broken, something Attila the Hun was trying to do at the same time, but failed while the Vandals succeeded. The Western Empire came more and more to depend of Germanic mercenaries, who were willing to serve for payment in land. In the Eastern Empire, the Eastern Emperors kept cost down, till they decided to try to retake Carthage and then Italy in the 500s, then bankrupted themselves doing so. Then the Persians hit and the Eastern Empire around 600 AD reformed its army to one based on land ownership. i.e. Soldiers were paid in land, and if you owned land you owned military duty. With this new army the Eastern Empire was able to defeat the Persians, and was able to withstand the subsequent attack by Mohammed's followers.

Notice by 700 AD, the Empire of Constantine was no more. It existed in name only in Constantinople, but that was a feudal state with an Emperor who had to rule in conjugation with the leaders of his "Themes" which is how the Byzantine Feudal levies were formed into. In Western Europe, the Roman institution of the Catholic Church survived the fall of the West (Through did disappear in Tunisia and North Africa, but survived in Egypt till the Crusades).

Local production replaced imported items, often maintaining the same quality. If no local production was possible you saw a complete collapse of that product (In burial plots we find Silver and gold Jewelry in the dark ages of the same quality as at the height of the Roman Empire, but pottery, which in the empire had been centralized, we see a complete drop in quality of pottery). In simple terms what was imported, tended to decline in quality, what what can be produced locally, held its quality. Roman Weapons and Armor survives for several generations, but sooner or later tended to be replaced by inferior and cheaper products (This is best seen in the production of Mail Armor, During Roman times, Mail armor was made to a high quality so that it was almost impossible for any piece of it to be cut off by a glaceing blow, but during the dark ages, a cheaper way to make mail came into common use, despite the tendency of this cheaper mail to break off when hit by a glancing blow).

On the other hand the rights of Peasants expanded, do to the fact they were needed for land owners quickly realized without peasants, the ownership of land meant nothing.

While trade died out, people moving about did not. The Priests and Bishops (The remains of the Roman Empire) even at darkest part of the dark ages, traveled to Rome to see the pope. What was happening throughout the former empire was known throughout the former empire. The Moors taking North Africa and later Spain, The Slavic Invasions of the 700s into modern Germany, Czech Republic, Croatian and Serbia, even reaching Greece, the Viking raids on France, Britain, Ireland and Germany, the Magyars moving into the Hungarian plan and raiding as far as Germany and France, were all known to most people (With most people getting their news via their village priest, they last connection with the old Roman Empire).

New ideas also flowed, such as the spread of the Heavy Plow, horseshoes, and the concept of hay, improved Iron production (Which had started out in China around the time of Christ, then reached Europe about 700 AD) all spread during the height of the Dark Ages. The Horse Collar seems to follow the same route, from China in the 400s to Europe in the 900s.

One of the aspects of the Dark Ages is that what benefited the 95% of the population who were peasants, spread and the life and rights of such peasants increased, even while what was known among the ruling elite as Roman and Greek Knowledge declined. This was caused by the breakup of the former united Empire. Under the Empire is was impossible for a peasant to even move from the estate he was working to another (even if the Second was offering more money), but while that remained the laws on the books in the Dark Ages, it was impossible to enforce as the next estate was often under rule of someone who could prevent anyone from taking the peasant back to the original estate.

Just pointing out that we have had a Collapse of Society, and that was the end of the Roman Empire in the West. It did not occur over night, from the Taking of Carthage by the Vandals in 450 AD, till the expulsion of the Moslem's attack on Constantinople in 700, it took 250 years. It was another 100 years before Charlemagne was crowned Western Emperor, a position vacate since 476 AD. Most of the Roman Ruling elite was eliminated during that period, with what remained losing out in the next 100 years (No family in Europe can trace their family back IN THE MALE LINE before 900 AD, that is how complete the elimination of the old ruling elites was by 900 AD, and the formation of the Holy Roman Empire of Otto I, combining, two of the three kingdoms Leo, the only son of Charlemagne, had divided his Empire up into for his three sons (The Middle Kingdom of Italy, Alsace. Lorraine, Burgundy, Luxembourg, Netherlands Switzerland and Belgium, with the Eastern Kingdom of present day Germany and Austria, leaving only France outside the Empire, through it should be noted we are talking Middle Age rules, thus France was still subject to the Holy Roman Empire, but was NOT under its direct rule).

I suspect the upcoming change to be as traumatic as the end of the Western Roman Empire, but will be quicker, maybe 100 years instead of 3-400 years. Just like the end of International Trade ended with the Vandal taking Carthage lead to the reduction in size of most cities (Constantinople being the only exception, expanding to be the largest city in the world, till it was taken by the Fourth Crusade in 1205 AD) and the ending of most trade. People could and did move and no one could force them back. People will try to retain some aspect of the Empire, mostly in the form of communication (Thus I expect some aspect of the net to survive) but as more and more people realized the only people they can trust to help them when they need help are their blood relatives, family ties will become more and more important (i.e. the extended family will be your primary safety net, and everyone in that extended family will be expected to contribute to that safety net, i.e. help you relatives first, then your neighbors and then maybe the people you deal with on discussion forums like DU). That all happened during the period after the Fall of the Roman Empire, and I foreseen it happening again.

[Nihil]

6. Fascinating read - thank you! (n/t)

[GliderGuider]

9. A great insight into Empire, thanks! I have a couple of questions.

How do you see the "Three Generation" principle playing out in the more diffused, corporatized, globalized form of empire we have today? Do you see the USA as the linchpin of the empire, with the three generations being defined more by a time period than personalities (e.g. 1945 to 2045 or so)?

The fact that our actions have fundamentally altered the Earth's environment and resource base, along with the fact that this empire is fully global (there's no "away" for the refugees to go to) means that the collapse is going to look more like a biophysical event than a purely cultural one. How does that alter your interpretation of the decline that's now under way?

I also have one comment bearing on the environment. What happened in Rome wasn't a bottleneck in the sense that population biologists use the term. Environmental collapse may have had something to do with it, as Diamond points out, but a bottleneck is usually a species-level event driven by biophysical changes. That's what I think we're heading into, and why I think the ultimate effects will transcend any and all existing cultures.

[happyslug]

10. The US is more a Republic then an Empire in the nature of the Ruling elite

Last edited Tue Jun 19, 2012, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

But to a degree we are seeing the three generation in operation. The first Generation of today's right win GOP started with Goldwater and Reagan. Between the two the Modern GOP was formed (With help from Jesse Helms and other ex-southern Conservative Democrats along with old line GOP like George Bush Sr). The Second Generation was George Bush the younger and his allies. The problem is today the third generation is in charge and like most third generation are NOT willing to work with other members of their party to stay in power, but believe they can get power and hold on to power on their own. To a great degree a lot of Second generation Reagan GOP are keeping them in power.

Overlapping this is Koch. In the 1950s the Koch's brothers father was noted by then President Eisenhower as an idiot for advocating the same things they are advocating today. The difference is that in the 1950s the GOP elite knew such a position was suicide, but that started to change with Nixon, but the GOP only embraced it under Reagan (Nixon is more like Julius Caesar to Reagan Augustus Caesar, a man who prepares the road for the founder of an Empire).

Now, most Empire die out in the third Generation but generally it takes some sort of economic shock to do it. In the Roman Empire what finally did in the Empire was the start of the Dark Ages Cold Period, which lead to a drop in food production (Which was compensated by the introduction of the heavy plow, but that is tied in with the Slavic Invasions of the 600s, When the Eastern Empire finally was able to drive off the Moslems about 700 do to the internal reforms I mentioned above, they then went after the enemy their feared the most, the Slavs NOT the Arabs ruling Palestine and Egypt for the Slavs moved into land that do to the cold Snap could no longer support farming using Mediterranean farming methods, you needed the heavy plow to break the soil after a hard winter, thus most of the land in the Balkans had seen a drop in food production from about 400 ad onward do to the onset of the Dark Age cold period, but the Slavs had the solution to that problem in the form of the Heavy Iron Plow, thus the Slavs were moving into the Balkans with massive populations that Constantinople saw as the bigger threat then Islam).

Genghis Khan formed the Mongol Empire at the height of the Middle Age Warm period, it survived his sons but then broke up during the rule of his grandsons. Technically the Mongol Empire survived, but Kublai Khan, only held power in Mongalia and China, Russia was under the Golden Horde, Persia was under Ilkhanate Khan. The formation of these branches of the Mongol Empire was itself the formation of New Empires, the Yuan dynasty of China, the Golden Horde of Russia and the Ilkhanate of Persia and the middle east.

The Mongol Golden Horde survived the longest (being finally taken over by Russia in the 1500s), but all three were hard hit by the onset of the Mini-Ice Age (through the effect of the Mini-Ice Age had less effect on the area of the Mongol Empire then Western Europe). This onset of the Mini-ice age concurred with the final collapse of the Yuan Dynasty and the Mongol rule in Persia (Through Tamerlane would revive it, his Empire barely survived him, all due to crisis tied in with the onset of the Mini ice age).

We have to note Genghis Khan had done two things at the same time, first he had formed what I can call the First Mongol Empire. Second he had encouraged trade, which took off between China, the Middle east and Europe (The Crusades had opened trade between Western Europe and the Middle East, thus a quick connection with the "Silk Road" when it came under the protection of the Mongols). The subsequent breakup of this first Mongol Empire into its Successor Empire did NOT see the end of this trade, but it continued. The concept of Central Asia being one Country was thus born. When the Mongol Empires collapsed, Russia took their place (White was the Mongol/Chinese Color for the West, thus Russia took over white as their color and the "Color" of Russia would remain white till the 1917 Revolution). In many ways present day Russia is as small as the people of the Russian Republic would like it to be (They are some exceptions, the Chenyna in the Caucasus Mountain region want to leave, and Kazakhstan, Kirghistan, Uzbekistan, and the rest of what is called the Former Soviet Central Asian States have large population who wants to rejoin Russia with even the leadership of those countries wanting to work with Russia with Russia acting as the leader of all of them but maintaining some sort of independence, best shown when their armies drill, all drill orders are given in Russian NOT their Native tongue).

This desire to belong to a larger organization while retaining some local control was a key to the First Mongol Empire and later the Russian Empire. Thsi concept that is present day Russia continued under the Communists (Most of the present borders of the Former Soviet States where drawn by Stalin under Lenin in the early 1920s. The only major change was the when Khrushchev gave Crimea peninsular and Sevastopol to the Ukraine in the 1950s. This lead to a major point of contention between the Ukraine and Russia today. The area is more Russian then Ukrainian and tied in with the Russian Black Sea Fleet. but technically in the Ukraine).

Yes, I am going off an tangent, but the purpose is to show that it during the first and second generation of an Empire, the ruling elite of the Empire can address most crises (Stalin's handling of WWII, while bloody, he prevailed, during most of the Cold War the Soviet Union managed to be able to counter US power, it is with the third generation and the subsequent infighting that an outside crisis leads to deterioration. In the case of the Soviet Union the collapse of Oil prices in the 1980s was the crisis the third generation could NOT handle, but one the older generation could have. The drop in foreign reserved due to the drop in the price of oil caused a severe cash crisis in the Soviet Union, that the Government had to address and lacked the unity to do so.

China since its third generation has been in power has NOT had to deal with a similar crisis. Tiananmen Square was put down by the last members of the Second generation and the subsequent suppression of dissent in China started then and continues to this very day (Chinese leaders tended to stay in power at ages most western leaders would have retired, thus the delay in Chinese generation compared to Russia).

China today has seen a massive decline in the rural areas of China (even while the coastal cities have boomed do to international trade), workers rights have declined (leading to very poor working conditions but this is expected to end sooner or later do to the effect of China's one child policy, right now the Coastal cities are dependent on new workers coming from the depressed rural areas, but the one child policy, which is technically ended will keep such new workers to a minimum over the next 20 or so years. Thus with the increase demand for workers do to increase industrial production tied in with the drop in the number of people entering the work force due to the lack of babies 20 years before, will lead to higher wages and increase rights to workers).

This is bad for China in the long run, for if you study revolutions, when economics stop going down and starts to rebound that is when you have a revolution, i.e. when workers are no longer worried about where their next meal is coming from, they can think about changing the situation so they no longer have to worry about where their next meal is coming from.

As good Communists, China leadership has read Marx, and Marx was noted to be one of the first writers to comment on when revolutions occur, NOT as things go downhill, but after the economy has bottom out. The CIA knows of this concept and uses it (Through probably no longer give Credit to Marx for forming and spreading the Concept). Thus China knows that it can not really permit its economy to go into any form of decline. It would survive the decline but the fight will occur when the economy bottoms out.

In most Empires, it is a crisis that leads to its collapse. If everything stays stable, no problem, they stay in power (as what is happening in China and Saudi Arabia today). It is an economic crisis that leads to the collapse of the Empire, for the third generation does NOT have the unity to stay together and prevent a total collapse. Something has to give, either a new Empire, a Republic in practice in formed, or the Empire breaks up.

Saudi Arabia has NOT had a crisis yet, but a decline in oil production OR a collapse in oil prices will bring one on. China is similar, no crisis at the present time but a shortfall in oil production (and the subsequent increase in oil prices), a massive cut back on what it can trade with the US and Europe, or even a collapse of the Euro and the Dollar (leading to a massive increase in the price of Chinese goods) would lead to economic crisis and some sort of revolution (Which can be bloody or peaceful and often both).

The classic case is of how Castro survived the Collapse of the Soviet Union. I do NOT think a third generation would have been able to survive such a decline in revenue, but Castro could for he could rely on his fellow first generation soldiers who fought with him in the Cuban revolution of the 1950s and the Second generation support them (ie. massive amount of unity). Today, Castro has lived so long that most of his first generation of ruling elite have now died out, and many of the second generation are retired. I do NOT think he could survive such an economic collapse today, thus the various reforms by his brother Raul since Raul become President of Cuba. When the Castro brothers die out, what happens in Cuba is up for grabs, but they may be enough Second generation leaders to hold the island together in any foreseeable crisis in the next 20 years. On the other hand, most such second generation are retired and it will be up to the third generation to handle any crisis the best the can (and how much worse can the situation get in Cuba? not much, thus low possibility of a crisis that can topple the government of Cuba).

Now to the US. We are seeing the third generation of Reaganites, but Bush II managed to keep the US economy from a total collapse. Obama is doing his best to prevent such a total collapse. Wall Street was worried in 2008 so that Wall Street gave almost all of their money to Obama and to a lesser degree Hilary as opposed to the GOP. In 2012 most Wall street money is going to Romney, for they view the crisis as passed and now they want to return to the days of Bush II.

This is typical of third generation thinking, no longer thinking long term, just what is best for me this year. Romney's plans are terrible in terms of what we will look for in the next 10-20 years even for Wall Street, but Romney's plans are great for them in 2012-2013 (Since Reagan Wall Street no longer think in terms of what is good for them 10-20 years from now, which was how the GOP thought in the 1950s).

Thus we have the infighting between the ruling elite, Wall Street vs Main Street, Economic Conservatives vs Social Conservatives, Spending on Defense vs lower tax groups (and suppression of the non-ruling classes such as Labor and Government bureaucrats). This is a recipe for disaster in the long term. No sense of Unity, division is the rule (Divide and Conquer is their secret motto). Can win in the short term, but long term a recipe for disaster. We are already headed for a return to 2008, something Wall Street is dismissing as unimportant for it is NOT hitting them today. The Ruling elite of the GOP can NOT handle a true crisis, be it a return of 2008, a slow raise in oil prices, many are predicting starting in 2013 (do to the decline in overall oil production as oppose to the peaking of production in the 2005-2008 period), worse if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapses (It has been unstable for 10,000 years, the increase in world wide temperatures had made it more unstable, it will break up some March or early April leading to world wide ocean level raising of 15-20 feet, ending international trade including the trade in oil).

Thus it will take a crisis for the present ruling elite to be overthrown (in the US by an election), we came close in 2008 but the Democrats were NOT willing to put up someone who was truly for change. The tea party is a sign that people want change, but they are financed by the Kochs and are being used by the Kochs for the Koch's purposes, but are the product of the need for change as much as Koch's financial leadership.

Lenin and Marx made the observation that the people need leadership during a period of crisis and the purpose of the Communist party was to provide such leadership. The Koch Brothers are following that advice by providing leadership for the masses. I believe the WRONG leadership heading the WRONG direction, but it also shows that people want CHANGE and will support CHANGE can if that need for change can be Chanelled can lead to change that actually benefit them. Occupied Wall Street was one way to grab that leadership, but we all have to work together to get this demand for change to do change that will actually do some good, as oppose to good for Wall Street.

[hatrack]

11. Interesting in that it makes me think of Kondratiev Wave Theory as well

It's not exactly the "coals to coals" truism in economic form, but that shorthand isn't an out-and-out terrible way of thinking of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave

Cycle impact on social mood and vice versa

The phases of Kondratiev's waves also carry with them social shifts and changes in the public mood. The first stage of expansion and growth, the "Spring" stage, encompasses a social shift in which the wealth, capital accumulation, and innovation that are present in this first period of the cycle create upheavals and displacements in society. The economic changes result in redefining work and the role of participants in society. In the next phase, the "Summer" stagflation, there is a mood of affluence from the previous growth stage that change the attitude towards work in society, creating inefficiencies. After this stage comes the season of deflationary growth, or the plateau period. The popular mood changes during this period as well. It shifts toward stability, normalcy, and isolationism after the policies and economics during unpopular excesses of war. Finally, the "Winter" stage, that of severe depression, includes the integration of previous social shifts and changes into the social fabric of society, supported by the shifts in innovation and technology.

Some scholars, particularly Immanuel Wallerstein, argue that cycles of global war are tied to capitalist long waves and major, highly-destructive wars, which tend to begin just prior to an output upswing. Others, like Ernesto Screpanti, developed a theory based on a correlation between long economic cycles and recurrent waves of social conflict.[55]

Elliott Wave analyst Robert Prechter is perhaps the person best known today for his views on the how the economic cycle is affected by the social mood, for which he used the term socionomics.

David Ames Wells (1891) noted that as workers were lifted out of miserable levels of poverty by the end of the 19th century and exposed to a wider world view and new consumer products, they created more labor and social unrest.[3] Instead of capitalism enslaving workers and holding them at subsistence levels as some economists predicted, the opposite happened-by the 1890s businesses were operating with little profit, as Marx predicted; however, the workers enjoyed much higher real wages.

Investment adviser Ian Gordon has advocated a 4 season Kondratiev social mood influenced model in which spring is moderate growth from a stock market and inflationary bottom, summer is characterized by accelerating growth and high inflation, autumn is characterized by declining inflation and asset bubbles, and winter involves the collapse of the asset bubbles.[56]

EDIT

Long wave theory is not accepted by most academic economists, but it is one of the bases of innovation-based, development, and evolutionary economics, i.e. the main[citation needed] heterodox stream in economics. Among economists who accept it, there has been no universal agreement about the start and the end years of particular waves. This points to another criticism of the theory: that it amounts to seeing patterns in a mass of statistics that aren't really there.

Moreover, there is a lack of agreement over the cause of this phenomenon. How much this matters is disputed: some scientific patterns have in the past been identified before an explanation could be advanced. (The best known example is that of the precursors to the periodic table, which were in fact rejected by many scientists precisely on the grounds of lack of explanation.)

Some believe that not enough is attributed to actual human errors that have created some of the economic situations of history, and too much to the inevitability of the characteristics of the phases of the waves. They claim that many of the situations were entirely avoidable, not the consequences of an unstoppable wave pattern. Others doubt the legitimacy of Kondratiev's waves because they believe that every wave is a structural cycle that has unique characteristics and cannot be repeated. There is also controversy over Kondratiev's research—many[who?] believe that the conclusions and results of his research are biased because he highlighted and used only certain events to reach his conclusions and left out other important data and events that could have affected his outcomes.

A problem with analyzing Kondratiev waves is that there is little data before 1870 and then it is only for a few countries in Europe and the U.S. Also, the early data consisted mostly of prices, trade statistics and limited information on industrial production. Pre 20th century depressions were periods of depressed prices and profits and not necessarily associated with high unemployment or falling industrial production. Falling prices typically increased real purchasing power and the standard of living was maintained or actually rose.[3] With the end of the gold standard prices were no longer depressed with economic contractions and such periods were called recessions. To date the only true depression with very high unemployment for a number of years was the Great Depression of the early 1930s.

EDIT

[happyslug]

12. Aristole noted a similar pattern, when it came to what he calls a tyrany.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6762/6762-h/6762-h.htm#2HCH0006

Aristotle also noted that Democracy were the most stable form of government a Tyranny was the most unstable. (see book IV on his paper on Politics). He also noted that Kingship were overturned by Oligarchies, then by Democracies then by Tyrants. What Aristotle calls Aristocracies is often also in the mix, but that was rule by the wise, as defined by Aristotle and often declined into an Oligarchy. Democracies, while the most stable, is often under mined by the inability of most citizens to undertake the duties of Citizenship and the Government then falls into the hands of an Oligarchy (often via an Aristocracy the the poor let rule for they have the time to do so).

Thus I am NOT claiming anything new, just rewriting what people have written over the last 3000 years.

Comment on the above translation. Paragraphing and Punctuation is attributed to Charlemagne (c800 AD). Charlemagne came out of an very illiterate household and background but appreciated reading and writing. Do to his limited background, he wanted the books he read showing were sentences ended and concepts changed. Prior to Charlemagne, books were written as one long piece of writing. The reader making the breaks in sentences and paragraphing as their read (i.e. in their head NOT on paper).

Charlemagne is also attributed with the concept of Chapters, breaking up large segments into different subsection for ease of reading.

Books was a concept known to the ancients, but had a different meaning then we have today. The modern concept of a book seems to have been invented about the time of Augustus Caesar. Prior to that all you had were rolls of paper, that collectively was called a book. Thus the "books" of the bible. Each book was read and stored independent of the other books for that is how you stored any collection of Scrolls.

Prior to about the time of Christ (or Augustus, both lived about the same time period) books were just scrolls of paper. Afterward, books became something bound on one side. This seems to be a Roman invention or at least an idea Rome embraced. Some people suspect it came out of the formation of the Cohort Legion. A Cohort Legion was a permanent formation in the days of the Late Roman Republic (In the days of Hannibal and the Punic Wars, the Legion was something formed up for a campaign, then dissolved as the militia men that made up the Legion went home, this is often called a Maniple Legion). Marius had "Reformed" the army, transferring it from a Call up of Roman Citizens to one who members were paid by the person in command of the Legion to serve in the Legion (Often called a Century Legion, for the basic unit was the Century which replaced the Maniple). The key difference was each member of a Century was PAID cash to serve, while each member of a Maniple was a called up Militia man who served for no pay. A further difference was each member of a Maniple was expected to supply his own armor and weapons, while in a Century those were provided by the Commander (please note the change from Maniple to Century seems to be graduale not overnight, thus even in the late first centures the term Maniple is used when a Century is clearly meant).

Someone had to keep track of was owned to whom AND who received what piece of Equipment etc. Scrolls could do this to a limited extent, but if you bind the Scrolls together it can be a much flatter collection of papers. Thus book binding seems to have been invented to keep such records together in one central location, hard to lose as the Legion moved about its business. Soon after book binding was invented by some long forgotten legionnaire, people found out it was a good way to also keep together collection of what previously had been called "Books". The older term for Books was kept, but slowly disappeared over the next centuries, through kept for use when re issuing new versions of old books.

An alternative theory is that book binding was invented by sailors to keep logs, the large ships of the Time of Christ would need such written records, so another possible source of book binding.

I mention the above for the above translation has chapters, paragraphs and punctuation. The Translator who translate what Aristotle wrote (and the mistakes in the copies we have, remember they were all hand copies, the Printing press is a 1300 invention) added those to what Aristotle wrote. It is often difficult to do a proper translation without major rewrite of what Aristotle wrote and this translator seems to have avoided doing such a rewrite. The translator in the form of Aristotle's book in Project Gutenberg seems to try to minimize modernization of the text structure while doing his translation. At times it makes it hard to read, but remember the above and understand the punctuation. paragraphing and having chapters were NOT done by Aristotle.

Please note, Reading Aristotle, I note his use of the word "Tyrant" corresponds to my use of the work "Emperor". His use of the Word "Aristocracy" and "Free State" is like my use of the word "Republic" (Through the "Republican" form of Government I mentioned in the fall of the Roman Empire, were more often Oligarchies then an Aristocracy or an free state). .

Democracies in the mind of Aristotle was direct rule by the people, not representative democracy as practiced today. Aristotle's use of the word "King" can include a Tyrant, but was aimed at a traditional King, sometimes elected, but a leader of a country for a long time AND has the final say at anything that affects his rule (i.e. NOT a constitutional monarch as that term is used today). The main difference was a King tend to have to follow a long tradition, which a Tyrant did not have to follow. Those traditions were one form of check on a traditional king, but a check missing when it came to Tyrants.

Aristotle also uses the term "Tyrant" in its classic Greek sense of the word, someone who took power and held power generally as a democracy, aristocracy or oligarchy fell. Greek Tyrants could be like modern Tyrants, but also could be good rulers who did not kill their people. Aristotle's use of the word Tyrant is more like the modern word Dictator (Which is a Roman term), a Dictator can also be a Tyrant as those terms are used today, but some Dictators are NOT Tyrants as those words are used today. To understand the above translation please remember the translator decided to keep the word Tyrant as used by Aristotle when that word appears in the original Greek. It is NOT meant to be understood in the modern sense of the word Tyrant and should not be.

[GliderGuider]

13. And Kondratiev wave theory makes me think of adaptive cycles in resilience theory.

http://www.resalliance.org/index.php/adaptive_cycle

Traditionally ecology has focused on the concept of succession that describes the transition from a time when exploitation (i.e., the rapid colonization of recently disturbed areas) is emphasized to a time when conservation (i.e., the slow accumulation and storage of energy and material) is emphasized.

Our current understanding of ecological dynamics however indicates that two additional functions - release and reorganization - are needed.

An adaptive cycle that alternates between long periods of aggregation and transformation of resources and shorter periods that create opportunities for innovation, is proposed as a fundamental unit for understanding complex systems from cells to ecosystems to societies.

For ecosystem and social-ecological system dynamics that can be represented by an adaptive cycle, four distinct phases have been identified:

1. growth or exploitation (r)
2. conservation (K)
3. collapse or release (omega)
4. reorganization (alpha)

The phases are very similar in intent to those in Kondratiev wave theory.

Of course, there is no rule that says the collapse phase must slow to a halt near the point where the cycle's original growth phase started. If the resources required for regrowth in the next cycle were used up in the first growth and conservation phases, the next cycle could begin at a much lower point.

I submit that this is what's about to happen. The overshoot in the most recent cycle of civilization has used up the world's natural resources and damaged the environment to the point that the collapse phase could easily feel like a free fall. Then once the collapse bottoms out, the resource base required to support a regrowth will not be available.

As a result I think we've had our shot at a material-based, high-energy global civilization. Any regrowth will have to be based on factors other than material stuff and high concentrations of energy. That's why I like the idea of "selecting for sapience" so much. A highly sapient species could have the wherewithal to build a high level of civilization without needing so much from the natural world. Maybe they could use presocratic Greece (not the modern version!) as a model.

[GliderGuider]

14. The fall of Rome wasn't a bottleneck.

Yes their civilization collapsed, but it wasn't a bottleneck.

A few salient factors make the comparison of this collapse with that of Rome invalid:

• The population and human activity levels in Roman times were much smaller relative to their resource base.
  
• There was little underlying ecological degradation, and certainly nothing lasting.
  
• There was plenty of accessible land area available for the refugee population to disperse into.
  
• The events in Rome didn't touch the Americas, nor most of Asia.
  
• The Roman collapse was essentially a cultural phenomenon.

In contrast, the situation today is one of massive population, total globalization, accelerating ecological damage everywhere you look, and declining natural resources - in addition to the destabilization of cultural factors such as economics, finance and governance.

While it's interesting to look back to Rome as a history lesson, to try and cast our current situation into those terms is simply whistling past the graveyard.

[happyslug]

16. Some problems with your anaylis

What was viewed as a "Resource" was different in the 400-800 period. Coal, Oil and other non-renewable energy sources were NOT in extensive use (Some were use, but in very small quantities). The biggest use was forest, and that had been extensively cut down during Roman days. Plato had complained of deforestation when he was alive (pre-Roman Empire) as did Cicero, who lived at the time of Caesar.

http://www.h2g2.com/approved_entry/A2184473
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_during_the_Roman_period

AS to no long lasting ecological degradation, that is true even of today if you look 500-1000 years in the future. If we would STOP what we are doing and correct what we are doing, most Carbon will be re-fixed by Algae within that time period, Trees will grow back, land replenished. Most pollutants would be either broken down or covered up.

Romans and Etruscans had been very poor refining iron ore to iron, so inefficient that the Italian Government during WWII, mined the ancient Roman and Etruscan slag to recover Iron their had left behind. The Slag had been sitting around for 200--2500 years before that time period. It was a waste product that was covered up till it was re-used. I mention it as a typical cover up of environmental harm done in the Ancient world.

At the time of the Fall of the Western Roman Empire (c400), Europe was entering a Cold Period (Called the Dark Age Cold Period). Roman used and thus only knew Mediterranean farming techniques, which were usable in areas with heavy snow in winter (and such snows INCREASED in the Dark ages cold period). Thus till the Slavs brought in the Heavy Plow in the 600s and 700s, farmers had no place to go. They could covert to shepherds and other herders, but that was already the area of expertise of the Germans and other northern Europeans. In fact areas that had been good for herding, became more and more marginal so that the herders had to move South (Which appears to be the real cause of the German and other barbarian movements into the Roman Empire during the 400s).

http://www.co2science.org/subject/d/summaries/dacpeurope.php

Please note the above site use 450 AD as the start of the Dark Age cold period, but while 450 AD is one of the traditional Dates given for the Fall of the Western Roman Empire problems were kicking in by 400 so it appears to be more of an educated guess then anything else.

Side note: 450 AD is one of many dates for the End of the Western Roman Empire, From 450 Ad onward, the real ruler of what remained of the Western Roman Empire was the German head of troops NOT whoever was the nominal Emperor. In 476 the German head of troops in Italy, took the Emperor-ship from the last Western Emperor (didn't even kill him, just revoked that he was the Emperor), and shipped all of the regalia to the Eastern Emperor and swore loyalty to the Eastern Emperor, as long as the Eastern Emperor accepted him as King of Italy. The Eastern Emperor had other problems and accepted the situation.

This cite gives 300 AD as the onset of the Dark Age Cold Period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages

Starting in the 2nd century, various indicators of Roman civilization began to decline, including urbanization, seaborne commerce, and population. Only 40 percent as many Mediterranean shipwrecks have been found for the 3rd century as for the first. During the period from 150 to 400 the population of the Roman Empire is estimated to have fallen from 65 million to 50 million, a decline of more than 20 percent. Some have connected this to the Dark Ages Cold Period (300–700), when there was a decrease in global temperatures which impaired agricultural yields.

A detail paper showing a connection between various times of "Troubles" with cold snaps:
http://www.geol.lu.se/personal/bnb/pdf-papers/human_impact.pdf

2.6. 1500 cal: BP, Migration period of the Late Iron age

This period saw the retreat of agriculture, including pasturing as well as cultivation of crops, leading to reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia (Andersen and Berglund, 1994). This period corresponds to the time following the Roman B.E. Berglund / Quaternary International 105 (2003) 7–12 9Empire collapse around AD 480 and the Justinian plague ca. AD 540 (Lamb, 1982; Ambrosiani, 1984). Climatically this period was one of rapid cooling indicated from tree-ring data (Eronen et al., 1999) as well as sea surface temperatures based on diatom stratigraphy in Norwegian Sea (Jansen and Koc,- 2000), which can be correlated with Bond’s event 1 in the North Atlantic sediments (Bond et al., 1997). It is also a period of rising lake levels, increased bog growth and a peakin lake catchment erosion.

Record of the Fall of the Roman Empire in Trees:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/fall-of-rome-recorded-in-trees.html?ref=hp

AS to NOT touching Asia. The Chinese Empire followed a pattern much like that of Rome, except its southern half managed to re-take the rest of China that had fallen to invading barbarians, unlike Europe when Charlemagne reformed the Empire, as oppose to the Eastern Empire re-taking the West.

More on China during the "Dark Age Cold Period":
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-14/dark.htm

AS to affect on China of the Collapse of Rome, Silk trade to the West had been big business during the height of the Roman Empire (Through knowledge of China was weak at best til the 600s).

http://www.ess.uci.edu/~oliver/silk.html

Chinese history often paralleled Roman History, the Chinese Han Dynasty actually broke up in the 200s, the same time period the Roman Empire almost broke up (Rome Survived, but China reverted to its "Three Kingdoms Period). About the time Diocletian put the Roman Empire back on a solid foundation (Later expanded by Constantine and his successors), the Jin Dynasty took over most of China. It fell about the same time as the Western Roman Empire dissolved in the 400s (420 for the Jin Dynasty, 450 for the Western Roman Empire).

Just like the Roman Empire was divided East and West, China was divided North and South (395 for the final vision of the Roman Empire, 420 for the division of China). Sui Dynasty re-united China in 589 (About the time Justinian's effort to reunited the Roman Empire came to a halt), It fell in 618 to the Tang Dynasty (About the time the Persians tried to conquer the Eastern Roman Empire, 602-629 AD, but the Persians ended up destroying themselves in the process, opening up both Empires to the Arab Conquest from 634 onward).

The Tang Empire survived till 902, when it dissolved (Just as Otto I was establishing the Holy Roman Empire in the West, as Charlemagne's Empire of 800 onward dissolved).

Thus Roman and China suffered problems with the onset of the Dark Age Cold period in the 200s, survived till the 400s when both were divided. Both Rome and China tried to reunited in the 500s, China succeeded, while Rome failed. Rome had to deal with Persia, the chief middle man between China and Rome during this period. China had several other in-betweens to have to worry about the Persians, thus Rome had to use its resources to fight Persia (Permitting the Slavs into the Balkans, the later Arab invasion of Syria to Egypt and the German rule of Western Europe), while China could use all of its resources to reunite. Thus what was affecting Rome was affecting China (And also the Turks, then in Turkestan as while as the Persians).

As to cultural changes, Even the Eastern Empire stayed Roman (Roman style of eating, Latin the Language of the elite) till the Last Persian War, then it slowly turned Greek. The Eastern Empire was solidly Greek by the end of the Arab Siege of Constantinople after 700 AD (Changes in Constantinople included, eating at tables instead of on "Roman Style". Grain from the Ukraine, as opposed to Egypt, the use of butter instead of Oliver oil from Syria, for both Syria and Egypt were under Arab Rule, while the Ukraine was becoming a bread basket with the use of the Heavy plow).

My point is Roman culture survived till other factors forced a change (lost of access to Egyptian grain and Syrian oil first by the Persians and then the Arabs). It was a bottle neck, but most of the people hurt were of the lower classes and this being a period BEFORE Linen Paper came into use in Europe (Linen paper entered Europe around 1300), reports on anything that did NOT affect the ruling elite just were NOT written down. We can see this is the huge increase in the Size of the Roman Army stating in the 200s, and then its collapse do to the lack of funds to pay for it in the 400s. All driven by the Dark Age Cold Snap, hitting an area that had been using its resources to the Maximum. Rome had nothing to fall back on and no place to go. It was a bottleneck.

[GliderGuider]

17. Those who know history are doomed to repeat it anyway.

I remain convinced that there is a qualitative difference this time around. Maybe the 7 billion people and their frantic level of activity and denial has something to do with it.

[GliderGuider]

15. A further comment from Mobus

From a comment on the thread:

I do conclude that sapience is a real and potentially powerful attribute that fits the progressive pattern of evolution of life on Earth. I've argued that it was the evolution of culture that largely impeded the further development of our biological evolution with respect to sapience. I now view that as a necessary evil; necessary in the sense that a high-energy culture was necessary in order to support science and the discovery of knowledge about how the Universe works. That knowledge is what we bought with our last ten thousand years of stasis in development of mental capacities.

Now comes the bottleneck event and a culling of the energy consuming artifacts of cultures as well as people. What can go on is a small population of survivors making it through the bottleneck. My thesis is that some of us, those who can see this big picture, can actually play a role in helping that bottleneck event produce an evolutionarily progressive outcome. By assisting in the survival of high sapients and working toward a preservation of important knowledge that can be reconstituted by far future generations, human consciousness is simply fulfilling its purpose in the grander scheme of Universal evolution.