Mr. Fox wrote:I'm not sure you really get what Greer/Tainter mean by 'complexity', Steve.
It's not quite the same as that used by Dana Meadows et al regarding 'complex systems'.
The term 'intermediation' used by Greer is a good one (perhaps an attempt to avoid such confusion).
In Tainter's view, a measure of the complexity of a given society could be gauged by counting the number of 'occupation codes' that you have to choose from when purchasing car insurance.
I do get it. I've read a number of pieces by Greer and, broadly speaking, he not only dismisses state organised structures such as social security systems and healthcare systems as being unsustainable (which, in terms of their current scope and level of complexity, I bound to agree with), he also goes so far as to suggest that their very
existence as social structures is an inherent and fundamental part of the problem (which I most certainly do not agree with). That is to say, he has indicated in a number of articles I have read that he considers these social structures to be the unhealthy expression of a manifest dependency culture suckling on the teat of hydrocarbon-driven prosperity.
On the contrary, however, their existence is not the problem. It is a response
to and and amelioration
of another problem that pre-dates the hydrocarbon age and is as old as human civilisation itself. Namely, the relative poverty arising from an iniquitous allocation of that prosperity. To the extent that such poverty and wealth disparities persist and increase with the long descent that is now clearly in its early stages as evidenced by the political and social unrest raging around the world,
these social structures are going to be needed more than ever, not less, albeit in a much cruder form to be sure. Without them you get Somalia. With them you get Cuba. I know which of these two worlds I want me and my descendants to live in.
Irrespective of the green-tinted, Celtic-esque wash and irrespective of whether or not Greer is prepared to acknowledge it to either himself or to others, his is a vision born of American socio-economic history no more or less than that of the Ayn-Randian neo-cons. Though, I am bound to speculate that the aspergers from which he suffers may also be playing at least some small part in his singular lack of empathy or understanding for the plight of the millions of poor living in his nation and how those social structures previously mentioned are all that is holding their difficult lives together. All of which is why I find his recent blog postings on his concerns about the rise of fascism in his country in the coming years so ironic. He clearly does not recognise the connection between his desire to see the end of these social structures and the risk of the very fascism such a demise will inevitably precipitate. Or, at least, will precipitate given the pre-existing and underlying every-man-for-himself culture of which he is fundamentally no less a proponent than those who he no doubt sees as batting for the other side.