A vast number
of our social institutions are shaped by the principles of self-organization.
In recent times, the development of the Internet and the increased capacity for
creating new information and spreading existing or new information has
propelled us into a new era of social organization. For example, the dynamics
of information exchange creates new social trends organically, without any
top-down directionality. The lessons gained from studying the emergence of such
complex institutional entities from the actions of individuals acting out of
self-interest can be harnessed towards achieving efficiency in corporate
management or when drafting public policy.
Investigation
of one type of complex system can provide insights into what may be happening
in other complex systems. An obvious case in point is: How to understand human
intelligence as a kind of swarm intelligence. Human
intelligence emerges from the interactions among neurons, in spite of the fact
that any particular neuron is as dumb as can be.
Understanding
any complex system is a 'hard' research problem, and therefore progress usually
comes in small increments, and also by comparing the behaviour of one complex
system with another, looking for common threads. And in the evolution of complex
systems one can often identify the so-called ‘complexity transitions’ (Bar-Yam 1997), which
usually have far-reaching consequences. Emergence of life from nonlife was one such transition. Another complexity
transition, which is still not complete, is that from monarchy or dictatorship
to democracy.
[In Part 30 I had explained that 'bifurcations in phase
space' is a more general term than 'phase transitions'. 'Complexity
transitions' means the same thing as 'bifurcations in phase space'.]
In the
corporate sector, and also in other human organizations, there is occurring a
transition away from hierarchical control. In a hierarchical complex system it
is implied that the degree of complexity of the controlling individual is more
than that of the organization. As the complexity of the subsystems, as also
their interdependence and communication channels, increase, such a scenario
becomes untenable. The result is ‘horizontally’ interacting subsystems, rather
than top-down control systems.
Human
civilization can indeed be regarded as a single complex system (Bar-Yam 1997). A hurdle to
the investigation of such a system is that it is one of a kind; there is
nothing similar to compare it with.
Our
ever-increasing cultural complexity has also resulted in a highly networked
global economy. This is a case of complexity transition from hierarchical
control to networked transactions.
Shown below is
a complexity transition in human organizations (after Bar-Yam 1997).
As depicted in
this diagram, the ever-increasing complexity of human organizations has resulted
in a (still ongoing) complexity transition:
(a) A single
person (king / dictator / big boss) takes all the decisions and directs the
behaviour of all persons under his domain. The actions of the controlled
persons are simple at both the individual and the collective level.
(b) As the
complexity of options and behaviour increases, intermediate layers of
hierarchical control emerge. The intermediate layers filter the information
reaching the top layer, and also elaborate on the nature of the commands down
the line. This can work only if the collective behaviour can be simplified in
an effective manner.
(c) There is a
veritable complexity transition when the maximum degree of complexity of an
individual becomes insufficient, i.e. is less than, the collective complexity.
Then the filtering of the information way up, and the elaboration of the directives
on the way down, become ineffective.
(d) Ultimately
there is a network of individuals, in
which everybody can communicate with everybody else directly. This results in qualitatively new emergent behaviour and
characteristics. An analogy with the neural network of the human brain
immediately points to the possibility of emergence of supra-human intelligence
in the human network.
Consequences
of this complexity transition in our civilization
Prior to the
transition, the complexity of the various organized structures was less than
the complexity of a typical human being. After the transition the opposite is
the case. There is now practically a weakening of the central control. This has
consequences for the individual, as well as for the more complex environment in
which the individual must function (Bar-Yam 1997).
The individual
was, till recently, the most complex single organism. But now the environment
is more complex than what was the most complex so far. An analogy with the rest
of the animal kingdom can help us understand the response of the human
individual. All the other animals are less complex than the environment. They
survive as species by reducing their interaction with the complex environment
(e.g. by creating for themselves certain ecological niches), and also by
reproducing excessively.
The humans
have also been striving for more and more specialization,
so that they can sell their skills competently and survive. This also helps
them limit their exposure to the highly complex modern civilization.
Specialization also helps tackle the problem of the ever-increasing mass of
information and knowledge.
The individual
may tend to develop a sense of insecurity when exposed to the environment more
complex than him/her. But the situation is mitigated by the fact that, since
the entire system is one big complex system, this superorganism has the usual
tendencies like the motivation to survive. This purpose is served better if the
superorganism (namely the human civilization as a whole) attempts to protect
and nourish its components, namely the human beings. An example is our better
health and life-expectancy.
No comments:
Post a Comment