I wondered in the last post why The Age of the Unthinkable – why the new global order constantly surprises us and what to do about it had – despite its readability – made so little impact when it came out in 2009. I suspect it was perhaps just a bit ahead of its time – if only by a year or so. At the time, most of us were trying to get our heads around the global financial crisis and hadn’t yet realised that this would be the first of a wave of crises to buffet us in the West. John Urry’s “What is the Future?” was published in 2016 and, in 3 pages, gives the titles of no fewer than 60 books which, between 2003 and 2015, spelled out the dystopian future which beckoned… starting with “Our Final Century” (Rees 2003) and finishing with “The Sixth Extinction” (Kolbert)
The buzzwords of our new
world are those from systems, chaos and complexity theory - interconnectedness,
networks, feedbacks, emergence, nonlinear change, exponential, tipping points….
Arguably
we started to become familiar with this language in 1977 when Ilya Prigogine won the Nobel prize in
Chemistry for his work on “dissipative structures” which led to the field for
which he is better known – self-organising systems.
His Order out of Chaos - man’s new dialogue with nature wasn’t published in the USA until 1984 but it has a powerful introduction written by the famous Alvin Toffler which starts –
One of the
most highly developed skills in contemporary Western civilization is
dissection: the split-up of problems into their smallest possible components.
We are good at it. So good, we often forget to put the pieces back together
again. This skill is perhaps most finely honed in science. There we not only
routinely break problems down into bite-sized chunks and mini-chunks, we then
very often isolate each one from its environment by means of a useful trick. We
say ceteris paribus-all other things being equal. In this way we can ignore the
complex interactions between our problem and the rest of the universe.
llya
Prigogine, who won the Nobel Prize in 1977 for his work on the thermodynamics
of nonequilibrium systems , is not satisfied, however, with merely taking
things apart. He has spent the better part of a lifetime trying to "put
the pieces back together again"-the pieces in this case being biology and
physics, necessity and chance, science and humanity.
And the decline of the industrial age forces us to
confront the painful limitations of the machine model of reality. Of
course, most of these limitations are not freshly discovered. The notion that
the world is a clockwork, the planets timelessly orbiting, all systems
operating deterministically in equilibrium, all subject to universal laws that
an outside observer could discover-this model has come under withering fire
ever since it first arose.
In the early
nineteenth century, thermodynamics challenged the timelessness implied in the
mechanistic image of the universe. If the world was a big machine, the thermos-dynamicists
declared, it was running down, its useful energy leaking out. It could not go
on forever, and time, therefore, took on a new meaning.
-
Darwin's
followers soon introduced a contradictory thought: The world-machine might be
running down, losing energy and organization, but biological systems, at least,
were running up, becoming more, not less, organized.
-
By the early
twentieth century, Einstein had come along to put the observer back into the
system: The machine looked different-indeed, for all practical purposes it was
different depending upon where you stood within it. But it was still a
deterministic machine, and God did not throw dice.
-
Next, the
quantum people and the uncertainty folks attacked the model with pickaxes,
sledgehammers, and sticks of dynamite.
Nevertheless,
despite all the ifs, ands, and buts, it remains fair to say, as Prigogine and
Stengers do, that the machine paradigm is still the "reference point"
for physics and the core model of science in general. Indeed, so powerful is
its continuing influence that much of social science, and especially economics,
remains under its spell.
The
importance of this book is not simply that it uses original arguments to
challenge the Newtonian model, but also that it shows how the still valid,
though much limited, claims of Newtonianism might fit compatibly into a larger
scientific image of reality. It argues that the old "universal laws"
are not universal at all, but apply only to local regions of reality. And these
happen to be the regions to which science has devoted the most effort.
Thus, in
broad-stroke terms, Prigogine and Stengers argue that traditional science in
the Age of the Machine tended to emphasize stability, order, uniformity, and
equilibrium. It concerned itself mostly with closed systems and linear
relationships in which small inputs uniformly yield small results. With the
transition from an industrial society based on heavy inputs of energy, capital,
and labor to a high-technology society in which information and innovation are
the critical resources, it is not surprising that new scientific world models
should appear.
What makes the Prigoginian paradigm especially
interesting is that it shifts attention to those aspects of reality that characterize
today's accelerated social change: disorder, instability, diversity,
disequilibrium, nonlinear relationships (in which small inputs can trigger
massive consequences), and temporality-a heightened sensitivity to the flows of
time. The work of Ilya
Prigogine and his colleagues in the socalled " Brussels school" may
well represent the next revolution in science as it enters into a new dialogue
not merely with nature, but with society itself.
……. Words like "revolution," "economic crash," "technological upheaval ," and "paradigm shift" all take on new shades of meaning when we begin thinking of them in terms of fluctuations, feedback amplification, dissipative structures, bifurcations, and the rest of the Prigoginian conceptual vocabulary.) It is these panoramic vistas that are opened to us by “Order Out of Chaos”.
No comments:
Post a Comment