by bobcousins » Thu 19 May 2005, 18:23:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '
')I'm familiar with Tainter but I don't understand what you're saying here. Why does maintenance require further growth. It requires a continuing investment of time and energy but why does that require growth?
That's a good question, and one Tainter doesn't really answer in a satisfactory way. However, in the light of Solow's model (thanks for the heads up jaws), I think we can now see how the two tie together.
I guess the underlying reason is population growth. The added population plus depreciation cost puts a greater pressure on your resource base. To increase production more investment in infrastructure is required, which leads to further maintenance cost. I suppose if you froze population, then you might be able to manage without growth.
So I think this explains why a society, given an initial technological or organisational advantage, can develop an upward growth spiral, and increases in size and complexity. Inevitably it reaches a carrying capacity, and before that becomes vulnerable to fluctuations in production capacity due to climate, etc.
Tainters studies by observation, how various empires got locked into this spiral. The capital infrastructure becomes impossible to support without continued growth. Something has to give way. A sign of impending collapse is a desperate attempt to shore up the infrastructure. We haven't reached that point yet, but a key test will be to see how Western societies manage the health and pensions crisis.
It would be very interesting to see Tainters data reworked with a firmer economic model, but that would require someone cleverer than me.
The Roman empire is a relevant case here. The people demanded the benefits of the Empire; it was their ultimate downfall.