Will our civilization survive and thrive or collapse and descend into chaos? That is the essence of a number of e-mails I have gotten over the last few months. The number seems to have picked up with the election of Donald Trump. I wonder why? The letters and e-mails I used to get were more along the lines of "how do we save our society?" to "how can our society survive?" to "can any kind of society and civilization survive?" Today the dominant question seems to be: "when will society collapse and how bad will it be?"

There has been a definite trend in the mood of these questions which I attribute to the continuing pile up of evidence that none of our institutions are really working anymore, a subject I have observed in the past. So it seems that more people are coming to the conclusion that something is definitely wrong with our social system if not our collective minds. For much of the history of this blog I've commented extensively on both.

My own opinion (for what it is worth - about as much as you are paying to read this) is that our whole social system (globally) is on the brink of a major and dramatic transition. The argument I make is based on systems theory, but then so have been all of my previous observations and I suspect long-time readers are apt to realize I've got a pretty good track record when it comes to pointing out large-scale trends (in the downward direction).

The transition of which I speak is one in the sense of the major transitions in evolutionary history, from pre-organic chemistry to life, from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, from single cells to multicellular organisms, etc. Human society is itself the result of such a major transition, the evolution of hyper-sociality in our genus that has led to tribes, towns, cities, and so on.

Transitions of this kind are not radical, sudden revolutions so much as gradual reorganizations of existing systems that makes a collective of previously independent systems more fit as a collective, cooperating structure. That is not to say the transition might not be triggered or pushed ahead by the event of some catastrophe. The transition from reptile dominance to mammalian and bird dominance in the megafauna was hastened along (in geological time scales) by the extinction event that wiped out the non-bird dinosaurs. As I have describe several times in these pages, I suspect that a general collapse of our current neoliberal capitalistic system (or variations on capitalism as we find, for example, in China), which I think will result in a collapse of most institutions will bring civilization to its knees or lower. It is likely to result in massive decline in the populations around the world (which is a euphemistic way to say massive dying).

But the collapse of this society is not as bad a thing as it might seem, except, of course, to those of us who end up being part of the population collapse. I know this is cold, but the fact is that the way this society works is exactly what is causing the problems.

The collapse of the economic system may actually be brought about by forces associated with climate change (coupled with decline in free energy resources). It isn't hard to imagine such a scenario. We may even be witnessing the beginning stages with the horrendous costs in lives and property due to this hurricane season (and just so far). Climate change, in the form of major disasters, will be extremely costly. It will be even more costly when we finally get that we have to adapt - as in moving Miami hundreds of miles inland and north. Where will the resources come from to accomplish this? With net free energy resources already on the decline how will we accomplish the work needed?

While not dismissing the possibility completely, I don't think humanity will disappear completely. I don't even think some kind of social structure will disappear. It will just be an extremely diminished version of what we see today. But therein lies the opportunity.

Complex adaptive and evolvable systems (CAES) collapse when their governance infrastructures fails to regulate their behavior. Humanity's governance system is wide of the mark when it comes to meeting the criteria of sustainability. Our governments are incompetent in part because they are very poorly designed to manage the complexity of the modern world. But also they are incompetent because the individual decision agents making them up are themselves incompetent. They are simply not sufficiently sapient. Exhibit A: Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma). What a complete idiot. Exhibit B: Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), head of the House Science Committee!!!! These guys and most of the Congress are totally out of touch with reality. How did they get to be elected - Oh wait, I forgot the President too.

There are lots of examples of CAESs that have managed to evolve relatively competent governance subsystems. Cells do it. Brains do it. It isn't impossible. But it is hard and as a result of long-term evolution it has to be tested repeatedly in the world stage of selection. There are some examples of corporate or non-profit organizations that have been long-lived because they take their governance seriously and the top management are not out to rob the place blind and make an escape.

The design of government is the result of a long evolutionary process that has been going on since the Stone Age. We've tried just about every kind of configuration and function. Most have reflected a social hierarchical structure, but in the absence of real sapience these hierarchies have devolved to power relations rather than service relations. A wise structure is based on the executives and supervisors taking the position that they work for those who do the actual work. They are supposed to provide them with the vision and tools, not boss them around. Ordinary human beings just don't get this.

Modern democracies are built around the neoliberal idea of individual autonomy (a secular version of "free will"). In the west this means blatant individualism, in the extreme, libertarian sentiments - another failing of low sapience. Hyper-sociality, a characteristic of high sapience, is based on cooperation, altruism, selflessness, and a sense of belonging to something bigger and more important than the individual. Democracy among low-sapients cannot work. It doesn't work. Just look at the evidence in front of your eyes. The average human being today is out for "numero uno". How much of this is because there are simply too many of us and we all feel we are in competition with each other? I offer arguments that suggest that while population density tends to bring out the worst in us, the fact is that the worst is IN US.

What about the transition? I have argued several times that high sapient people (and there are a few in this world despite the madding crowds) will tend to be more adaptive to changing conditions such as climate change and a collapsing society. They will also have the capacity to find one another and form social units that can actually work. They are the hope of the genus. They form the basis for an incipient new species of Homo that stands a chance to survive the collapse and construct a better governance subsystem.

The collapse of human social systems will mirror the collapse of the reptilian dominance 65 million years ago. Something positive will emerge from it.

So, as we go into the darkness of winter we take heart in knowing that there will be a turning point in the solstice and an emergence into the light of spring. We humans can make a transition to a better social organization. It will be a necessity. We now know that the system that has evolved thus far can be improved greatly.