Today, I was introduced to a rather interesting new observation in the literature today. In "Human Ecology: Subversive and Conservative" by Garrett Hardin, published as part of the series entitled Science as a Way of Knowing in the academic literature, the following was written:
"Population growth ultimately makes democracy impossible. Easy communication is the sine qua non for an enduring democracy. All communication functions are inherently afflicted with diseconomies of scale, sincey (for every well defined communication network) the burden created by the communication of n people increases as the square of n. This burden expresses itself in information-overload, which leads to misunderstandings, social pathologies, and (ultimately) the acceptance of a totalitarian regime as the least of the evils available to an overpopulated political unit. In the face of unlimited population growth the word "democracy" can be retained, but not the fact."
I found this to be a fascinating and intriguing idea, and although this article was published in 1985, it may have some interesting lessons for us to consider today. There is certainly something to be said for how communications technology impacts the process of democracy, especially with respect to this concept of information overload. I wager those of you far more educated than myself on matters of economics and politics may have some interesting things to say about this idea. Is there some merit to the idea of population growth derailing a true democracy? Has this already happened in parts of the world?
Today, I was introduced to a rather interesting new observation in the literature today. In "Human Ecology: Subversive and Conservative" by Garrett Hardin, published as part of the series entitled Science as a Way of Knowing in the academic literature, the following was written:
"Population growth ultimately makes democracy impossible. Easy communication is the sine qua non for an enduring democracy. All communication functions are inherently afflicted with diseconomies of scale, sincey (for every well defined communication network) the burden created by the communication of n people increases as the square of n. This burden expresses itself in information-overload, which leads to misunderstandings, social pathologies, and (ultimately) the acceptance of a totalitarian regime as the least of the evils available to an overpopulated political unit. In the face of unlimited population growth the word "democracy" can be retained, but not the fact."
I found this to be a fascinating and intriguing idea, and although this article was published in 1985, it may have some interesting lessons for us to consider today. There is certainly something to be said for how communications technology impacts the process of democracy, especially with respect to this concept of information overload. I wager those of you far more educated than myself on matters of economics and politics may have some interesting things to say about this idea. Is there some merit to the idea of population growth derailing a true democracy? Has this already happened in parts of the world?
Interesting. First, I think we'd have to determine what is meant by "democracy." In political theory, there are a number of ways of organizing democracies, most of which have not been tried on a large scale. If "true democracy" is one person, one vote, and requires that everyone be equally-well informed on every proposal that must be voted on, I would tend to agree that it's not going to work on a large scale, and that population growth will be one of the things that could make it fail to function properly. However, there are models of nested democracies that might not respond in the same way. In part, it has to do with appropriate scaling of proposals and the voting population on the issue. It's been years since I read much about this sort of theory, but I would suspect that the advent of supercomputing, artificial intelligence, and similar fields would have a lot to say about how such democracies might work. It seems to me that it would be possible to have a form of democracy where not everyone gets to vote on every proposal that might, to some small degree, affect them.
Personally, I'm not sure whether there is any existing system that could qualify as "true" democracy. And, I'm not exactly sure how partial (in any case, less that "true" form) democracy would necessarily be a bad thing.
Elinor Ostrom (won the Nobel) and others at IU (and elsewhere) have been working on understanding how different arrangements of rules--including democracy/representation in the decision-making process--can affect the long-term sustainability of resource use in different environmental and social contexts. The work I'm familiar with is very favorable toward continuation of at least some forms of democracy.
I think that large populations make democracy more complex, but I don't know that it makes democracy impossible. I have not read this work by Hardin, but I did read The Tragedy of the Commons. His arguments rest on a number of questionable assumptions. In this particular paragraph, I see no reason why overpopulation would necessarily lead to social breakdown because of information overload. It is an interesting idea, to be sure, but how exactly does an increasingly number of communications lead to an increase in misunderstanding? Or social pathologies, whatever that means in Hardin’s work?
When Harding refers to "diseconomies of scale," he is borrowing a concept from economics. I guess the simplest analogy would be the growth of the number of employees in a firm, which increases the cost of communication and the likelihood of duplication of effort and misunderstanding. But it is not at all clear to me that this is good analogy for democracy, because we start with a fairly substantial population in most representative democracies. We do not enjoy town hall style governance and we never have. There were always a number of problems, including duplication of effort along the federal/state/municipal governance scales, between agencies, and disproportionate influence of monied or wealthy interests.
So I guess the short answer is that democracy was never there to begin with, if Hardin’s argument is accepted. Yet I would not describe what we have as totalitarian.
"... Easy communication is the sine qua non for an enduring democracy. All communication functions are inherently afflicted with diseconomies of scale, sincey (for every well defined communication network) the burden created by the communication of n people increases as the square of n. This burden expresses itself in information-overload, which leads to misunderstandings, social pathologies, and (ultimately) the acceptance of a totalitarian regime as the least of the evils available to an overpopulated political unit.
It might have appeared so to Mr. Hardin, in 1985.
Three decades of change and progress in technology and knowledge might give him a different perspective. But then, based on his earlier writings, I suspect that he was rather enamored of a technocratic solution to both population growth and society's organization, that included putting scientists in charge of making decisions for society.
Information overload can arguably seen as being problematic for democracies, but I don't quite see the link to population growth.
More information = more 'noise', more untruths and more distorted truths that can arguably lead to greater misunderstandings and intolerance.
As regards population growth though, democracy declines the further the decision maker gets from the average person. This means the decisions made have less and less impact on the person making them. For example, if all power rested at the city level, the decision maker would, to some extent, be affected by almost everything they did. They would also directly see the effects of most of their decisions and would also have to show their face amongst those whose lives they were affecting. At the local level, decisions are more about reality and less about abstractions made in an isolated bubble. The voter is also better able to make decisions about things that they can see rather than things they have read about in the paper or seen on TV and if people know that taxes are being spent in their local area, they are more acceptable than if they are being spent in some far off place.
In addition, the larger the democratic unit, the easier it is for special interests and lobbyists to be effective in achieving their narrow self interest. Now you only need to convince 1 government to create a policy that affects up to 1 billion people, if power was decentralised then you might have to convince 1000 governments to gain the same benefits. The TTIP/TPP are prime examples of the problems of centralised power and special interests that would be almost impossible to achieve in a decentralised system.
It is also much harder to run a big political unit than a small one, and the diseconomies of scale are not based on communication but on management. A 'one size fits all' approach will become increasingly ineffective.
Population growth is certainly a problem as regards these factors.
The increasing population of democratic units is only a problem though if people hold that such democratic units are fixed and immutable. No democracy is ever going to be without its flaws, but if genuine power was devolved to a much more localised level then may problems could be alleviated. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but long term I think it is a trend that we will see becoming increasingly prevalent as social problems become unmanageable at the larger level. The alternative to decentralisation, and one that we many people might well have to pass through, is increasing authoritarianism.
It is also much harder to run a big political unit than a small one, and the diseconomies of scale are not based on communication but on management. A 'one size fits all' approach will become increasingly ineffective.
Population growth is certainly a problem as regards these factors.
The increasing population of democratic units is only a problem though if people hold that such democratic units are fixed and immutable. No democracy is ever going to be without its flaws, but if genuine power was devolved to a much more localised level then may problems could be alleviated. I doubt it will happen any time soon, but long term I think it is a trend that we will see becoming increasingly prevalent as social problems become unmanageable at the larger level. The alternative to decentralisation, and one that we many people might well have to pass through, is increasing authoritarianism.
It depends on the problem. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global response, and local solutions are inadequate. I am also not sure that devolution has really solved a lot of these problems, or is inherently better than federal administration. Regulatory capture is in many ways easier at the state and local level, insofar as it is cheaper and faster.
It depends on the problem. Climate change is a global problem that requires a global response, and local solutions are inadequate. I am also not sure that devolution has really solved a lot of these problems, or is inherently better than federal administration. Regulatory capture is in many ways easier at the state and local level, insofar as it is cheaper and faster.
Where has devolution had the chance? Big decisions are made at the national level.
As a rule, small countries do better than big ones. The richest countries in Europe are Luxembourg and Switzerland which is probably the only bigger country that is genuinely devolved. Richest in Asia, Singapore.
The current system is unlikely to solve global warming anyway, and an international system that had more power to enforce changes would never work so there is no loss there.
Where has devolution had the chance? Big decisions are made at the national level.
As a rule, small countries do better than big ones. The richest countries in Europe are Luxembourg and Switzerland which is probably the only bigger country that is genuinely devolved. Richest in Asia, Singapore.
The current system is unlikely to solve global warming anyway, and an international system that had more power to enforce changes would never work so there is no loss there.
Devolution has been used in the US for quite some time, in areas like welfare, block grant funding and the like.
Some small countries do better, although Singapore is hardly an example of a functioning small scale democracy. It is certainly not a democracy by Western standards. And once you account for oil wealth (and their near slave status immigrant populations), it is not altogether clear that smaller countries have any wealth advantage. They certainly don't have a any democratic edge.
Not only is democracy going to be more and more challenged in the future in all likelihood, so are capitalistic systems more likely to be more difficult to maintain because of larger populations and diminishing resources.
Today, I was introduced to a rather interesting new observation in the literature today. In "Human Ecology: Subversive and Conservative" by Garrett Hardin, published as part of the series entitled Science as a Way of Knowing in the academic literature, the following was written:
"Population growth ultimately makes democracy impossible. Easy communication is the sine qua non for an enduring democracy. All communication functions are inherently afflicted with diseconomies of scale, sincey (for every well defined communication network) the burden created by the communication of n people increases as the square of n. This burden expresses itself in information-overload, which leads to misunderstandings, social pathologies, and (ultimately) the acceptance of a totalitarian regime as the least of the evils available to an overpopulated political unit. In the face of unlimited population growth the word "democracy" can be retained, but not the fact."
I found this to be a fascinating and intriguing idea, and although this article was published in 1985, it may have some interesting lessons for us to consider today. There is certainly something to be said for how communications technology impacts the process of democracy, especially with respect to this concept of information overload. I wager those of you far more educated than myself on matters of economics and politics may have some interesting things to say about this idea. Is there some merit to the idea of population growth derailing a true democracy? Has this already happened in parts of the world?
Far as I am concerned, that is a self-evident fact.
Edited to add: Most of Earth never had direct experience with true democracy, and those few places that do are forgetting it fast, mainly because it is so difficult to keep respectful dialogues among so many people when it is so very tempting to dehumanize others and decide that they are a problem to be muscled away.
Today, I was introduced to a rather interesting new observation in the literature today. In "Human Ecology: Subversive and Conservative" by Garrett Hardin, published as part of the series entitled Science as a Way of Knowing in the academic literature, the following was written:
"Population growth ultimately makes democracy impossible. Easy communication is the sine qua non for an enduring democracy. All communication functions are inherently afflicted with diseconomies of scale, sincey (for every well defined communication network) the burden created by the communication of n people increases as the square of n. This burden expresses itself in information-overload, which leads to misunderstandings, social pathologies, and (ultimately) the acceptance of a totalitarian regime as the least of the evils available to an overpopulated political unit. In the face of unlimited population growth the word "democracy" can be retained, but not the fact."
I found this to be a fascinating and intriguing idea, and although this article was published in 1985, it may have some interesting lessons for us to consider today. There is certainly something to be said for how communications technology impacts the process of democracy, especially with respect to this concept of information overload. I wager those of you far more educated than myself on matters of economics and politics may have some interesting things to say about this idea. Is there some merit to the idea of population growth derailing a true democracy? Has this already happened in parts of the world?
I think we are probably heading for a period in history that could easily become totalitarian (both fascist and communist, though the latter is less likely atm). This is mainly down to the number of environmental problems (notably climate change) that are going to affect the supply of very basic resources, such a water, food, energy, etc. I would say that population growth is more of a symptom of the problem than the problem itself.
Please note that China and India (with a combined population of 2.5 billion) come consistently in the low or middle catagories in the Charts for per capita (per person) meat consumption, energy consumption and water withdrawl/usage. The world's population was 7.125 Billion in 2013, after passing 6 billion in 1999. "Developed" countries disproprtionally use resources and place an heavy burden on the planet. Its not that population is unsustaible, but that our way of life is unsustainable. Rapid population growth is a problem, but its not the whole picture. I feel the need to actually have some evidence to back this up, as the idea of "over-population" is a deeply pernicious myth that poor people are the problem. they aren't. the big problem is that everyone wants to be like America and the planet cannot sustian it.
At a glance, you can see there is a correlation between high levels of per capita consumption and democracy, with most of them being in America, Europe, East Asia and Austrialasia. Given that 'democracy' is often closely associated with free markets, it is debatable whether democracy/free markets lead to increase consumption, or whether increased consumption leads to free market/democracies. its probably a bit of both. The problem of course is that if our way of life is unsustainable... so too maybe the institutions that helped develop and sustain it. we won't know until we actually face that situation, but obviously- it would be better if we didn't have to face it at all and there were some gradual reforms introduced rather than the system crashing. if we screw up the environment on which our economic systems depends, our political institutions will follow as people scramble with each other over the remaining resources. Whatever system that produces, the process itself will be really ugly.
The idea that population growth leads to information-overload and a break down in communication and therefore democracies, is pretty simplistic- as it assumes there is only a finite amount of information (and therefore people) who can participate in the democratic process. So they very conception of "democracy" at work here, it elitist. it's an attitude of "better a small democracy run by elites, then a large one run by the people."
Got it in one. its not the number of people who participate in the democratic process that matter, but the qualitity of those people. If you have a group of people who are badly informed, easily manipulated and reject evidence because it doesn't "fit" their worldview, you have a group of people thats asking for a dictatorship. Throw in serious economic problems making people so desperate that they want the government to act ASAP- it's even more certain. Democracy is a long-term process of not only building up a set of institutions, but also of people developing in such a way that those institutions can sustain themselves and those democratic traditions are inherited one generation after the next. What is worrying is that in the US, the power of corporations, the mass media and the government has become so immense that they can 'nudge' public opinion in the direction they want. This is a process that has been going on from decades, until you reach the absurd levels we have today where we chose not to face up to the difficult questions and stick with our own dogmatic belief that we always have the best way of doing things. it is uncompromisingly ideological, irrespective as to whether it actually produces the results it wants or not. it has the perverse effect that people who ardently believe they are defending freedom and democracy as creating the socio-economic conditions which would make it impossible.
Information does play a role, and it is certainly true that we have to sort out what information is relevant. that is more true now than ever before because of how the internet has changed how we access information. But the big factor in information over-load is that we are rejecting information on the multitude of issues because they don't fit with our preconceptions. Our environmental problems are the most obvious and serious of these.
US democracy threatened by overpopulation? Yes. Democracy in general? No. There are ways to sidestep the myriad of our political and social shortcomings.
US democracy threatened by overpopulation? Yes. Democracy in general? No. There are ways to sidestep the myriad of our political and social shortcomings.
I am not familiar with this book or it's author. I have however drawn the same conclusion. It is not population growth within a nation itself that is the problem but when it is forced up by large scale immigration. The most important aspect of democracy is the people, who are in the main the working class. The working class are in general community based. Classic examples are miners and dockers. More modern examples are steel workers and those in the big car factories. People who traditionally stopped the ruling class getting it's own way.
I can only speak from an English perspective, but I am convinced that large scale immigration damages communities and therefore democracy. The U.K. is very densely populated. According to one newspaper account more than ninety different languages are being spoken by London school children. In recent times we have seen the racist and extreme right wing UKIP attracting large numbers, young people in their hundreds leaving to fight for ISIS, Scotland nearly leaving the UK huge numbers of M.P.'s found to be petty crooks. They all have one thing in common, they think this country is a pile of s**t and it is.
The reasons for our decline are many and of a nascent nature. Such things can be faced but it is vastly more difficult without cohesion and community.
Today, I was introduced to a rather interesting new observation in the literature today. In "Human Ecology: Subversive and Conservative" by Garrett Hardin, published as part of the series entitled Science as a Way of Knowing in the academic literature, the following was written:
"Population growth ultimately makes democracy impossible. Easy communication is the sine qua non for an enduring democracy. All communication functions are inherently afflicted with diseconomies of scale, sincey (for every well defined communication network) the burden created by the communication of n people increases as the square of n. This burden expresses itself in information-overload, which leads to misunderstandings, social pathologies, and (ultimately) the acceptance of a totalitarian regime as the least of the evils available to an overpopulated political unit. In the face of unlimited population growth the word "democracy" can be retained, but not the fact."
I found this to be a fascinating and intriguing idea, and although this article was published in 1985, it may have some interesting lessons for us to consider today. There is certainly something to be said for how communications technology impacts the process of democracy, especially with respect to this concept of information overload. I wager those of you far more educated than myself on matters of economics and politics may have some interesting things to say about this idea. Is there some merit to the idea of population growth derailing a true democracy? Has this already happened in parts of the world?
I think the main difference between 1985 and now is the internet. The internet undoes quite a bit of the scaling problem, I would imagine.
I think that it's certainly true that easy communication is critical for functioning democracy. There were so few democracies/republics in the ancient world, and the ones that did exist in some way were not on a very large scale. Without literacy, democracy would be next to impossible above a certain scale.
I suspect that the larger threats to democracy are anti-intellectualism, political laziness/apathy/ignorance, and the ability to buy elections and do hardcore lobbying. I'd worry about those before I would worry about the problem of scale itself.
