Complexity and Climate Crisis
The relationship between the complexity of socio-technical systems and the climate crisis is the subject of growing interest among scholars, as both phenomena intertwine to outline scenarios of instability and vulnerability.
The current historical moment requires not only a radical change in production and consumption models to address climate challenges but also a transition toward governance models capable of managing increasing complexity.
However, the rise in complexity, although necessary to respond to increasingly intricate problems, can generate inefficiencies, vulnerabilities, and, in extreme cases, the collapse of the system itself.
Systemic Collapse and Complexity
In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies (1988), Joseph Tainter proposed a theory according to which societies tend to collapse when the level of complexity reaches a point where the costs of maintaining it outweigh the benefits. Every increase in complexity entails greater resources needed to sustain the system’s organization and infrastructures. When these costs become unsustainable, the system can no longer bear its own weight, leading to collapse.
Recent studies, such as those by Ugo Bardi and colleagues, have expanded this theory through biophysical models that show how increasing complexity can initially enhance system resilience but, beyond a certain threshold, leads to diminishing returns. At that point, the system becomes increasingly vulnerable, favoring structural collapse. Similarly, Michele Bellingeri and colleagues have highlighted how the heterogeneity of interconnections in complex systems can reduce robustness, making the system susceptible to cascading failures.
The Climate Crisis as a Complexity Amplifier
The climate crisis represents an additional factor that increases the complexity of socio-technical systems. Extreme events, forced migrations, degradation of natural resources, and rising temperatures put pressure on infrastructures, institutions, and economic models, requiring rapid, coordinated, and multi-level responses. This growing pressure exacerbates system vulnerabilities, accelerating the risk of collapse.
Nevertheless, the relationship between complexity and the climate crisis is not linear. On the one hand, increasing complexity can slow the adoption of innovative solutions, as more intricate systems tend to be less flexible and slower to respond to change. On the other hand, complexity itself can act as an evolutionary brake, mitigating the destabilizing effects of climate change through self-regulation mechanisms. For example, highly interconnected complex systems can distribute energy and resources in ways that alleviate imbalances, reducing the risk of a rapid collapse.
Complexity as a Stabilizer
The increase in complexity in socio-technical systems could represent a stabilizing factor capable of mitigating the negative effects of disturbances such as the climate crisis. This occurs for three fundamental reasons. First, the structural inertia of such highly regulated and articulated systems slows their capacity to react to changes, thereby attenuating the impact of negative climate feedbacks. Second, the distribution of resources and energy within complex systems reduces the risk of destabilizing interactions, limiting the possibility of sudden and uncontrolled changes. Finally, these systems exhibit internal self-regulation mechanisms, based on feedback and redistribution, that tend to prevent sudden systemic crises, favoring the achievement of new equilibriums.
The relationship between complexity and the climate crisis highlights a delicate balance between stability and vulnerability. Assuming that the increase in complexity can temporarily slow climate change and mitigate collapse risks through self-regulation mechanisms, beyond a certain threshold, complexity itself becomes a destabilizing factor.
Global governance is called upon to face the dual task of managing growing complexity and mitigating the climate crisis, ensuring socially acceptable transitions toward new sustainable states of equilibrium.
However, the pursuit of such equilibriums cannot be the result of top-down decisions but must involve local communities, which must develop their own governance models compatible with the limits imposed by their culture. This requires initiating processes of self-determination for defining the development trajectories to be pursued, oriented toward collective well-being.
Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press.
Bardi, U., & Dias, L. C. (2018). Toward a General Theory of Societal Collapse: A Biophysical Examination of Tainter’s Model of the Diminishing Returns of Complexity. Sustainability, 10(11), 4047.
Schunck, F., & Gross, T. (2021). A Dynamic Network Model of Societal Complexity and Resilience Inspired by Tainter’s Theory of Collapse. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 24(1), 5.
Bellingeri, M., Bevacqua, D., & Caldarelli, G. (2019). Abrupt Efficiency Collapse in Real-World Complex Weighted Networks: Robustness Decrease with Link Weights Heterogeneity. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 18355.
