An ecosystem of ideologies

I've read the suggestion that the word “ecosystem” has become overused to describe a system as being complex. This may be so, but it reflects only a deficiency in our language for describing complexity. Need a word to connote a heterogeneous, ever changing system where the parts interact non-linearly to cause the emergence of niches and continuous adaptive change? “Ecosystem” is your only word. “Economy” would also do if it weren't that so many people have the expectation that the economy is not complex at all but is easily fixed, if only the Powers That Be would implement their ideas. (Here, I have a checklist for ya…) So “ecosystem” is what we're stuck with, for now.

One powerful concept of an ecosystem is that of a niche, the idea that there are numerous viable (and necessary) ways to thrive within the various networks of competitive and cooperative relationships in an ecosystem. In a “plant and animal” ecosystem (as opposed to these other metaphorical uses of the word), this means there's much more to survival than being at the top of the food chain. In other, metaphorical ecosystems, this is also the case. For example, if I view my corporate workplace as an ecosystem with its obvious predatory and symbiotic relationships between coworkers, I see that there's no objective teleology of promotion. Rather, there's only adaptive change with how workers control resources (e.g., power, creative responsibility, paycheck, etc.) and many, many viable ways to earn a living, even through only my one employer. Furthermore, these niches are not merely possibilities for us individuals; for the company, these different roles are necessary for the continued, healthy functioning of the company. Not everyone can be at the top or any other one job title.

With this idea in mind—the idea of the ecosystem as a model for complex systems with niche roles—I pose an answer to the following question: why are some problems divergent while others are convergent?

Readers of this blog may remember me writing about Schumacher's idea of divergent and convergent problems. Basically, a convergent problem is one whereby eventually most solutions feature a set of commonalities, whereas a divergent problem is one whereby solutions remain varied and diverse over time. The idea here is that with convergent problems, the solutions gravitate towards a basic pattern that is objectively best^[1] With divergent problems, on the other hand, there is no single objectively best solution over the long-term, and so people continue to offer differing, feasible solutions. In some cases, like in deciding which form of governance is best, the disagreement has been going on for thousands of years.

While hopefully we each have the self-awareness to realize when we believe or espouse something contrary to what a great many others have believed or espoused for a long, long time, and, furthermore, that others probably have their valid reasons for their disagreement, I will take this one step further. I posit that it is not only that there is no universally objectively best solution to a divergent problem, what is best and necessary is that many different, competing solutions continue to be offered, even if they're the same ones over and over. For example, the age-old question, “Which is better: democracy or aristocracy?” is itself an invalid question in the universal sense. That people have justifiably been arguing over the matter for over two millennia—with both sides making valid points!—is itself the big hint that neither form of government is objectively best. Rather, each of those two forms of government is best in different sets of circumstances.

Wherever there exists a divergent problem, there exists an ecosystem of ideologies, and each solution fulfills a niche. In an ecosystem, it is not merely that niches provide available modes of survival to individuals; rather, the continued health of the ecosystem itself depends upon the niches to maintain the resiliency of the system. In the example of governance, it is not that both democracy and aristocracy have “eked” out a survival as ideologies among human populations; instead, both forms of governance are fundamental in their own ways for the ongoing success of the human race.

To see this another way, try the following thought experiment. Imagine there is a problem for which there exists no objectively best solution. I have already suggested one such problem: type of governance. With such a problem, why not converge upon a solution anyway? Pick one of the viable, “good enough” solutions and settle on it. This will, in a way, force a solution to become arbitrarily best. Surely it is better to have an arbitrarily best solution than it is to have no objectively best solution, right? By avoiding millennia of argument over the matter, people will save time and other resources so as to make the arbitrarily best solution, though not objectively best, superior to a multitude of competing solutions where no solution is objectively best. Except, however, that this is exactly what we don't observe throughout history. Divergent problems maintain their multitude of competing solutions despite the “waste” incurred from competition between possible solutions. This can only be so if the competition itself provides a net positive benefit; otherwise, societies that do force arbitrary convergence upon a solution would win out, evolutionarily, over societies that do not force convergence. Thus, disagreement in and of itself is a necessary component of any public discourse concerning a divergent problem.

Several months back, I was talking with a friend of a friend of a friend at a wedding, and he remarked that people these days have lost the “art of disagreement”. I don't think I can improve upon that. These days, especially in our increasingly polarized mass media news, there exists much disagreement, but there's not much art to it. It's a destructive sort of disagreement that disrespects other sides by failing to view the other sides as necessary to the health of the discourse. It's a single-minded intention to “correct” the other side of their “mistakes” or, more likely, upon failing to change the other side's mind, getting your way anyway. What is lost is not only the popular understanding that it is okay to see things differently but that it is necessary to see things differently. It's an ecosystem.

^[1]Though, it is possible that the “objectively best” solution is only locally best and not globally best. This is a common problem with hill-climbing solutions in general. For example, if I seek to walk my way to the highest point in Phoenix and do so by only going uphill from wherever I currently am, then I may end up on the top of the nearest freeway overpass rather than at the top of Camelback Mountain. In such a case, I achieve merely a locally best solution and not a globally best solution. For the purpose of this essay, I am ignoring the distinction between “locally best” and “globally best” and am using the term “objectively best”.