View source for Spectrum of Destabilization, via Breakdown, to Collapse


=Discussion=

Asher Miller and Richard Heinberg

"When we refer to the condition of various systems or the entire state of society, terminology
becomes challenging for two main reasons: 

1) it is difficult to empirically and consistently quantify
conditions across distinct systems like global finance or a local coral reef, and 

2) terms like “collapse” tend to engender subjective responses. As resilience scientists Graeme Cumming and
Garry Peterson have observed, “…the questions of how much and what kind of change constitutes a collapse,
whether fast and slow changes both qualify as ‘collapse’, and whether collapse
must have a normative dimension (and if so, then who decides on that dimension,
since it may depend on perspective) are all contested.” 

Cumming, Peterson, and many others have attempted to correct for often arbitrary and conflicting
uses of concepts like “collapse” within academic literature by developing more comprehensive
frameworks. While such frameworks are valuable, our intent here is simply to provide those
concerned with systemic environmental and social challenges with clear and consistent use of
terms like destabilization, breakdown, and collapse—particularly as they relate to one another
on a continuum. The far end of that continuum is collapse. For our purposes, the collapse of a
system—whether a pine forest, the market for insulin, or the global economy—entails a lasting loss
of functioning or the loss of the entire identity of that system, as when a savannah ecosystem shifts
to a desert.

The difference between the destabilization of a system and its breakdown can be more difficult
to define, as it largely pertains to degree of severity. When a system undergoes destabilization, it
experiences notable changes in its functioning or behavior. This destabilization is not merely an
isolated event or perturbation, as when the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) experiences a
dramatic, short-lived loss in value, but rather a pattern of repeated discontinuities. These patterns
of discontinuity could last a long time—for example, if the Dow Jones undergoes repeated,
dramatic jumps and drops in value for many months—to the point where such patterns are viewed
as “the new normal.” What’s key is that these patterns reflect instability. What differentiates
breakdown from destabilization is that a system undergoing breakdown experiences a profound
loss of function or structure, though this is neither permanent nor entails the loss of that system’s
identity (that would be its collapse).

Sticking with the example of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, its destabilization could entail a
pattern of dramatic, unpredictable shifts in value (up 8 percent one week, down 5 percent the next,
up 3 percent again, down 9 percent again, and so on for a significant period of time); its breakdown
would occur when all that instability leads to shareholders suddenly fleeing the market in large
numbers, compelling the DJIA operators to temporarily suspend all trading); and its collapse would
stem from such a loss of value or number of traders that a critical mass of companies listed in the
market abandons it, or it is forced to close permanently."

(https://www.postcarbon.org/publications/welcome-to-the-great-unraveling/)


=Source=

'''* Book: Welcome to the Great Unraveling: [[Navigating the Polycrisis of Environmental and Social Breakdown]]. Asher Miller and Richard Heinberg. Post-Carbon Institute, June 15, 2023.'''

URL = https://www.postcarbon.org/publications/welcome-to-the-great-unraveling/



[[Category:Collapse]]

[[Category:Articles]]