This post into a "discussion thread" on the WELL/ Whole Earth conference, 10/97, intended to clarify a basic concept in Chaos/Complexity theory that was becoming muddled.

When people use the phrase "the Edge of Chaos" to signify "the Edge of Catastrophe" --

a. they probably haven't studied what "the Edge..." really means in Complexity theory -- it's quite a subtle concept.

b. they may still be right -- because that "edge" may be a fine, delicate one, not terribly robust to changing conditions.

Putting the theory into simplest terms: when you have a complex system feeding back into itself -- subsystem A's output feeds into subsystem B's input, which drives subsystem C, which feeds back input to subsystem A and B, (all living systems are subject to such feedback loops) -- then whether you settle into some stable state (static or dynamic), or go chaotic depends basically on how many inputs you allow to each subsystem from the other subsystems' outputs as well as other external sources. The more inputs allowed, the more tendency to go chaotic. According to the Santa Fe Institute fellows' (Langton, Holland, Kauffman) theory, self-organizing systems flexibly optimize themselves, adapt to ever-changing environments, by tuning their subsystems to receive as many inputs as possible, just shy of the point where they would be driven chaotic. With fewer inputs than this, the system settles into states of sub-optimal survival competence; more, it jitters away from good optima, where it should "set a while." This delicate tuning of the adaptation mechanism they call "the edge of chaos."

Most living systems can only adapt to inputs that vary within certain limits -- they go chaotic or die if those limits are exceeded. So a system that is not very highly evolved -- is being constantly reshaped under a barrage of unprecedented stimuli (all of our current social systems fit this description) -- may not be very well "tuned" in the sense described above. Thus, when we loosely use the phrase "the edge of chaos" to describe a social situation (do we know any other?), then it is going to mean something quite different than it does in the clearly defined mathematical sense described above.

But, looking at an even larger picture, if complexity theory is correct, it probably applies across the full range of "living things," widely conceived -- from macromolecules to the Biosphere (Gaia). And on the largest scale, we have reason to believe the Big System isquite highly evolved. While it is true that Man-un-kind's nuclear devices, an asteroid, or other global cataclysm could wipe out whole species or phyla, the Big System (Gaia) has managed to adapt to many such massive cataclysms, and in the course of evolutionary time, shrugged them off. If man creates conditions for his own extinction, Gaia will simply carry on with more compatible life-forms.

Short of those massive disruptions, many of which are out of our control, most of our environmental scheming and political processing is about optimization strategies -- how can we better understand and consciously regulate the feedback between the various subsystems? Of course, even when we understand a problem, it's still a challenge getting people to correct it, because our collective social actions are also driven by numerous inputs, only one of which is "what's best for the environment of the long-term future." Rather, our human value system seems to be tuned to optimize our short-term benefits.

Email comments to vamead@well.com.
Join the WELL and join in these discussions yourself: WELL.com.