Joseph Tainter | Complexity, Energy, and the Fragility of Modern Civilization

Welcome to The Puck, Venture Capital and Beyond, a show that examines the changing landscape of our world. Before we dive in, a quick word about who I am and why we're here. I'm Jim Bier, corporate lawyer and restructuring professional. I've spent the last two decades helping companies navigate their toughest transitions. And about eight years ago, I found myself having fascinating conversations with clients and friends about everything from venture capital to the broader shifts happening in our economy and society.

Those discussions were simply too good, so the puck was born. Now while we started on venture capital, hence the podcast name, the Puck Venture Capital and Beyond, We've naturally evolved to focus more on the and beyond portion of the title. Today, we explore how business intersects with the bigger forces shaping our world. I still run my restructuring practice by day, but now I get to host these conversations by night. It has become one of the most rewarding parts of my life.

Today's guest continues that tradition. Does AI solve the growth to debt problem? I don't know. I would have to see the argument in detail. I don't know that it does or that it doesn't.

What I will say is that all solutions are short term. There's no such thing as a permanent solution. Today in the Puck, I talk with anthropologist and historian Joseph Tainter, the author of The Collapse of Complex Societies, a book that explains how the very complexity that makes civilization strong can eventually become their greatest vulnerability. From the Roman Empire to modern globalization, AI, and the growing demand for energy, we discuss why societies continuously add layers of complexity to solve problems and why those solutions may only be buying us time. This is a fascinating conversation where we ask, can innovation keep us ahead of the rising cost of complexity, or are we simply delaying the inevitable?

There's a lot to cover, so let's get to it. Joseph Tainter, welcome to the puck. Thank you. So before we jump in, can you just take a moment and tell our listeners just a little bit about yourself? Yes.

I am an archaeologist. My professional background, I've done field work in a variety of places. The most recent place I've been working was West Africa. Before that, various parts in The United States. I've done I spent a summer doing field work in Hawaii quite a few years ago when I back in my student days.

And a number of years ago, I became interested in one of the major topics of human history, which is why do societies collapse? The primary examples being some ancient societies that are well known, the Roman Empire, the Classic Maya and so forth. I went to work on this topic in the 1980s. A study I did was published in 1988. And as I was doing it, I realized that what I was learning was not just about ancient societies.

It had implications for us and for our future. And so I gradually shifted more and more of my work to contemporary issues in sustainability. So your works, as I understand it, focuses a lot in the area of the idea of the collapse of complex societies. How did you come to see complexity as both a solution and a cost? Well, the the question of why ancient societies collapsed, it I I realized it is the converse side of the question of why did human societies ever grow more complex in the first place.

And so the term collapse is it's it's a common term. It's an everyday language. People who try to work on the on the question of why do societies collapse often use it care carelessly or without defining it. So my conception of collapse is the collapse of a society is that it's a rapid simplification. It's the rapid loss of an established level of social, political, and economic complexity.

And so the the the variable I realized I needed to work on is complexity. It's the evolution of complexity in human societies. Why over, let's say, the last twelve thousand years ago or so have most human societies grown more and more complex from simple foraging bands to the societies we live in today? And why do societies sometimes go in the opposite direction? Why do they sometimes collapse?

Which is to say, why do they rapidly simplify, rapidly lose complexity? That's how I oriented my research in the study. If I understand this, society start out simple, they add complexity, but I believe your hypothesis is that each layer of complexity adds kind of a diminishing return. Where do you see The United States on on that curve? Well, ask me that again in a couple of minutes because I I need to back up on the first part of your your statement.

Okay. Sure. No. Increasing complexity does not automatically yield diminishing returns. Okay.

We have to understand, and this goes back to elementary rules of physics, that the normal condition of the universe is entropy. It's disorder. It's everything in a simple state. To move everything into a more complex state takes energy, And that applies to human societies just as it applies to everything else in the universe, whether we're talking about animal species, insects, ecosystems, planets, the cosmos, whatever. Maintaining any society away from a simple state of entropy takes takes energy.

Now in the past, what this means is that in the past, increasing the complexity of societies meant that people had to work harder. And so this, I mean, this undermines our common conception of of how we came to be the kind of a society we are now. You know, we we tend to think that, well, we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps by, human ingenuity and hard work. And I I don't wanna downplay those ingenuity and hard work were in fact necessary, but they don't really explain why it is that that societies grow complex over time. Keep in mind, I mean, this is fundamental.

In the past, when when societies would increase in complexity, it meant that people had to work harder. When you get to the point where there are state level societies, it meant people paid more taxes for the society, for the government, and and so forth and so on. And the question then becomes, well, why if this is the case, why why did I mean, why do people do this? Why did people ever allow their societies to grow more complex? And the answer I I realized is that complexity solves problems.

Increasing in complexity allows you to address whatever problems you were facing at the moment. I like to use the example of the terrorist attacks on the United States in 09/11/2001. How did we respond to those? We increased in complexity. We developed new government agencies, Department of Homeland Security, for example.

We developed new rules for how people are allowed to behave. Think of every time you go through the line at the airport and so forth. These are elements of complexity. And complexity consists of two dimensions of what I call structure and organization. Okay.

Structure is the parts of the system. In in human society, it's institutions, social roles, technologies, and so forth. The elements, the parts. Organization is what makes them all work together as a system rather than working randomly, work together as a system. So complexity consists of of increasing structure and increasing organization, more and more parts and more and more ways to make them work together.

And the reason why we adopt complexity, increasing complexity to solve problems is because most of the time, it works. Most of the time, growing in complexity does, in fact, solve the problem, and it it takes only a a a problem confronts itself. It is immediate. It has to be dealt with. And an increment in complexity to solve the problem seems it seems like a small step, and it seems affordable.

And I like to say that complexity is seductive because you're confronted with a problem. You think, okay. I just need to do add a little more complexity to solve the problem. We'll raise taxes just a little bit, or maybe the government will borrow a little bit more to solve this problem, and and then the problem will be done. So this is why complexity grows.

It grows by these small incremental steps, each of which seems reasonable at a time. This is why this I say the complexity is seductive. Each step seems reasonable. It's the cumulative cost that do the damage. Now what I found looking at ancient societies is that the ones that collapsed reached a point where they simply could not tax, let's say, tax the population anymore for growing complexity, that they're confronted with challenges.

The exam the main example I like to use is is the later Roman Empire. The empire grew more and more complex over time to deal with the problems it was facing until finally the burden of taxation on the population was simply too high, and the empire you know, the Roman state collapsed ultimately. And and the others seem to go the same way that they grow in complexity, they grow in complexity, they grow in complexity until finally a challenge comes along that is insurmountable because they can't just go on growing in complexity and incurring higher and higher costs. Okay. Now we're largely not aware of this today because to us, complexity seems to be free.

We pay for complexity with fossil fuels. So getting back to the second part of your question, where is The United States today? There we are. Energy, fossil energy and a few other sources of energy are how we pay for complexity today and why we're not aware that complexity costs. So I'm okay.

Now I'm a little confused. When you talk about complexity and paying for complexity, I would have thought complexity has to do with, like, government regulations and, you know, how do you deal with technological issues and and govern yourself when it comes to defense and AI and an aging population and all the complexity that comes with more people and a bigger society. And, yes, that requires more money. Mhmm. But I would I mean, again, are you saying that the brain itself can handle the complexity?

The the governmental institutions can handle the complexity, but they run out of the money to be able to afford the complexity? Money is a surrogate currency. K. Other surrogate currencies are labor, time. I like to use annoyance as a surrogate currency of complexity.

These are and and and the answer is yes to all the things you listed. Those are all elements, aspects of of complexity. You know? The complexity of our society today, no no one can comprehend it. No individual can comprehend it.

It's Sure. It's it's indescribable. I mean, the the parts, the you know, you you just just go into a hardware store and look at all the technological parts Right. That are available to me as as an average person who maybe works in my garage on the weekend. And and that's a small aspect of just the technological complexity of of our society as a whole.

I mean, yes. All of those things are aspects of complexity, and they're not free. We pay them, but, ultimately, the cost is paid in energy. It's always paid in energy, and and in part, it's paid with our labor because most of us have jobs that we go to. We have to have ways of raising money to support ourselves.

And the the money, if you go back several steps, it comes ultimately from fossil fuels. Interesting. So keeping this simple for a second, let let's assume that with nuclear energy or fusion energy or solar energy, we solved the energy crisis with respect to running AI, robots, machines, and self driving cars, and we created essentially unlimited energy when it comes to powering machines. Does that solve the complexity problem, or do we explode because we as human beings just have too much to process? Well, yes.

I mean, that that latter point, yes. There's too much to process, but it it's it's more complicated than that. You know, I I emphasize that complexity grows to solve problems. I've realized in recent years that there is a second way that complexity grows. Complexity grows by opportunity also.

Now complexity grows when the when when societies have surplus energy. Now the times in human history when societies have had surplus energy are rare. You think of and and we tend to give them special designations. Think of the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution. These are times when societies have had surplus energy.

And what do we do? We find ways to use it up. So getting back to your point about whether, nuclear energy would give us unlimited sources of energy, we'll find ways to use it up. I am confident about that. It's it's simply in our nature.

What increasing the supply of energy does is it buys time. Okay. It it buys us time. And that's all we ever do in the long term in our societies is we buy time because there's always some new problem coming along that we can't foresee. We buy time.

So are you saying that in the same way that in the if you look at going back to physics, I mean, if you look at things like the big bang, right, energy comes together, it it blows apart. People come together, society forms, it blows apart. I mean, is that built into the physics of the universe that complexity has to eventually break apart and come back together? Is that is that built into the system? At at this point, I have to mention that I'm a social scientist, not a physicist.

Okay. I I mean, it it it is my limited understanding that that that that, yes, in in in, you know, in the physical processes of the universe as a whole, I mean, eventually, entropy may win in the end. I I don't know. I mean, disorder, randomness may ultimately win in the end, but I I don't know. You know, getting getting closer to home here, our sun is gonna burn out someday.

And, our own galaxy, our our own solar system will reverse and go back toward a state of entropy. I mean, with my limited knowledge of astrophysics. No. That makes sense. And so so what you're saying is that in terms of, again, the arc of of these countries that it's essentially inevitable that complexity requires a reworking of the the the system, so to speak.

I mean and and if if that if I'm understanding that correctly, looking at The United States, for instance, today, do you have any way of comparing it to other civilizations that you've studied in terms of where we are in that trajectory, so to speak? Going to the first part of of your question, I mean, you were suggesting I think that ultimately complexity becomes the roadblock. Not necessarily, other things can intervene first, like a nuclear war, for example. Right. I mean I mean, there there are other things that can intervene.

Sure. Right now, one of my main concerns is globalization. I mean, globalization is is an aspect, a dimension, a type of complex system. Mhmm. And and it can simplify.

And if it simplifies and breaks down, the it will bring on, at this point, a a global economic collapse. You know, this this started this happened to a limited degree with COVID where, you know, supply chains were disrupted. I I used to teach one of my classes, a geography class. I would show them a a picture of a famous picture of a parking lot of with Ford pickup trucks extending as far as the eye can see, every one of which is ready to go to market except they're missing one computer chip. And this was this was a consequence of the breakdown of supply chains in globalization.

And and globalization is a kind is a kind of complexity. It solves problems. It solves the problems of cost. It allows things to be produced from the lowest cost manufacturers, lowest cost producers, and so forth. And it also entails risks.

So there there are always risks to complexity, and and the cost of complexity may not ultimately be may not ultimately be the the final challenge. If there ever is a final challenge, I I I like to say that we're a species that muddles through, and I wanna make sure everyone understands that because I once did an interview with some French journalists, and I'm not sure they understood our term muddle through. So what it means is proceeding step by finding your way step by step without a plan. That I mean, that's that's what we've always done. As a species, we have always muddled through, and that's what we will and and increasing complexity to solve problems is one aspect of that.

We muddle through step by step without a plan. When you look at globalization, as you just said, and you look at complexity, in the past, we've gone through different financial restructurings whether or not it was, you know, we were all in the gold standard, then we we had Britton Woods. And right now, the world's awash in a lot of debt, and some people think that we'll need to restructure the, quote, global economy from a perspective. I mean, is is that consistent with dealing with complexity? And, again, you can deal with it through a war, but you can do it in a consensual way as as well.

I mean, it would that be another way to look at it as you're talking about the globalization and global finance, for instance? The economic system is, of course, a highly complex system. Look back to the the great economic crisis of o nine. Was it 09/00/2010? Supposedly, the West worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Mhmm. I mean, the the government responded with more and more spending to try to keep the complex system from simplifying, to trying to keep it going. And my reaction at the time was when I looked at the amounts of money that were being borrowed or invented out of thin air, my reaction at the time was, gosh. If something like that comes up again eight or ten years from now, can can we deal with it? Well, then COVID came along, and, you know, we dealt with it in a similar way.

And, you know, with COVID, one can see how increase the complexity we had to increase in complexity to cope with it. You know, here here in The United States, we we got by fairly easily with COVID, although I think we lost the this the figure was we lost something like a million Americans to COVID. I have colleagues in Europe where entire cities were locked down and people were allowed out for grocery shopping and then had to go back to their apartments. You know, there wasn't they don't have houses. They live in apartments, flats.

And there were severe constraints imposed on behavior, and and this this was an aspect of complexity. It's it's the it's the aspect that I call organization. Organization is constraint on behavior. So, I mean, COVID came along, and we all saw how our our medical technology changed. We had to invent we had to invent new new vaccines that have to be updated every year now.

And it it's an increase in complexity that that has to be paid for. We've been buffered from it. A lot of us have been buffered from it for to a certain extent because the government has been paying for a lot of the cost of, medical care, but there's, you know, there's a political problem in The United States now with, a threat to take away some of the government subsidies that pay for a lot of people's health insurance. We're really gonna see people's costs increase if if that, remains in effect. I mean, these are all examples of how things happen.

Things come along and increase complexity. So when I obviously have not studied history to any of the degree that you have in looking at archaeological findings and so forth, but when we look at AI technology today and we look at just the the the sophistication that goes into making a a rocket that can land its re land itself. Mhmm. From from a level of complexity, having having health care now for people, meaning, you know, a hundred years ago, we didn't have health care. You just sawed somebody's arm off.

I mean Yeah. So how how do you even begin to compare this level of complexity to the Roman Empire? I mean Yeah. We we were in Italy this summer, and, you know, we did take a tour of ancient ruins, and you can see the complexity that they had with their aqueducts. Mhmm.

And I it was remarkable and building the pyramids. But compared to what we're dealing with today, I don't even know how you would measure them. No. What my research is comparative comparative historical research. What you compare is the process, not any specific level of complexity.

You compare the process of growing complexity relative to the resources available to pay for the complexity. In the past, it was solar energy, which was transformed into human labor, animal labor, farmland, crops, and so forth. Today, it's fossil fuels, nuclear energy, a few other sources, and so forth. I mean, that is how complexity is paid for today. But the process is the same.

The process is that complexity grows to solve problems, and it can be successful in doing so for very long periods of time. I mean, in the Roman Empire, it was successful for several centuries, but but eventually they reached a point where they simply could not continue taxing the population higher and higher to cope with the challenges that they were facing. Now for us today, we're basically we're paying for complexity today by taxing the future. You know how that's working with the government just continually borrowing money to pay for the cost of current crises. So the the cost of complexity we're taking the cost of complexity and and shifting it on to future generations.

Well, right. To the extent your economic pie is shrinking relative to the debt you're taking on Mhmm. As you would say, we are getting poorer. When you look at worldwide debt, up until really recently, the world economy was growing faster than the rate of debt because China was growing at, give or take, 10% or more a year. Mhmm.

And the debt, let's say, was growing at three or 4% a year worldwide. Mhmm. And so we were growing faster as a as a as a world, so to speak, than our debt. For the first time in a long time, global growth is around 3% on average, and the interest alone on global debt is 3%. Wow.

Forget paying it down. Wow. Just the interest is 3%. Yeah. So one of the reasons there's such an obsession with AI right now is that, well, AI is gonna accelerate growth so dramatically that we will, quote, be able to grow our way out of this debt, which I am highly, highly suspect of.

But up until recently, we did, quote, unquote, cheat, but we were a little we were able to get away with it because China was essentially financing the world's economy. Yes. I mean, that that that's a very good point. And as far as AI goes, I I cannot claim expertise in AI. When I first encountered it, my reaction was, oh, it's a database application, which is what it is, except the database is virtually everything in every computer in the world.

And, you know, it's a database, application combined with what must be some absolutely brilliant programming. I I do admire it, and and I use it. I I I use it all the time. I, you know, go on Google now, and and, the person that comes up is an AI summary of the topic I'm looking for, and it's usually pretty good. Now you can tell it's AI because there's no emotion in the writing.

Sure. But it's good. I'm impressed with it. Does AI solve the the growth to debt problem? I don't know.

I would have to see the argument in detail. I don't know that it does or that it doesn't. What I will say is that all solutions are short term. There's no such thing as a permanent solution. Yeah.

No. That makes sense. The theory behind it right now as I understand it is that because AI can essentially be used and is getting better at, for instance, making helping us make robots or, for instance, speeding up the process for the COVID vaccinations or driving my Tesla for me, for instance, that it'll allow the production of goods. Everyone will have their own robot that cleans their house, so to speak. Now, the fly in the ointment, so to speak, is these data centers that they're building, these multibillion dollar data centers, which you need to power the AI, which has been growing exponentially.

Right. And the theory behind that is you need incredible expansion in the energy grid. So for instance, China Yep. Is building energy capacity incredibly quickly. We have been slow on the uptick.

Yes. So for instance, the middle class has seen an uptick in their electric bills lately as these data centers start to come online. Yeah. And it hasn't even started. Like, this is gonna really ramp up.

Yeah. And so to your point, when you're talking about fossil fuels, there is a huge bottleneck coming when it comes to the energy that it's gonna be required to run these data centers to essentially produce all this. So, you know, the the notion that it all works out perfectly is crazy. But in the short run to the long run, the theory is that if you have the energy from nuclear or solar or or otherwise, that you will be able to get much more work done through these robots and inventions. And then to take it to its crazy extreme, there's a thing called general intelligence where it gets to the point where it's smarter than we are.

And if it doesn't kill us all, right, it solves all the problems that none of us can solve. Right? All of that's very pie in the sky to me. In the short run, the real question is, as you would say, is we're gonna have a lot more complexity, and how the heck are we gonna get the energy to power it? Yeah.

No. You you make the point precisely. You and I talked about this a few weeks ago, and and and and I talked about the limitations we are facing with fossil fuels. As I recall, you were fairly optimistic at the time about, about nuclear power in the future. Look.

I'm not the same student of history as you are, but I do rec recall that a lot of generations, you know, have said, oh, you know, the planet will never sustain a billion people, never sustain 2,000,000,000 people. And that Yes. You know, human beings are pretty in ingenious. And so, you know, fracking, for instance. Right?

I mean, no one expected. I mean, the the notion that America is a net exporter of fossil fuels right now is is, to me, hard to believe after we were told we were gonna run out of oil. Mhmm. So I'm optimistic that, you know, putting aside the sun burning out, I'm optimistic that our ingenuity can continue to expand and whether or not it's nuclear energy fusion or otherwise. I I do believe we will ultimately solve the energy challenge in the short run, but going back to what you said is there's no permanent solution to anything.

No. And I'm I'm glad you've you raised the the issue of ingenuity and technological optimism because a a number of you when I was doing the collapse study back in the nineteen eighties, I I brought together a number of examples of growing complexity in in our own society just to illustrate how the process works and then and then apply the the process, the concept to looking at the records of ancient societies. And one of the points I raised was that, the assumption that we will always invent our way, innovate our way out of problems rests on some fundamental assumptions that I think technological optimists are making but are not aware that they're making. And the assumption is that the productivity of innovation will remain at constant into the future, that it will never decline. Well, I mean, that that's if you understand the evolution of complexity, that immediately raises questions.

Now I had this idea I had this in the back of my mind for quite a few years. And and then in 2005, I moved to Arizona State University and met a couple of other people who were interested in the process of innovation, particularly a a geographer, a woman named Deborah Strumsky and her colleague, Jose Lobo, who he's an economist. And I discussed this with them. And my argument has always been that innovation is a complex process. That in the you know, think of back to the nineteenth century when innovation was was conducted by what were called then gentlemen naturalists.

Think Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel, and so forth. And, of course, there are also women involved in the innovation process, essay Murie Curie, but they come along a little bit later, but they're certainly involved in it. But, I mean, the important point is that if you if you compare science in those days to ScienceNOW, ScienceNOW is a complex, expensive, interdisciplinary process. Gosh. Ten, twelve years ago, I I did a an image search on Google on the term research team and came up with something like 60,000 web pages of the term research team.

And and that was ten or twelve years ago that I did this. And the way science works is we started out plucking the low lying fruit. You know, electricity is no longer out there waiting for us to discover it. We found it. Okay.

So what comes after that? Well, you know, the the the research process gets more complex. The questions become harder and harder to solve, and so the scientific enterprise grows and grows and grows in complexity itself and costs more and more and more. What and, you know, just again, some simple examples. Back in my my student days in, let's say, late sixties through mid seventies or so, you could pick up a copy of a science journal, say, Science or Nature, and there'd be one or two authors per paper.

You pick those journals up today, and there's four, six, eight, ten more authors per paper, and that's because the scientific enterprise has grown more complex, and research breakthroughs have to incorporate more and more more and more scientific disciplines. So my colleague, Deborah Shrumpsi and Jose Lobo, they had a database that allowed us to look at this process of growing complexity and and ask the question, is is the process of innovation gonna continue in the future as it has until now? They had a database of over 3,000,000 patents from the US patent office. That's big data. That's a real database.

3,000,000 patents. Beginning in in, I think, about 1974 was when our data began. We measured complexity by the question, how many scientific fields, how many authors from different scientific fields does it take to achieve a breakthrough that merits a patent? And and so the converse of that then became patents per author. So we measured complexity as patents per author.

And what we found is that up until the last time we ran the database, I think it was 2012, the productivity of innovation was continually going down. It went down by I think the figure was 22% between '74 and 2012. And what it means is that the scientific enterprise is growing more and more complex. It's taking more and more resources. Now we measured it in in terms of scientists, but resources of all kinds to achieve to achieve innovations, to achieve breakthroughs.

I I like to use a couple of examples. I I probably don't have the figures precise in my head right now, but the very earliest cellular phones from the nineteen seventies, I think, used I don't know. I think it was a a handful of elements from the periodic table. You know, today's very, very incredible capable cellular phones use dozens of elements from the periodic table. And when I saw the figure, my reaction was, oh, we're gonna run out of elements.

I mean, there's only so many. And and as an example of how keeping the innovation process going just takes more and more input. And when when I raise this this with people, when I when I raise this point, people say, well, yeah. What about Moore's law? You're familiar with Moore's law.

It's not really a law. It's a scientific extrapolation. Mhmm. And and it it was, originated by Gordon Moore in, early seventies, was it? And and he argued that the number of transistors on a chip would double every eighteen months at half the cost.

And up until now, it's been correct. I mean, that's why we have the laptops and incredible cell phones and other technologies that we have today because of Moore's law. The trouble is it takes dozens more engineers to keep Moore's laws going now than it did in those days. It's an example again of how we have to put more and more inputs into the research process to keep the innovations going. So can this trend continue forever?

Well, a few of I mean, a few historians of the scientific research process have argued no, and I'm skeptical myself. I would argue that well, I I would say, first of all, let me say that innovation is not going away anytime soon. I wouldn't suggest that. But I think by the end of this century, and remember I'm a historian, I think long term, by the end of this century, I think our innovation process is gonna be very different from what it is now. There are lines of research that will simply have to be curtailed.

Now that happens as it is, but as far as the invisible to most of us, I mean, appropriating bodies like Congress, they cut off lines of research all the time. They just decline to continue funding them. The famous example I can think of was what was called the superconducting super collider, which I think was in Texas in the early 1990s, mid 1990s. And, at one point, Congress simply got tired of finding it, funding it and cut it off. They'd already spent a billion dollars on it.

They just said no more. It's getting too expensive and they cut it off. And it's, I mean, it's a clear example, I think, of what's going to increasingly happen in the future. So so, you know, will innovation always see us through? I think it will continue to for a while.

Will it forever? No. I don't think so. Well, and forever is a long time. Yes.

So Yes. So when we spoke before, one of the things we ended up talking about, which I did not expect, was this notion of the importance of culture. Mhmm. And you were kind enough to share some of your traveling experiences, and I think you said you spent some time, for instance, in Japan and or China. Mhmm.

And I'm curious from your perspective how their culture figures into your thinking and how we in America should be considering this importance of culture and so forth and the institutional challenges we're having these days? Well, one of the things that I noticed from study of China, I I you know, I've conducted some research involving the history of China, Chinese culture. I've been to China a couple of times. I've studied the archeology of China. And I think of a couple of anecdotes.

And what I've noted is that, and I'm not the first person to make this observation, is that they think, please think longer term than we Westerners do. And I think that is good. I think it puts them at a competitive advantage compared to us. There was one anecdote I heard about a Chinese nationalist who said his goal was to get all Western influence out of China. My first reaction was, well, that's ridiculous.

You're gonna do without airplanes, automobiles? But he was asked, well, how long did he think that would take? And he said, oh, five hundred years. It's an example. It's an illustration.

It's an anecdote that illustrates the point I'm making. And another example, a famous one, is when Zhou Enlai was asked if he thought the French Revolution had been a success, and he replied, too soon to tell. And and that that one's that that one is it's it's not clear if that ever actually took place, but it's a good story. Mhmm. And and it illustrates how different cultures do in fact have, different different conceptions of time, different planning in regard to time, and a different need for payoffs in regard to time than those of us in the West.

I mean, it it's important. You're right about China. They are thinking long term. They think long term than we do. We talked about this in terms of changing culture and the importance of teaching children different things.

Like, from your observations in terms of the things that help society sustain themselves and deal with complexity, are are there things from a cultural perspective that you think we would we would do well to to emulate, for instance, from your time in Japan? Well, I I would go back well beyond my time period. Okay. You know, our species, Homo sapiens, has now been traced three hundred thousand years, and we have hominid ancestors going back two to four million years. But but let's let's take that figure, Homo sapiens three hundred thousand years.

For all but let's say the last ten or twelve thousand or so, we lived as small bands that foraged and hunted and gathered in a limited territory, lived in a limited territory, did not know very much about the world beyond their immediate neighbors. And so in in our evolution as a species, there was never natural selection for the ability to think broadly in terms of time and space. And so as a species, we don't. We never evolved to think broadly in terms of time and space. And yet our well-being going into the future, given the challenges that we face of of energy and and resources in general and pollution and climate and so forth require precisely that we be able to think broadly in time and space.

But most people don't. Most people don't are just simply by nature, they don't they they think of their their immediate their immediate needs, what they need to do day to day, how they need to live, paying the mortgage, pay making car payments, drive the kids to band practice, and so forth and so on. They live their lives immediately. Can anything be done about this? I I don't know.

I often think if I was 40 years younger, but know what I know now, I might orient my profession, my career to talking more and more to maybe k to 12 educators to ask, is it possible to instill in young children? It would have to be done at a very early age an inclination to think more broadly than is natural to our species. I don't know. It's pure speculation on my part, but as I, you know, I'm 75 years old, I've just recently retired, although I'm still working on academic things. You know, I reached this point in my life and in my career when it's the sort of thing I wonder about, But it's for the next generation, not for me.

I had forgotten that you would we when when we had our kind of pre call discussion that you you had mentioned this issue of time and space and and people did not know what was over the horizon Mhmm. And how now we really, you know, are are being forced to learn how to deal with time and space. Something just popped in my head, which because I I think a lot about the debt and and the problems with the debt. And whether or not you look at the bible as as just historical fiction or or divine or otherwise Mhmm. There are stories.

And one of the famous stories is that Joseph interpreted Pharaoh's dreams and told Pharaoh that during the good years, you should save wheat. And then during the bad times, you should eat the wheat, kind of like, you know, the old Keynesian economic issue. But and then there came a pharaoh that did not know Joseph, and then the 10 plagues take over and and the society fell. And so as you as you talk about society's not thinking about time and space, I would argue that the Western world that that evolved out of the Roman empire because Christianity came out of Judaism, and Judaism was kind of the beginning of this. And that wisdom of time and space, meaning if you don't take care of the Nile, if you don't save wheat in the good times or the bad times, you're gonna have a hard time.

There there were people thinking about this, and some of those societies that took heed to that survived, and the ones that didn't fell. And I I wonder if that physics principle is is somewhat tied into the human race and that that we would be, you know, well off if we if we reminded ourselves that, you know, those societies that have survived were the ones that did start to study time and place and understand the importance of resources and so forth. Well, in terms of the example that that you just gave, there there are I mean, there are always some individuals in the population who have foresight, who are simply inclined to think broadly in time and space. There are always a few, but they're in the minority. The question becomes, are they listened to?

Can the things they argue for be implemented? Or does the rest of the human race simply shrug their shoulders and go on their way? Climate change today is a perfect example of that question. Will we ever respond adequately to it? Will we respond adequately in time or won't we?

You know, if if we if we had Joseph around today, maybe the day could maybe we could all be saved, but, maybe not. Well, Joseph, I mean, you know, if you're thinking about the name Joseph, no pun intended, you're still around. And and I would argue, I read a book called Strength to Strength. And it it it talks about the importance of older generations working with younger younger generations to transfer that wisdom. Again, sticking on that that bible story for a second, the the last plague was the death of the firstborn, which means from my perspective, you don't transfer the wisdom to your next generation.

You know, I would argue that 60 to 80 or 75 to 85 or 90 or otherwise, the wisdom that you've developed and that you're sharing today, it is how we do, Joseph, keep the party going, so to speak, because young people don't understand time and space. Yep. And candidly, they wouldn't get up in the morning and and and and do the things they need with optimism. And otherwise, if if all they did was worry about the things that you and I are up at night thinking about. Yeah.

But by the same token, we're still here. The world's still here. And and I I do think that your wisdom that you're sharing today is the way that we do keep the party going because people can learn about time and space by studying your work. Well, and thank you for that. Not I mean, not just my work.

Other other people work on this topic also, particularly some of my colleagues who work in the area of energy. There aren't enough people working in the topic of innovation. I wish there were more people who recognize the long term process, but I have good colleagues working in the area of of energy, a fellow named Charles Hall, who's who's recently retired. He's an energy scientist who who have done a lot to bring this to the energy problem to public attention. I mean, there are people working on it.

There's just I mean, it's just hard to break through to to get people to to think beyond the the, you know, the immediate day to day problems of their lives. Well, that's true. And and again, when you're when you have a young child Yeah. Or you're you're forging for food Oh, yeah. Or you're trying to build your career, it it's difficult to kind of have the the philosophical time like Plato and Aristotle to sit around thinking about greater issues.

And again, one reason I think it's important that people like you do continue to contribute and work because you do have the the time, so to speak, and the wisdom to share. So I I am grateful for you taking this this time out of your schedule to share these thoughts with us today. I will mention that it's it's rare that that you encounter people who who are aware of all of these issues simultaneously. I I will mention, a book I was recently asked to review. It's currently in manuscript form by an extraordinary woman named Sarah Wilson.

She's writing a book called Collapse. I had to read through 25 chapters of this. She writes in an exceedingly unusual style, but this is a book that I think is gonna be worthwhile for people to look at because she's one of the few persons I have encountered who understand everything, everything that I've been going over with you. Some people understand this aspect, that aspect. Interesting.

She understands it all. Her name is Sarah Wilson. The book she's coming out with is titled Collapse. I think it's supposed to be due out at, June or so of next year. Is it an optimistic take?

Because or is it is it a pessimist? Because I I will tell you, I do have a bent, which is optimistic, meaning Yeah. That that I do think that we we do talk about these challenges, but I do feel like we do have a duty to the next generation to let them know that just like we muddled through that they're gonna get through this as well. I can't say it's optimistic. She believes we're in the process of collapsing, although her concept of collapse is is much broader than mine.

She believes we're in the process of collapsing, but it is it is a series of thoughts for her her followers. She has a a whole body of followers for how we simply live through it. Good. It's interesting in that respect. Cool.

We will check it out. Joseph, it was a real pleasure to have you on the puck. Thank you so much for spending time with us today. I will say that doing this kind of interview is, is very pleasing to me because it means that my own work has broken out of academia, which doesn't happen to all of my colleagues. That makes me feel good.

It makes me feel that there's been a reason for my work that has had some success, at least in, reaching an audience and informing people to a large extent through interviews like this. So thank you for the opportunity, and I'm I was happy to do it. The top venture capital beyond is produced by CMVG Advisors. If you enjoyed the conversation today and haven't yet subscribed to our show, you can find us on iTunes, Apple Podcasts, and SoundCloud. Feel free to leave a review while you are there and maybe even a five star rating.

Thanks for listening. We'll be back soon with a new episode.