Overcoming the Greatest Threat

Is it Possible to Disarm the Maximum Power Principle?

Amongst the elite of ecological systems thinkers, there’s a scary piece of proposed open system thermodynamics that lies at the foundation of the human problématique (a fancy word for the polycrisis). It’s called the Maximum Power Principle (MPP). Here’s how Wikipedia defines it:

The maximum power principle or Lotka’s principle has been proposed as the fourth principle of energetics in open system thermodynamics, where an example of an open system is a biological cell. According to Howard T. Odum, “The maximum power principle can be stated: During self-organization, system designs develop and prevail that maximize power intake, energy transformation, and those uses that reinforce production and efficiency.”

To put that in simpler terms, the MPP is the idea is that evolution invariably works so that any and every species will extract the maximum amount of available resources from their environment that they can in the shortest time.

As is explored in this recent post by my Substack colleague George Tsakraklides, if you combine the compulsion to maximize resource (including energy) consumption with sufficient intelligence to circumvent nature’s intrinsic negative feedback mechanisms, you get a certainty of civilizational collapse.

I agree.

However, is it possible to also circumvent the Maximum Power Principle? This post will explore that question.

The collapse of humanity - a prediction from Limits to Growth, 1972.

I’m not going to reproduce the arguments for the validity of the MPP in general. It’s an easy internet search to uncover the work that others have already done on that concept. Suffice to say, I agree that evolution is going to favour lifeforms that follow the Maximum Power Principle.

MPP versus More is Always Better

The first thing I’m going to address, then, is the Principle’s apparent contradiction of one of my core statements concerning the Value Crisis. The value crisis hypothesis is that humans have adopted number-based measures of success, where more is always better, and we have given those values precedence over our intrinsic qualitative measures of success. I assert that we are the only species to have done so; and also that nowhere in nature is it true that More is ALWAYS Better. How does this square with the idea that, not only do all lifeforms follow the MPP, but also the ones that do so the most successfully will be the ones who triumph over all others? I answer this in three ways.

Firstly, the MPP, by definition, is based on the concept of a maximum. If a species gains access to more food than they can possibly eat, the MPP does not dictate that it is better for each individual to eat more food than they can handle - or even that they will try to. Each one still has a maximum consumption level - a maximum sufficiency. Instead, the MPP more likely suggests that the species will produce more progeny in order to take advantage of the excess food. The population might then be limited by other factors, such as overcrowding. More resource consumption might seem good for the species, but it does not necessarily apply to each individual member.

Secondly, to pick up on that point, even if the ‘maximum consumption’ concept is unlimited at the species level, we know that all resources are ultimately finite. Therefore, while maximum consumption in the shortest amount of time might put the species ahead of others in the evolutionary survival competition, it will ultimately prove to be the species’ undoing if they use up all of the resources necessary to their continuance. This is indeed the conundrum that humanity is facing right now. More is sometimes better, but more is not ALWAYS better.

Thirdly, following on the above, if we assume that the MPP is baked into the genetic makeup of every successful lifeform, then it’s obviously not an imminent death sentence, since many species have been around for many millennia. The problem, then is the second part of the human condition - that we have enough intelligence to supposedly bypass all of nature’s negative feedback mechanisms, including habitat limitations, food supply, disease, predators, etc. Whether or not you factor in our invented value system of success measured solely by number, the bottom line is that it seems to be the feedback-disabling intelligence that is the lethal factor, not MPP alone. Indeed, I have suggested elsewhere that this combination, resulting in things like the climate crisis, may very well be nature’s ultimate negative feedback.

The Current Argument

Returning to the current leading edge thinking on this, the basic dilemma is that, according to the theories, the Maximum Power Principle is an inescapable part of our core programming. We will never alter that. And once we acquired the intelligence and technology to bypass (almost all?!) of nature’s negative feedback, we ensured humanity’s total dominance - soon to be followed by our civilizational collapse. Moreover, by framing the MPP as a “principle of energetics in open system thermodynamics”, it appears to join the ranks of those immutable laws of physics. We’re doomed.

But is this really the case? I see a possible connection here to another hypothesis that I’ve been working on - one that is rooted in our value systems. Value systems, although related to intelligence, are definitely not the same thing.

Our Value Personae

In my first book (The Value Crisis, 2014), while building on the work of Robert Reich (in Supercapitalism), I coined the term value personae to describe the mechanisms behind some of our seemingly inconsistent behaviours. Let’s say I give my child a $2 allowance. They essentially have three options: Spend it on something they would like, Save it in their piggybank, or Give it to (or buy a gift for) a friend. (An adult with a $50 bill has the same options, although they might be more likely to take the third option, perhaps by making some donation to charity. That maturity distinction is useful to note.) The point is that any of those three actions can give us joy, but they each express values that are mutually exclusive. The first value persona is the Consumer. The Consumer wants to acquire things and seeks low prices; these are values that look after our immediate needs. The second value persona is the Investor. The Investor wants to save resources for later and prefers high prices (to give good returns); these are values focused on our future needs. The third value persona is the Citizen. The Citizen wants to do ‘the right thing’, recognize communal obligations, and develop relationships by looking after the needs of others.

Each of us have all three value personae accessible (but unequally applied) to every decision we make. We might want to support locally sourced organic carrots (Citizen), but are wary about the higher price (Consumer), unless we invested in the farm that produced them (Investor). If we have one canteen of water during a long hike in the desert, we might be thirsty (Consumer), but wish to ration our reserves (Investor), except that we give it to a desperate child whom we encounter on the way (Citizen).

More recently, I’ve begun to wonder how these value personae apply to other lifeforms. My suspicion is that they might also represent phases (levels of sophistication?) in evolution. Consider: Every lifeform requires a Consumer value set, because all life needs to consume. It is only more evolved lifeforms that develop any kind of awareness of anticipating future needs - employing Investor values to cache resources that could be consumed right away but are more wisely saved for leaner times. Moving further along the evolutionary tree, we begin to encounter species that make more permanent sacrifices for the good of the family, band, hive, or community. (Granted, we can only guess at what kind of conscious thoughts might be applicable here, for everything other than humans. We only have observed behaviours to work from.)

These value personae concepts might also be roughly reflected in some of our social evolution. Surely most hunter/gatherer survival behaviours demonstrate Consumer values, while the advent of agriculture is clearly an Investor set at work. When society looks after the weak and vulnerable, that must be the Citizen values in play.

Intelligence?

I want to pause a moment here to consider the other argued prerequisite to our demise - the intelligence to bypass all of those negative feedback systems that apply in nature to all the other lifeforms. My colleagues, Bill Rees and Ruben Nelson (among others) refer to this acceleration of knowledge and technology as defining elements of the Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) culture, which has rapidly brought us to where we are within the last few centuries. This intelligence most certainly exists and is (paradoxically) as dangerous as they claim - but is it the only form of intelligence that humans have ever employed?

What of the world’s indigenous peoples, some of whom maintained environmentally harmonious lifestyles for tens of thousands of years? Yes, I know that there were plenty of exceptions to this - driving hundreds of buffalo over a cliff in order to butcher a tiny faction of the kill, for example - (to everything, there must be a learning curve) - but for the most part, when we now seek sustainable ways of living within our environment, we turn to some indigenous wisdom and mindset that sees humans as belonging to nature rather than the other way around. Was the technology and science (i.e. intelligence) of the colonists and conquerors superior to that of the indigenous peoples? Or was it simply different?

(I might even go so far as to suggest that it was less the influence of “intelligence” and more the influence of the number-based “more-is-always-better” value system that sent technology in the directions that it ended up in.)

To be sure, I’m not about to walk into the landmine-strewn conflict between Chris Smaje (Saying No to a Farm-Free Future - let’s all return to rural livelihoods) and George Monbiot (Regenesis - modern farming might be unsustainable, but it works). It would be somewhat ludicrous to advocate for a return to the lifestyles of the pre-colonial First Nations. However, that does not mean that you cannot adopt the basic principles of their value systems, even in a modern age. Seeing humans and every other part of nature as interconnected is not animist hocus-pocus - it’s scientific fact; it’s a realization that practically defines ecological thought.

My Leap - Just a Thought

So, let’s go back to the value personae and put it all together…

We’ve already decided that life demands Consumer values. Looking at primitive life forms, one could imagine a stage in evolution where no one could have imagined that any other value set would emerge. It takes a certain level of evolutionary sophistication and awareness to go beyond immediate needs and develop the Investor values in order to look after future needs. Once life reached that stage, it might again be a real stretch to convince most species that there is survival advantage to be gained by sacrifice and looking after the needs of others. There are not many examples of Citizen values being expressed in nature (if that is even what we are seeing).

No one has ever suggested that the evolution of life was finished - so, what if the evolution of value systems isn’t finished either? Or, what if the dramatically contrasting value system of most indigenous peoples was actual a new branch of value persona that got inadvertently crushed by our disastrous MTI values of absolute precedence to success-measured-by-number?

Let me be clear. I am not grasping for a way that we might avoid civilization collapse. I fully accept that history’s many examples of such resets are part of the lifecycle of empires and societies. The value crisis may have driven us too far beyond that event horizon for there to be any turning back. But total species annihilation need not be part of that formula.

The Fourth Value Persona

If Consumer to Investor to Citizen does actually represent an evolutionary spectrum of value sets, what might a fourth value persona be?

I don’t know.

It might be a realization that we are interconnected with our environment and every other living thing (even non-living?). It might be an encapsulation of seven-generations thinking. It might be a new way of thinking about the purpose of humanity’s existence.

And the most relevant point…

It might have a wisdom that moves us (and thus our tragic impact on the planet) past the constraints of the Maximum Power Principle - bypassing it or redefining its implementation so that maximal consumption of resources in the shortest time takes place with entirely new (and sustainable constraints).

Again, I don’t know the answer to any of this. However, I believe the questions worth exploring. I also believe this: Is the MPP hardcoded into our DNA? Not entirely. At the lower level of our lizard brains? Perhaps. But not in a way that dictates our every action. The flawed value systems of our MTI societies are undeniable. Yet I know too many people who transcend that value crisis - who value the qualitative above the quantitative - and that tells me that humans are capable of evolving beyond the MPP.

What do you think?