« In the News | Main | Path Dependence, Continued »
April 05, 2009
Some Additional Thoughts on Path Dependence
When Claude Shannon’s General Theory of Communication was first published in 1948, it struck some contemporaries as so simplistic that it evoked a “so what” reaction. However, it’s now recognized by insiders as one of the Twentieth Century’s most important insights, if for no other reason than its facilitation of both the digital and communication “revolutions;” not to mention its applicability to a host of biological processes, most of which it clearly anticipated, a fact seldom mentioned by biologists themselves, probably because they never heard of Shannon.Shannon, himself, in common with most of Science’s pioneers, could not possibly have predicted all the ripple effects of his many contributions, even though he did live to witness much of their early trajectory.
Which brings me to my main point: an intellectual formulation (idea) is now evolving under the rubric of Path Dependence (Path Dependency). Although still so poorly defined as to be more confusing than helpful, it has the potential to meet a human need that’s becoming more critical by the month: that of a quick, reliable method for analysis of the planet's most troublesome issues, and yet authoritative and transparent enough for its results to become starting points for attempted solutions. A growing list of such problems now threaten either the welfare, or the outright survival, of a majority of the Earth’s human inhabitants; yet the problems themselves are so divisive they defy agreed definitions, let alone any concerted efforts at solution.
Two of the most obvious at this writing are a rapidly crashing global economy and unresolved climate change issues. Multiple others lurk in the background: territorial disputes, international criminal markets, cheating in global financial markets, human dishonesty in general, looming oil and fresh water shortages, depleted fisheries and the accelerated extinction of species, to mention only some of the more troublesome.
At this point, the history of Path Dependence as economic theory is not particularly important because its original conceptualization predated the availability of resources and tools that might make it practical today: a growing repository of data on the internet, powerful search engines to retrieve them rapidly, and database technology with which to analyze them. All that's needed is the funding and will for a feasibility study to explore PD's ability to bring some clarity to a range of current problems.
What made the concept of PD so immediately attractive to me when I first encountered it in Atul Gawande's article on evolving health care systems, was the structural resemblance to (biological) Evolution: an original idea inspired by a perceived need in business or public policy can be seen as analogous to an environmental change that will ultimately produces a new species. Any new species is limited (constrained) to certain possibilities for meeting a challenge; the more known about the genetic endowment of the threatened species, the better the potential success of an adaptation can be understood. The same is true of any addition environmental influences.
Just as we now know that most species go extinct, most governments under which humans have ever lived have been replaced. One less obvious corollary is that our brain and its cognitive prowess are both products of biological evolution. Since the appearance of Science about 500 years ago, human culture has evolved much more rapidly in directions which are still poorly understood, but are, nevertheless, more competitive than ever.
Therein lies our most threatening cultural problem: how to restrain the human appetite for control of the planet's limited resources now causing so many problems? One way of asking that question is: can humanity find a way to cooperate as a species so as to allow survival in harmony with a constantly changing universe? Another is how big a catastrophe would be required for enough humans to live in enough harmony to reverse current destructive trends?
At this point, I'm forced to fall back on the clinical wisdom of my profession: an accurate diagnosis is far more likely to lead to effective treatment than a guess; especially a guess based on a false assumption.
Doctor Tom
Posted by tjeffo at April 5, 2009 04:44 AM
Comments
Very nice site!
Posted by: John452 at May 18, 2009 03:56 PM