Talk:Interdependence

From iA wiki

I've never heard of this term before today. On the surface it sounds like yet another quant and soft American political word. There is some significant meaning beneath it though. I'd say that this topic will become Dangerous once some more explanation is put forth. Just tack this word on with the "new world order" the guys running the states have been after since before the country's founding. -- rack

I love this word. I remember after i first heard it i started using it all the time. I can't for the life of me remember The Infamous Speech In Question - i was sure it was a State of the Union address, but googling only turned up World Economic Forum stuff. I think it's definitely a Dangerous topic for some IA fans, but i'd really like to see more input on the page. I think it could become a central link for a number of different things... I'll need to read some more about it over the next few days and ponder it, as well as have a good real-life discussion with some people. -- Amw

This is an interesting term. It can be used to describe the dependance of capitalism on energy and natural resources. In the article from From the Wilderness titled "The Infinite War and Its Roots" by Stan Goff, mentioned interdependency and the relationship between complex technology and society.

"Capital has a temporal nature. In this process, the system bosses, CEOs, etc., are like an acting troupe, the members of which keep changing roles. The notion that they are divided into sectors, then, is illusory, because no fraction of capital exists independently in any sector. A crisis of accumulation2 is not a discrete crisis limited to one "sector" of capital. It is general. And the higher the degree of international integration and rationalization of the capitalist class, especially in a technically complex <B>interdependency</B>, the more generalized are the accumulation crises. Anything affecting one "sector" necessarily affects all "sectors.""

Joseph A. Tainter also mentions interdependence in the great "Complexity, Problem Solving and Sustainable Societies" in 1996.

"For over 99% of the history of humanity we lived as low-density foragers or farmers in egalitarian communities of no more than a few dozen persons. Leslie White pointed out that such a cultural system, based primarily on human labor, can generate only about 1/20 horsepower per capita per year. From this base of undifferentiated societies requiring small amounts of energy, the development of complex cultural systems was, a priori, unlikely. The conventional view has been that human societies have a latent tendency towards greater complexity. Complexity was assumed to be a desirable thing, and the logical result of surplus food, leisure time, and human creativity. Although this scenario is popular, it is inadequate to explain the evolution of complexity. In the world of cultural complexity there is, to use a colloquial expression, no free lunch. More complex societies are costlier to maintain than simpler ones and require higher support levels per capita. A society that is more complex has more sub-groups and social roles, more networks among groups and individuals, more horizontal and vertical controls, higher flow of information, greater centralization of information, more specialization, and greater <B>interdependence</B> of parts. Increasing any of these dimensions requires biological, mechanical, or chemical energy. In the days before fossil fuel subsidies, increasing the complexity of a society usually meant that the majority of its population had to work harder."

You wouldn't be suggesting copyright is vital for the arts, but the environment is not important for captialism, would you? This sounds click classic Cartesian Dualism to me. I think your are mis-guided by the myth described with this paragraph for this entry "The interconnection of economy, culture, language or other systems makes attacks (physical or political) less strategically valuable." Is this a fact?

"This is the task of cyborganization, to recognize the figuration of <B>interdependent</B> boundary relationships that continually involve and enter into one another, instead of an egocentric structure of detached individuals, groups and organizations occupying discrete places in space and time." - N. Elias

"People are <B>interdependent</B>, social beings. We do not, and cannot, live as the independent tiger, or orangutan, coming together only to mate briefly, all child care and education provided by the mother." - by Arthur Noll from paper called "Harmony".

"Threats to Critical Infrastructure Some potential adversaries will seek ways to threaten the US homeland. The US national infrastructure—communications, transportation, financial transactions, energy networks—is vulnerable to disruption by physical and electronic attack because of its interdependent nature and by cyber attacks because of their dependence on computer networks. Foreign governments and groups will seek to exploit such vulnerabilities using conventional munitions, information operations, and even WMD. Over time, such attacks increasingly are likely to be delivered by computer networks rather than by conventional munitions, as the affinity for cyber attacks and the skill of US adversaries in employing them evolve. Cyber attacks will provide both state and nonstate adversaries new options for action against the United States beyond mere words but short of physical attack—strategic options that include selection of either nonlethal or lethal damage and the prospect of anonymity. "

The paragraph above is from Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue About the Future With Nongovernment Experts. Looks like the CIA knows the USA and its interdependent characteristic is a vulnerability which could be attacked. - ABliss

- ABliss