Self-Propagating Systems: Why Taking Back Control is Impossible

In Anti-tech Revolution: Why and how ? (2016),Theodore Kaczyinski develops a theory of international relations which is key to understand why the techno-industrial system is totally out of control. In this framework, he calls self-propagating systems (SPS) human organizations that, within the global system (the technological world-system), fiercely compete with each other for their survival, focusing on the short-term.

What is a self-propagating system ?

A self-propagating system or SPS is “a system that tends to promote its own survival and propagation. A system may propagate itself in either or both of two ways: The system may indefinitely increase its own size and/or power, or it may give rise to new systems that possess some of its own attributes.” SPS can be mammal herds, swarms of insects, or human groups.

Kaczynski gives the example of hunter-gatherer societies in which nuclear families belong to clans, and clans are organized in tribes.Nuclear families, clans and tribes are all SPS of different levels.The nuclear family is a sub-system of the clan, and the clan is a sub-system of the tribe. In extension, nuclear families are sub-systems that form a clan, and clans are themselves sub-systems forming a tribe.

However, the SPS which interest us are large-scale human organizations who have become hegemonic with technological development and the growing integration of human groups within a world-system formed by industrial infrastructures :

“Particularly important for our purposes are self-prop systems that consist of groups of human beings. For example, nations, corporations, labor unions, churches, and political parties; also some groups that are not clearly delimited and lack formal organization, such as schools of thought, social networks, and subcultures.”

With this in mind, states and large industrial firms are sub-systems (or SPS) of the technological world-system. We will see that SPS are forced to monopolize more and more resources to grow and survive international competition on the short-term, and they do this without any consideration for long-term consequences.

Competition between SPS and impossible rational control

A notable feature of SPS are to propagate or grow independently of the individuals’ will that it comprises. In their process of evolution, SPS pass through the same filter as living organisms :natural selection. The SPS that will have the most complex, sophisticated and subtle means to assure their survival and their propagation will be favored by natural selection [1].

The competition between SPS structures their activities and prevent them, for example, to make rational long-term decisions. Preserving natural resources becomes an absurdity if their over-exploitation may give them a competing advantage in the short-term. Kaczynski illustrates his point with a very speaking example :

“For example, suppose a forested region is occupied by a number of small, rival kingdoms. Those kingdoms that clear the most land for agricultural use can plant more crops and therefore can support a larger population than other kingdoms. This gives them a military advantage over their rivals. If any kingdom restrains itself from excessive forest-clearance out of concern for the long-term consequences, then that kingdom places itself at a military disadvantage and is eliminated by the more powerful kingdoms. Thus the region comes to be dominated by kingdoms that cut down their forests recklessly. The resulting deforestation leads eventually to ecological disaster and therefore to the collapse of all the kingdoms. Here a trait that is advantageous or even indispensable fora kingdom’s short-term survival—recklessness in cutting trees—leads in the long term to the demise of the same kingdom.”

Kaczyinski dismantles the proposal of state-planned degrowth, in vogue in the eco-bourgeoisie circles of large cities and defended by influential eco-technocrats (Kristin Zaitz, Nick Fitzpatrick, William Lockett). If at random, a SPS – such as the US, British or Australian State decided to limit its efforts to maximize exploitation of resources at its disposal, mainly the exploitation of petrol, gas and coal, “then the system puts itself at a competitive disadvantage relative to those self-prop systems that pursue short-term survival and propagation without restraint.”

Unsurprisingly, the proposal advanced by the eco-technocracy shows great political naivety. It doesn’t take into account the power imbalances between SPS which structure the technological world-system. Let’s underline this even more by citing an other mathematician-philosopher, Olivier Rey, who also demolishes any idea of State-planned degrowth in his excellent essay Une question de taille (A question of scale, 2014) :

“In economic and technical terms, we must acknowledge that, at this point in time, to opt for the path degrowth is not without danger. Indeed, even though the only way to prevent or buffer the catastrophe, degrowth may also mean, for human communities who would opt for it, an even more rapid downfall. Think about the outcome that colonized people faced, subdued because the traditional means were ultimately outclassed by the power of modern technique / technology. Any “lateness” in the process of transformation of the world that began two centuries ago exposes to the lead of “advances”, any refusal to the submission by technology induces submission to those who possess technology. Let’s also consider, to take a telling example in a world dominated by the economy, about the situation of a farsighted bank facing a speculative boom: choosing not to act on it, in preparation to the bubble’s inevitable burst, is in the meantime, reducing its gains compared to those of its competitors and, by this fact, to risk being eaten up by them before backlash; in other words, to merely survive, common sense may come to recommend participating in a movement which our reason considers absurd. This would be our situation: growth, which is fatal in the long run, may also be a condition of our immediate survival."

Schematic representation of SPS (nations, companies, political parties, religious sects, mafia groups, etc.) in competition. This illustration comes from our in presence or online workshops. SPS are in competition to monopolize resources that would enable them to develop more powerful technologies, which would themselves enable them to dominate other SPS and acquire even more resources, and soon.

‍

A suicidal competition at the global scale

The technological world-system constitutes a super-system, which comprises all sub-systems or SPS (nation-states, companies, criminal networks, etc.) through the intermediary of fast transport and long-distance communication networks. Kaczyinski estimates that “this world-system is approaching a condition in which it will be dominated by are relatively small number of extremely powerful global self-prop systems.”

Nowadays, we count China and the USA among those SPS which dominate the world. Both nations are competing evermore fiercely with each other in the technological field (electronic chips, AI, drones, robots, bio-technologies , etc.). Yet other SPS may suddenly appear and develop themselves with great speed. It was the case a few years ago, with the Islamic State group (ISIS), who took advantage of the chaos in Syria and Iraq to rapidly conquer territory and gain control of oil wells. In the years to come, other SPS currently in a fetus stage will surely take advantage of the increasing global instability.

The development of ISIS in the Middle-East shows that new SPS continually emerge, and more and more quickly. The worldwide hegemony of a SPS, or of a few very powerful ones can’t last indefinitely.This recent example seems to confirm the SPS’ dynamics theorized by Kaczynski.  

As the amount of easily available resources decreases, the competing pressure among global SPS will increase, with no consideration whatsoever of the long-term ecological and social consequences. This competition is permanently stimulating the growth of the technological world-system, which extends its tentacles to colonize new unexploited niches. The incentive to develop always more destructive weapons, technology always more powerful and invasive will be even stronger. In order to stay in the race, the dominant SPS will have to invade and colonize new areas (marine depths, arctic and antarctic areas, Amazon and Congo basin, the terrestrial mantle, asteroids, etc.). This deadly dynamic will keep going “until little or nothing on this planet is left free of technological intervention—intervention that will be carried out in a mad quest for immediate increments of power and without regard to long-term consequences.”

“Meanwhile, fierce competition among global self-prop systems will have led to such drastic and rapid alterations in the Earth’s climate, the composition of its atmosphere, the chemistry of its oceans, and so forth, that the effect on the biosphere will be devastating. […] If the development of the technological world-system is allowed to proceed to its logical conclusion, then in all probability the Earth will be left a dead planet—a planet on which nothing will remain alive except, maybe, some of the simplest organisms—certain bacteria, algae, etc.—that are capable of surviving under extreme conditions.”

In order to address this acknowledgement,  which may seem insurmountable or even discouraging for newcomers, Kaczynski gives, in chapters 3 and 4 of Anti-tech Revolution, precious strategic recommendations to organize an anti-tech movement.