Is Punctuated Equilibrium a Good Way to Change the World? NDP 180

Have you seen (or read) “2001: A Space Odyssey”?

The story opens at the time of early humans. Folks are going about their business when a ginormous monolith appears. Everyone freaks out at first, but then some develop the ability to use bones as tools. 

At first, I didn’t understand that the monolith represented punctuated equilibrium. This is a phrase used by evolutionary biologists to describe a quick shift in the fossil record representing a significant change. Compare this to gradualism, characterized by the slow accumulation of small changes. 

As an impatient person, I prefer punctuated equilibrium. Rather than waiting around and remaining comfortable, I’ve always been (generally) ok with quick changes toward a new condition. I don’t mind changing jobs (I’ve one it 32 times in 39 years) or homes (ten houses in 17 years). Some things, of course, I want to remain consistent, but I don’t fear change like a lot of people.

I would go so far as to say I sometimes yearn for quick change, because most changes are painfully slow. And life is short.

Mostly, though, changes happen slowly and punctuated equilibria are few and far between. 

The world is in dire need of change. Do we have the time to wait around for it to happen gradually? 

Can it happen gradually? 

This is the question that drives me, and this article.

A built-in persistence mechanism

Not changing is good for a system to persist. We have become experts in the bait-and-switch technique where we create fraudulent mechanisms for change that don’t result in actual change but make us believe they do.

How long do we throw good money after bad, making minute alterations to existing systems in hopes that something changes? How many rounds of negative feedback evidence do we need to acquire before we stop? 

Something like UBI, for example, could be a monolithic mechanism to change the global economy. But, 

The risks of Punctuated Equilibrium are high

Mention to any neoclassical economist that capitalism is broken and prepare yourself for a tongue-lashing. Tell any politician that the government needs an overhaul and you may have your citizenship revoked. Tell a high-school principal that students should be learning about meditation and, well, you get the point.

People don’t like change. 

Most of us fear the enemy we don’t know much more than the one we do. This explains why we stay in bad relationships, cruddy jobs, and unsuitable cities. Change is scary. But as I have mentioned in many an article, change is the underlying machinery of life. It is our DNA. That we fear change is not an excuse to avoid it. 

Look, I get it, leaping into the unknown abyss is scary. But sometimes it is the only option. 

Gradualism is ineffective, especially during stress

If a lion were chasing you, would you run or take some time to think about which direction to run? If you had to think about it, you’re dead.

Sometimes gradual change takes too long. Though that sounds like something Yogi Berra might have said, it’s true. Sometimes we need a change. Mostly this is because we tolerated non-change for too long.

Gradualism is about not changing. Not changing is resistance. What we resist, persists. Instead of protecting ourselves, we are going against the basic principles of biology. The universe changes. We must change with it. 

If we want to change something, gradualism is not likely to work. Our problems require faster and more severe solutions. If we can’t get comfortable with discomfort we will continue to gaslight ourselves into thinking things will be ok.

If you are enjoying this content, please tell your friends.