devestating!

There won’t be much surprising for anyone familiar with “complexity science” but Philip Ball as usual is a very clear and clever writer, and this is worth reading or recommending to someone new to the ideas.

New to me was the inter-relationship of the social sciences and physics. Lately we’re used to applying concepts from physics to societies and considering it innovative — however statistical mechanics, entropy, heat, we’re all deeply influenced by statistical methods developed for census and social study (like average height in a population)

This was a frustrating read. On one hand, he has a very wide perspective on pressing issues in the world, and the ability to plunge into detail with ease. And not only in the environment/social justice/indigenous rights movement that’s the focus of the book, but well versed in science, philosophy, history. The tight sections on the history of environmentalism, or stories on particular instances in his own work as a management consultant with an environmental bent and stories from others are interesting and compelling.

Where it completely fails me is in the synthesis, both in the overall scale and in small conceptual jumps between ideas. At the small scale, he’s overtaken with the idea of lateral thinking, which I should enjoy, but comparisons of protests to Eskimo myths, and the human immune system to social movements, lack any poetry or keen insights or substantial reflection. The phrase “The Movement” itself grates hard.

I disagree with the entire thrust of the book, that there is a movement, that it is unique. Environmentalism is not exceptional or unique in its embrace of networked social structures .. with free flow of information that’s what today’s world looks like, including corporations, terrorist organizations, and governments. And environmentalism and social justice certainly do have their share of ideology .. pragmatism and ideology exist in parts everywhere.

Essentially, he’s drawn a convenient boundary around stuff he likes and stuff he doesn’t like, yet at the same time including everyone in this movement. It’s a quite familiar progressive American perspective, that is lacking perspective, very reactionary, and revelling in ideas that share roots with the things he despises.

Sure I’m pretty negative about the book. I’m sure he’s a very engaging speaker and quite effective. I suppose I’m hoping for something much more forward thinking, whole thinking. It’s still isolating out the typical villains, and that kind of thinking is definitely a dead end.