Socioeconomic systems as complex self-organizing adaptive holarchies

This paper presents a model that describes socioeconomic systems as complex, self-organizing, adaptive holarchies (SAH for short) stabilized by informed autocatalytic cycles. SAH is based on a resonance in terms of “computational capability of society” and “process of exergy degradation”. In our model, the profile of “computational capability of society” corresponds to the profile of allocation of human time on different human activities. On the other hand, the size of the different processes of exergy degradation corresponds to the amount of energy input consumed in the different sectors of the economy. Central to the model is the dynamic exergy budget of society, which is approached as a dynamic equilibrium between both supply and demand of useful energy per unit of working time. A set of equations for dynamic equilibrium is described for three different hierarchical levels: individuals, the socioeconomic system as a whole, and the environment within which society operates. Because of the complex nature of socioeconomic systems, two distinct perspectives have to be considered when analyzing societal development. One is the quasi-steady-state perspective, which analyzes the system at a particular point in time and space. It provides a definition and assessment of improvements in the “efficiency” of the system in terms of a given 210set of present boundary conditions, technological levels and system goals. The other perspective is evolutionary, which allows for definition and assessment of “adaptability” of the system, that is, its ability to perform well according to unknown future boundary conditions and different goals. These two contrasting perspectives cannot be blended into a single description of the system. Technological changes imply a tradeoff between efficiency and adaptability, and never represent “absolute improvements”. Biophysical analyses can provide indicators referring to both perspectives to analyze the nature and the effects of trade-offs but cannot provide a single denominator to define costs and benefits.