Applied Systems Convergence & Global Equi-finality

by Hugh M. Lewis

Streamlining represents the tendency for the development of an applied system to reach a stable equilibrium characterized by the optimization of functional design and articulation of parts in relation to the whole. Different systems can begin under very different starting conditions, and reach very similar equi-final states in response to similar kinds of conditions. It is for this reason that so many convergent and analogous structures recur in the adaptation of different biological systems to similar kinds of conditions, as for example the achievement of flight by bats, birds and ancient pterosaurs. Streamlining can be said to represent an optimum solution state in a complex search-solution space that is characterized by the design of a system. Such convergent evolution based upon functional streamlining confers to the evolution of species a kind of teleological quality that some interpret as a sign of progressive or intentional design. In fact such teleology is a natural function of complex systems exploring through continuous variation a complex search-solution space and eventually arriving at the most optimum design for a given set of functions, whether this is flying, swimming, talking or walking.

I propose that applied human systems will eventually be reaching a state of optimal design development that I would prefer to call global equi-finality. Such global equi-finality will be characterized by the streamlining of the design development of different systems accompanied by the increasing degree of integration of different system into a larger meta-systemic framework. Automobiles, and to a lesser extent, modern transport aircraft, represent fitting examples of the concept of applied systems streamlining and convergence. The system of transportation, supply and service that supports the automobile and automobile traffic has grown increasingly sophisticated and complex. At this time, such an orientation like permaculture seems to be not well received on a broad scale, but appears to be only well received by a small but diverse and interesting network of individuals and organizations.

As different nations develop and modernization moves different kinds of people forward towards a more affluent life-style, it becomes increasingly obvious that the number of similarities and commonalities between different groups of people, less the cultural and symbolic baggage, are far greater than the number of differences and variations of pattern that serve to distinguish people and set them apart from one another. Human nature is relatively similar, in spite of cultural and psychological differentials and patterns of variation, such that most normal people want and expect the same kinds of things from life. Thus, a system designed in a manner that can fulfill these needs for as many people as possible, is the kind of system that is the most desirable, compared to one for instance that serves primarily to restrict or hurt people's interests, or that carries forward a few individuals to levels of extreme and absurd affluence, at the potential expense of so many more who are frustrated in their dreams and expectations of achievement.

Neither too should affluence alone become the primary goal or set of values to be achieved through development. Relative affluence can only be measured as a material index, one of several alternatives, and is tied ultimately to a sense of well-being, if not happiness, security, satisfaction and success in the realization rather than the frustration of one's goals. The goals of development of a system is the creation of a system with a relative large carrying capacity that can serve its population in a sufficient and satisfactory manner for the long term, without destructive breakdown of the ecological and environmental relationships (including social) that tends to occur in the long run with saturated systems. 

There may be many different ways to design alternative systems to achieve such a set of goals, infinite in number and possibility in fact, but it appears that any such system, to be successful in the long run for as many people as possible, must necessarily lead more or less to the same general place. The key question of course becomes ultimately one of control and power in such a system, and the distribution of power to a field of players in a fair and equitable manner. The tendency in human nature is to try to maximize and monopolize power and control, even and especially at the expense of others. This was largely based upon a premise of a world of limited good. It was a world in which one person's success is almost automatically construed as another's failure. It is possible, for instance, to design a system that is based, if not on unlimited good in an absolute sense, at least unlimited good in a more restrictive and relative way. Of course, differentials of power and control over resources will always exist, and as long as they do so there will always be a sense of corruption and unfairness built into the system.  Conflict of interest and the need for conflict resolution and requirement for apparatus to effect such resolution in a fair and non-destructive manner will always remain, and in some ways is greater now perhaps than it has ever before been. But the means to finally build a kind of system that would allow us to do so seems to be finally at hand, minus the kind of symbolic knowledge needed to put such a system on the ground.

General Systems Essays, Vol. I