Primer Home /
Collapse / Collapses: Caused by People, Not Systems.
Collapses: Caused by People, Not Systems.
Topic: Collapse
by Jason, 2020 Cohort
Collapses: Caused by People, Not Systems.#
Whilst identifying collapse in history is conventionally straightforward, how we respond to these complex challenges can drastically impact recovery outcomes. By comparing two ways to complex responses to events that foreshadow a collapse, this primer aims to frame collapse as a human problem rather than a systemic issue.
Conventional Response#
Jared Diamond defines collapses as unforeseen and complex events, affecting a sizable area for an extended period of time. Often under extreme public pressure once the collapse happens, governments often work swiftly to reassure its citizens through making systemic changes to respond to the collapse. Whilst this approach addresses current collapses, I would argue that they fail to prevent future collapses. The September 11th terrorist attack in the United States exemplify this notion as it was considered a collapse of national security. Whilst President George Bush claimed that events of this similar nature could never happen again by drastically increasing airport security and declaring a military campaign against the Middle East, such actions were widely viewed as both benefiting the agendas of terrorist organisations and doing little to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Icebergs#
Within systems thinking, the iceberg model is used to categorise the systemic mechanisms behind collapses to simplify complex events such as collapse. As seen in the attached image, collapses are framed as a symptom of the ways that we think. They are portrayed as a result of our problematic understanding of the world. As such, the most effective changes to our society have stemmed from efforts to change our societal beliefs rather than our systems. We can observe this way of thinking through how the United Kingdom reduced mortality rates of lung cancer in the past.
In the United Kingdom (UK), lung cancer in the 1960s almost caused a collapse within the health care system due to its prevalence and high mortality rate. Looking back 50 years later, the biggest improvements to mortality rates of lung cancer were not made through improving treatment options but through identifying and changing our beliefs about its leading cause, smoking. Since the introduction of education and increased public awareness regarding the health risks of smoking, there has been a 63% reduction of mortality rates of smoking in the UK. What is unique about the iceberg model is that it frames collapse as a public beliefs problem, as exemplified in the case study. Whilst responses to reshape culture generally produce scarce results in the short term, the move to identify and reshape the culture of smoking has drastically improved survival rates of lung cancer.
Whilst hindsight is 20/20, the complexity behind collapses should be viewed as challenges to our existing beliefs rather than simply dismissed as a black swan event. In comparing conventional and belief orientated responses to collapse, I hope to promote the notion that collapses are caused by humans, not in systemic flaws. Furthermore, decision makers ought to also look underneath the iceberg, to find the complex ‘smoking’ in our society and reshape our problematic beliefs to prevent future collapses.
Explore this topic further#
Return to
Collapse in the Primer
Disclaimer#
This content has been contributed by a student as part of a learning activity.
If there are inaccuracies, or opportunities for significant improvement on this topic, feedback is welcome on how to improve the resource.
You can improve articles on this topic as a student in "Unravelling Complexity", or by including the amendments in an email to: Chris.Browne@anu.edu.au
Collapses: Caused by People, Not Systems.#
Whilst identifying collapse in history is conventionally straightforward, how we respond to these complex challenges can drastically impact recovery outcomes. By comparing two ways to complex responses to events that foreshadow a collapse, this primer aims to frame collapse as a human problem rather than a systemic issue.
Conventional Response#
Jared Diamond defines collapses as unforeseen and complex events, affecting a sizable area for an extended period of time. Often under extreme public pressure once the collapse happens, governments often work swiftly to reassure its citizens through making systemic changes to respond to the collapse. Whilst this approach addresses current collapses, I would argue that they fail to prevent future collapses. The September 11th terrorist attack in the United States exemplify this notion as it was considered a collapse of national security. Whilst President George Bush claimed that events of this similar nature could never happen again by drastically increasing airport security and declaring a military campaign against the Middle East, such actions were widely viewed as both benefiting the agendas of terrorist organisations and doing little to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Icebergs#
Within systems thinking, the iceberg model is used to categorise the systemic mechanisms behind collapses to simplify complex events such as collapse. As seen in the attached image, collapses are framed as a symptom of the ways that we think. They are portrayed as a result of our problematic understanding of the world. As such, the most effective changes to our society have stemmed from efforts to change our societal beliefs rather than our systems. We can observe this way of thinking through how the United Kingdom reduced mortality rates of lung cancer in the past.
In the United Kingdom (UK), lung cancer in the 1960s almost caused a collapse within the health care system due to its prevalence and high mortality rate. Looking back 50 years later, the biggest improvements to mortality rates of lung cancer were not made through improving treatment options but through identifying and changing our beliefs about its leading cause, smoking. Since the introduction of education and increased public awareness regarding the health risks of smoking, there has been a 63% reduction of mortality rates of smoking in the UK. What is unique about the iceberg model is that it frames collapse as a public beliefs problem, as exemplified in the case study. Whilst responses to reshape culture generally produce scarce results in the short term, the move to identify and reshape the culture of smoking has drastically improved survival rates of lung cancer.
Whilst hindsight is 20/20, the complexity behind collapses should be viewed as challenges to our existing beliefs rather than simply dismissed as a black swan event. In comparing conventional and belief orientated responses to collapse, I hope to promote the notion that collapses are caused by humans, not in systemic flaws. Furthermore, decision makers ought to also look underneath the iceberg, to find the complex ‘smoking’ in our society and reshape our problematic beliefs to prevent future collapses.