I have been told that software makers trying to track down the cause of a bug in their software deliberately set up a number of isolated teams to work on the problem, not one larger team. With one larger team there is too much tendency for the thinking of the members to converge on one or two possible causes of the problem, and ignore other possibilities that are equally valuable. Running seperate but isolate teams helps preserve diversity of thinking, about possible solutions.

Interesting whether the act of knowledge sharing itself reduces diversity of opinion and action. I would think that knowledge sharing between societies could increase diversity as long as outside ideas don’t crowd out domestic knowledge, and if they are adapted to local conditions – but maybe some degree of crowding out (and thus loss of diversity) is inevitable.

I think we need to be careful about “privileging” diversity.

1. Diversity does not guarantee stability in ecosystems. What we dont see when we see complex forest ecosystems (for example) is the complex forest systems that have not survived. We are only seeing the sample that did survive. Survivorship bias.

2. Each newly introduced species into Australia is in theory adding to the diversity of biological life in that continent. But we know that in practice some new species can wreak havoc, such as cats killing off many small marsupials, and lead to a net loss in species diversity. Other species, like introduced fruit trees, seemed to have created a net increase in diversity.

I suspect what matters more for system stability is not the gross number of species present in an ecosystem but the structure of the relationships between them. For example, extreme specialisation works in stable environments, but is risky when environments become more changeable. In those circumstances it is generalists who have better chances. If there is radical climate change it may be the hunter/gatherers/gardeners in Papua that will have better survival chances than accountants in Melboune.

Another dimension is how “tightly coupled” all the parts of the system are. In boom times people (and companies) take on more debt, thus tying themselves more closely to others, and reducing their own capacity to act independently. Shocks to one part of the system e.g. from a bankruptcy, move through the wider economic system that much further as a result.

regards, rick