The Power of Resilience

People used to think of economic, environmental, and social systems as separate, but they're closely connected. If you disturb one system, it affects the others. Why do complex systems behave like this, and how can we make them safer? The reason is not simply a lack of information. Just knowing when big problems might happen won’t give us more control. Instead, we need to make our systems more flexible and responsive. That means we have to understand the new field of resilience.

Figuring out why some systems crumble while others bounce back from similar challenges is tricky. Different experts have their definitions of resilience, but they all agree it's about continuity and recovery in the face of change, especially when it's sudden and unexpected. Resilient systems have a way of sensing when a big change is about to hit, thanks to their tight feedback mechanisms.

Distinctive Attributes of Complex Systems

Complex systems are known for their "robust-yet-fragile" nature. This means they can withstand "anticipated dangers" but may fail when faced with "unanticipated threats."  For example, a tree farmer may plant trees far apart to reduce the risk of fire spreading between them. This method is safe but not efficient, leading to lower yield. On the other hand, planting trees close together increases efficiency but also makes the farm vulnerable to fire damage, a known risk.  The farmer might build roads to prevent fires from spreading, but this wouldn’t stop a sudden beetle plague, an unexpected threat, from attacking the trees. Surprisingly, the beetles could use the roads meant to ensure safety for their destructive path.

The Internet is a resilient system: it effectively enables decentralized communication, making it impervious to military strikes aimed at any single location. However, its interconnected nature leaves it susceptible to internal attacks. Focusing too much on one aspect of the system can push it to a tipping point, where once-beneficial characteristics become weaknesses that could lead to its collapse.

Resilience in Adaptive Networks

Resilience can be found in both positive and negative systems, like the immune system and terror networks. These systems use tactics such as "sensing, scaling, and swarming" to enhance their resilience. These patterns allow networks to gather and transmit information in new ways, enabling them to react to threats and opportunities. For example, individual terrorists blend into their communities when they aren't engaged in terrorism. By sharing their communities’ values, practices, and personal connections, they remain unnoticed. Members of these networks keep watch on their surroundings and decide when to act, whether to strike at their opponents or to recruit new members. When they act, they don't engage in long campaigns but swarm specific targets and quickly disappear. The War on Terror marks the first conflict where nation-states are fighting against networks. The US military had to adapt its strategies, organizing in “nodes” and allowing teams to choose when to respond, instead of waiting for guidance from a top-down system. 

Systems operate like a "network of decentralized, self-coordinating parts" that form "clusters." Clusters arise when groups of high-tech innovators flock to places like Silicon Valley or when rural dwellers move to urban areas. Cities are efficient. New ideas, behaviors, art forms, and styles spread faster in cities compared to rural areas. The increased population density and shared interests in cities affect resilient systems. When diverse people come together in cities, they make systems more resilient. Grouping people in cities impacts several societal factors. For instance, income levels, violent crime rates, diversity, innovation, and how quickly people change their affiliations all increase. When people with varying backgrounds come together, they strengthen systems and make society more adaptable.

The Evolution of Cooperation

To interact effectively, people must trust and work together. But this raises a question: If evolution is driven by competition, how does cooperation fit in and how did it develop? Scholars look to biology and game theory for answers. Human hormones like oxytocin make us inclined to trust and cooperate with strangers. Researchers study the Prisoner’s Dilemma to see how our decisions affect cooperation. Imagine you're arrested with a partner. You can't talk to them. If you both stay quiet, you get six months. If you confess and they don't, you go free, they get 10 years (and vice versa). If you both confess, you both get five years. What should you do?

Researcher Robert Axelrod conducted a Prisoner's Dilemma tournament where participants submitted strategies in computer code to play against each other. The winning strategy, "Tit for Tat," starts with cooperation but responds to betrayal with an equal measure of betrayal. In real life, "Tit for Two Tats" might be more effective, acknowledging that people can accidentally betray trust first. Individuals use different strategies based on their history with others and their biases. People are more likely to trust those in their "in-group" and may betray those in their "out-group." To build trust in society or the economy, it's important to show people they belong to a larger group, or "enlarge their tribe."

Unstoppable Survivors

People can be remarkably resilient, and able to recover from trauma and adversity. To explore this further, psychologists studied survivors of the Holocaust, some of whom were children in Auschwitz. They found that while some were deeply affected by their experiences, others showed moderate depression, and some managed to develop functional personalities despite their suffering. This resilience is a successful way to deal with hardship. Resilient individuals demonstrate "hardiness," which includes having a meaningful life purpose, believing they can control their lives, and recognizing they can learn from both good and bad experiences.

In 1981, John Adams, a geography professor at the University of London, coined the term “risk compensation” to explain how people manage risk. When one area of a person’s life becomes less risky, they tend to take more risks in other areas, whether they realize it or not. For example, drivers with safety features like antilock brakes often drive faster and brake harder. Similarly, kids who wear helmets while playing might take risks that kids without helmets wouldn’t take. This behavior of adjusting risk is widespread and consistent, and it’s a way for systems to find balance, or what Adams called “risk homeostasis.” Essentially, people and systems adjust to maintain a certain level of risk, similar to how a thermostat maintains a constant temperature by adjusting heating or cooling based on feedback.

Build Resilience

Personal resilience, the ability to recover from tough times, is linked with traits like optimism, confidence, and "ego-control" — the ability to delay gratification while working toward long-term goals. These traits come from belief systems that help you evaluate situations and manage your emotions. Psychologists also find that religious faith can contribute to resilience and toughness. Finally, being part of supportive communities with strong social networks makes it more likely that you'll recover from challenges.

You can increase your resilience. Taking control of your feelings reduces stress and improves how you deal with tough situations. One proven way to do this is "mindfulness meditation." It comes partly from Eastern spiritual traditions, especially Buddhism, but you can practice it without any religious beliefs. Mindfulness meditation teaches you different ways to pay closer attention to your thoughts and to handle them calmly and kindly.

“Translational Leaders”

The right leadership is crucial for building strong social systems and organizations. These leaders aren't top-down like visionary CEOs or presidents, nor are they purely grassroots. Instead, they practice 'middle-out' leadership, engaging with all levels of their organization's hierarchy. These leaders, known as translational leaders, connect with diverse stakeholder groups and act as a bridge between those in power and those who might not be heard. They are deeply embedded in their system and always understand how it operates.

Noah Idechong's efforts in Palau offer a compelling case study. Over the centuries, various powerful nations claimed the Pacific island, but as long as they left it alone, the islanders thrived. Local fishermen knew the reefs and currents of their region, using communal customs to prevent overfishing. However, when outsiders introduced modern economic and technological factors, like a market economy and mechanized boats, they upset this delicate balance. Palau's integration into a larger legal system undermined traditional authority, causing local elders to feel ignored and the system to falter. Idechong, a Palau native educated in Hawaii, facilitated a dialogue among stakeholders. He organized meetings where local fishermen, keen on preserving their way of life, engaged with environmental scientists. Idechong then translated their traditional conservation practices into legislation, bridging the gap between local wisdom and modern environmental needs.

CeaseFire

Agencies helping troubled communities need accurate and personal local knowledge. They must continuously update what they learn. CeaseFire is a "violence prevention program" in Chicago, led by Gary Slutkin, who used to work with the World Health Organization in Africa. Drawing on that experience, he applied public health models to violence prevention. CeaseFire tries to stop the spread of violence, like a disease, by urging people who are familiar with individuals at risk—and who speak their language—to reach out to them directly.

Slutkin argues that the "Everything Myth" often gets in the way of finding real solutions. This myth suggests that to solve an infection like malaria, you have to fix everything in a patient's life—like water, sanitation, and nutrition. In crime-heavy areas, it means addressing education, poverty, and parenting, among other societal issues—demanding too much. With CeaseFire, Slutkin ignored the Everything Myth. Instead, he aimed for a precise intervention to change behavior. CeaseFire focused solely on preventing violence, not on other illegal activities. This made people trust it more than they trusted the police.

Transform Communities

After five years of hard work, Slutkin and his team simplified their program into a few easy steps. They learned from successful disease prevention projects and boiled it down to basics. CeaseFire keeps track of the connections between people in the community, knowing who's at risk of violence and likely to cause harm. They focus on changing people's minds by showing them how to be nonviolent, hosting social events like barbecues, and teaching skills that promote peaceful living. By spreading the message that shooting isn't the answer and offering alternatives even when angry, they're reshaping community norms and behaviors.

Core beliefs and mission

Achieving resilience involves balancing a range of qualities. Resilient systems are interconnected, but not excessively so. They value diversity, but not to an extreme degree. These systems connect with others when it's beneficial, but they also know when to disconnect if there's risk involved. Resilience also demands flexibility — sticking to plans strategically, but adapting when necessary. Structures are built, but they are designed to be adaptable, not traps.  In social structures that promote resilience, an "adhocracy" is key. This allows for creating and re-creating structures, and changing people’s actions while maintaining a constant framework of “core values and purpose.”