Most natural networks are scale-free and decentralized, but human civilization has the tendency to form hierarchical structures that are more often than not pyramid-shaped. These so-called ‘Legrand Star’ networks are prevalent in modern-day society, whereas the networks we observe in nature are predominately scale-free.

The Legrand Star is basically a big engine: it metabolizes inputs at a certain rate and produces outputs.

The Legrand Star isn’t necessarily bad — the main factor we need to consider with its use is sustainability. Here’s my line of logic:

1. We’re heavily dependent on natural systems. Postmodernism only seems to disguise the fact that everything comes from natural systems. To be clear, there is no economy without a carefully-managed, holistically-understood natural environment. I’m talking about the need for environmental stewardship, a better understanding of global warming and climate factors, and the pressing need to factor environmental impact into the actual shelf price of goods.
2. Natural networks are resilient but not invincible; they cannot sustain exponential growth perpetually. That said, the question isn’t whether Earth’s systems are capable of sustaining exponential growth… they are right now, at least to some degree. The real question is for how long. We need to manage resources and investments intelligently in order to arrive at the Singularity with a healthy planet and livable climate. (Synergy is also our friend here, yes, back to bright green economies and the information economy’s ability to ‘virtualize-away’ emissions thru telecommuting, 3D printing, etc.)
3. The Legrand Star network architecture literally runs on (and is sustained by) natural resources and Earth’s natural systems. We build more of these ‘engines’ each day, and their overall environmental impact can be difficult to quantify, especially because there are more each day.
4. Therefore, we should aim to virtualize systems wherever possible and make them work with the natural environment rather than at its expense.

Technology is the driving force behind the economy’s rapid growth, which is (1) sustained by nature, (2) exponential, and (3) guided by market economics, and therefore moving in the direction of flow optimization. Overall, this is great, but again we face the divergent goals of environmental protection versus economic and technological growth.

With flow optimization and the iterative design process, technology basically becomes more like nature each year, meaning advances in efficiency as well as in utility (price-performance). The only significant problem we face is that if economic demands ‘go exponential’ like what Moore’s Law predicts for technology, then (1) Earth’s natural systems may not be capable of sustaining such a rapid shift – hence the need for ‘greentech/cleantech’ – and (2) technology’s exponential growth (and the ‘critical mass’ necessary for Strong AI or ‘the Singularity’) may only occur after considerable damage to the global economy (hence the need to avoid future ‘tech bubbles’).

If nature is both finite in scope and the primary source of our economy, then we face a problem — how can we sustain the exponential growth of technology with nature’s limited resources?

This is merely a question of how we relate (“equate”) the economy to the environment.

Exponential Growth versus Finite Resources

Personally, I advocate for the precautionary principle, which states that if you don’t completely understand a complex relationship — in this case, the finite resources of nature versus the limitless ambitions of our markets and the future of exponential tech — then it is unwise to tread too far into the unknown without scientific consensus regarding the environment (the resources from which ‘the exponential’ gains momentum).

What I’m describing is known as the ‘area-to-point flow problem’ of natural resources. Put differently, we have an exponential economy, but that economy is still powered by the natural world — a living system that may not be able to ‘keep up’ with industry’s quickening pace. And this can be a difficult balance to quantify (see the incredibly diverse outputs of climate models). This is related to the problem of quantifying or defining ‘peak oil’: there are, at present, too many unknowns.

This is why so many people subconsciously fear exponential growth: It feels like we’re buying Earth’s future on credit.

The core problem? The faster Legrand Stars grow, the more resources they consume (and, exponentially so). Therefore, we have to make sure that exponential growth does not equate to exponential environmental consequence. In essence, as technologies (or, ‘Legrand Stars’) grow, they must also become more efficient. An equilibrium must be reached.

Factoring ‘real’ (environmental) cost into the shelf price of goods

The solution, ultimately, lies in an economy that factors environmental costs into the economic cost of every good or purchase. We must effectively link the global economy to the health and well-being of the natural world.

For instance, if a product carries a hefty environmental price tag, then it should be made more expensive — because it is expensive (at least to the natural environment)… and we need to reflect this logic globally. We need to create an economy that factors environmental cost into shelf price.

I’m not suggesting new taxes. Instead of stick, better a carrot: if states incentivized environmentally-sustainable goods, manufacturers would have additional incentive to focus on methods of sustainable production. The goal should be an economy that we can classify as “Bright Green” — an idea very compatible and indeed synergistic with the idea of an information economy and the ‘digital shift’.

The main difficulty is in convincing power structures of this necessity – and not only that, but getting multiple global leaders on board. The goal should be an economy that can self-optimize for the pareto-optimal balance of quality (the ‘best rising to the top’, or typical Laissez-Faire economics) and minimum environmental impact (or the most environmentally-sustainable rising to the top).

Also see Global Price Performance Protocol (GCPP)