An idealized mutual escalation spiral

In reality, a positive feedback loop can’t go on building indefinitely. Some form of external modulation must occur, either producing homeostasis or a crash, no?

How do we diagram that? — I ask as an interested amateur…

I realize that the author of a diagram gets to name the things in it, but to me the spiral he calls escalation looks to me like a pathway, while the points at zero on the graph that he calls peace is an orientation at the coordinate (0,0,0). (note: I give the orientation an extra zero, because I usually think in three dimensions.)

So, in answer to his question: “how do we diagram that?”, I say by putting the cross-sectional profiles that defines the orientation of each parties in escalation onto the pathway to peace, and then either swept, loft or define the boundaries between both profiles.

The difference being, when defining the space labeled “peace”, in the space between the swept or loft movements, we are dealing in relationships between the escalating profiles, while when we are dealing with boundaries between the two parties in escalation it’s mostly about resources.

But then war is mostly about economic considerations (boundaries) and fought by people with little economic considerations (cross-sectional profiles that are swept or loft).

So the ones who really have to do the agreeing (to peace) are those who go to war for economic considerations and those who go to war despite economic considerations, and not those doing the escalating.

via » Blog Archive » An idealized mutual escalation spiral.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s