This document has been translated from Spanish into English using ChatGPT. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and maintain the original meaning, some nuances or interpretations may differ from the source text. For any clarification, please refer to the original document or contact the author.

This brief article addresses the concern arising from the accelerated whirlwind of changes of all kinds experienced by our social systems, some of which have a significant evolutionary impact, largely driven by advances in science and technology. Particular interest has emerged in connecting certain properties inherent to the behavior of complex systems far from equilibrium—such as social systems—under the framework of properties currently studied in Complexity Sciences. The article outlines this concern, which is, for now, merely the beginning of what could develop into a groundbreaking investigation. It references laboratory simulation work aimed at understanding the evolutionary horizons of Chile’s social system. The text includes an example of some graphs that illustrate a potential method for detecting and anticipating possible evolutionary horizons of the social system, based on the role played by certain “attractor variables” within the system. However, the research is still exploratory, and this article serves merely as a general description of the initial concern.

The starting point of our intellectual inquiry is propelled by the theories of “accelerationism” (Srnicek, Williams, Fisher, etc.) juxtaposed against various “models” of social systems (Capitalism, Socialism, Neoliberalism, Conservatism, etc.). Notably, this includes the debate surrounding “Post-Capitalism” (Paul Mason¹) [1], which seems imminent and, incidentally, revives the moribund state of orthodox socialism, as evidenced by the pragmatic response of openness embodied in the Chinese political-economic model. As Mason aptly points out, capitalism is an open system that interacts with its environment and adapts, changes, and evolves without disappearing upon reaching moments of criticality [2-14].

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ¹Mason, Paul; “PostCapitalismo, a Guide to Our Future”, Paidos Publishing, Chapter. 5, pp 157-200. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, these “accelerationist” theories are not far removed from the concerns raised in philosophy regarding the characterization of Postmodernity (Deleuze, Lyotard, Shafiro, Noys, etc.) and its transcendence into Transmodernity (Kracauer, W. Benjamin, Rodríguez Magda²) [15]. Transmodernity is characterized by transience, immediacy, fashion, and opinion as forms of valuation and social behavior—phenomena anticipated, interestingly, by Nietzsche. These describe socio-cultural evolutionary phenomena as attempts to “transcend” the modernity born out of the European Enlightenment of the 18th century, which should also include K. Marx as an heir of the “rationality” pervasive in that Enlightenment. It has often been suggested that both Smith and Marx are children of the same parent: the culture of the Enlightenment, which now appears poised to be subsumed by evolutionary processes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ²Magda, Rodríguez, Rosa María; “The Smile of Saturn”, Anthopos Publishing, 1989, Barcelona, Spain, Introduction, Chapters. I,II,III. pag. 10-39. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This context increasingly prioritizes the widespread concern about the evolutionary trajectory of our social systems. The “accelerationism” characterizing these processes, driven by scientific development and its technological outputs (with AI as its emblem), has culminated in an unprecedented capacity for information production in human history³. N. Luhmann⁴ [14,16] insightfully defined society as communication (information-energy flows), asserting that without communication, society ceases to exist. From his systemic perspective, Luhmann also recognized the inherent evolutionary sense of the social system, a vital characteristic absent from earlier social theories.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ³Aguado Miguel, Scott Bernard, Buchinguer Eva; “Technology and Social Complexity, University of Murcia Publishing, Spain, 2009, see pp. 115–133 (Expanding Burkley’s Adaptive as a Sociocybernetic Technology).
⁴Navas, Alejandro; The Sociological Theory of Niklas Luhmann, University of Navarra Editions, 1989, pp. 373–391.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps—unwittingly—the Internet, as a response to these processes was invented, addressing phenomena of increased entropy, disorder, chaos, and criticality. These challenges seem manageable only by generating even more energy, characteristic of systems far from equilibrium whose emergent behavior might obey principles rooted in thermodynamics and entropy. The paradox of complexity lies in the apparent need to address complexity by increasing it⁵. This concern extends to social systems, encompassing the intrinsic self-destructive capacity that has haunted humanity throughout history, manifesting in violence accompanying political crises and intensifying social conflicts, often witnessed in real-time on our portable devices.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ⁵We refer to the expression used by PhD. Juan Pablo Cárdenas in a short essay titled “Just Around the Corner”, where he thoughtfully explores this paradox ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complexity sciences, complex networks, and simulation models

This initial general approach aims to situate what has become an intellectual concern that could evolve into a significant and growing line of research. It relates to the evolutionary processes of social systems, particularly the potential “evolutionary horizons” that can be simulated today to offer general characterizations. This aligns with I. Prigogine’s [17] focus on the properties of evolution in complex systems far from equilibrium, such as social systems. It seems unprecedented, demanding an integrative and collaborative effort across sciences that has yet to emerge fully [17,18-27].

Recently, the general simulations of the behavior of a particular social system (Chile), integrated the phenomena of Complexity Sciences as a theoretical foundation. Using Complex Network models, the aim is to identify the general characteristics of the system’s potential evolution, particularly the role of the most significant “attractor variables,” which may influence the system’s dynamics as nodes of attraction, shaping potential evolutionary trajectories toward states such as innovation, prosperity, conflict, crisis, destabilization, stability, or progress.

To this end, “attractor variables” related to the most significant “adaptive pressures” driving the system’s evolutionary dynamics were defined. The “new social values,” which similarly function as “attractor variables were also incorporated.” This extensive list of 160 variables has been subjected to mutual impact analysis, using the theory of complex adaptive systems. This approach abandons linear cause-effect logic, as noted by Prigogine⁶, [17]. Prioritizing emergent phenomena arising from the intricate interrelations in systems far from equilibrium.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ⁶Prigogine, Ilia; Stengers, Isabelle; Between Time and Eternity, Alianza Editorial Universidad, 1992, Argentina, pp. 185–214. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Various simulations with differing evolutionary horizons were constructed, graphing the system’s behavior in complex networks that highlight the most crucial nodes (adaptive pressures) in its potential evolution. The results have been fascinating, opening exciting prospects for analytical contributions from science to understanding such an essential phenomenon as characterizing the evolutionary processes of our social systems, considered complex, adaptive, and unpredictable systems.

As noted at the outset, this is merely a preliminary exploration of the evolutionary behavior of a singular “object”—our society as a complex adaptive system. The intent is to develop a research line that enriches knowledge through an integrative effort spanning sciences, humanities, arts, and religion, all of which are essential to confronting this challenge.

Below are some illustrative graphs of the simulations regarding the evolution of Chile’s social system (society). These are presented solely as an example of the type of analysis that could be conducted in future research. They serve no purpose beyond the one stated.

Simulation models

Examples of associated graphs⁶: Example of graphs showing the evolution of the social system, using as an example the system’s displacement based on the role played by certain “attractor variables” within the system and their effect on shifting towards conditions of “stability” or “instability” over different time horizons (15–20 years) (Figure 1).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ⁷The graphs included in this document are presented (4) in English and (1) in Spanish. For any inquiries regarding their content or translation, please feel free to contact the author (rgavidal@gmail.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of a complex node graph representing the complete network of the social system and its interactions and influences (Figure 2).

If anything stands out, it is necessary to respond with knowledge and science to where we are heading as a “society” (social systems). Perhaps this integrative knowledge approach is indispensable for identifying potential risks and impacts.

AI declaration

This document has been translated from Spanish into English using ChatGPT. While efforts have been made to ensure accuracy and maintain the original meaning, some nuances or interpretations may differ from the source text. For any clarification, please refer to the original document or contact the author.

The graphs included in this document are presented (4) in English and (1) in Spanish. For any inquiries regarding their content or translation, please feel free to contact the author (rgavidal@gmail.com).

1. Mason P. PostCapitalismo, a guide to our future. Paidos Publishing. Chapter 5. 2021;157-200.
2. Cardenas JP, Vidal G, Urbina C, Olivares G, Rodrigo P, Fuentes MA. Social crises: signatures of complexity in a fast-growing economy. Complexity. 2018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9343451
3. Cárdenas JP, Urbina C, Vidal G, Fuentes M, Gomez GD, Oliva I. On the meaning of crisis: A network-based approach to collective thinking. Transylvanian Review. 2018;XXVI(34):26(34). Available from: https://www.transylvanianreviewjournal.com/index.php/TR/article/view/371
4. Cardenas JP, Olivares G, Vidal G, Urbina C, Fuentes M. Digital outburst: The expression of a social crisis through online social networks. Complexity. 2022. Available from: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/2022/8980913/
5. Fuentes M, Cárdenas JP, Urbina C, Vidal G, Olivares G, Lawler D, et al. Alignment between United Nations Environmental Assembly guidance and national research priorities. Sustainability. 2023;15(3):2636. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15032636
6. Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J, Behrens III WW. The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books; 1972.
7. Gleick J. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking. 1987.
8. Granovetter MS. The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol. 1973;78(6):1360-1380. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392
9. Page SE. Path dependence. Q J Polit Sci. 2006;1(1):87-115. Available from: https://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/redir.pf?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1561%2F100.00000006;h=repec:now:jlqjps:100.00000006
10. United Nations. The future is now: Science for achieving sustainable development. Global Sustainable Development Report 2019. New York: United Nations Publishing; 2020. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf
11. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Statistical Yearbook for Latin America and the Caribbean 2021. ECLAC Publishing; 2021. Available from: https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/47957-statistical-yearbook-latin-america-and-caribbean-2021
12. Freeman LC. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Soc Networks. 1978;1(3):215–239. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
13. Navas A. The sociological theory of Niklas Luhmann. Pamplona, Spain: University of Navarra Editions. 1989;373–391.
14. Cárdenas JP. Just around the corner. Short essay.
15. Rodríguez M, Rosa María. The smile of Saturn. Barcelona, Spain: Anthopos Publishing. Introduction, Chapters I, II, III. 1989;10-39.
16. Aguado M, Bernard S, Buchinguer E. Technology and social complexity. Spain: University of Murcia Publishing. 2009;115–133.
17. Prigogine I, Stengers I. Between time and eternity. Argentina: Alianza Editorial Universidad. 1992;185–21.
18. Cardenas JP, Olivares G, Vidal G, Urbina C, Fuentes M. The structure of online information behind social crises. Front Phys. 2021;9:650648. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2021.650648
19. Cardenas JP, Vidal G, Urbina C, Olivares G, Fuentes MA. Social crises: A network model approach. Physica A. 2018;505:35-48. Available from: https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/bitstream/handle/11336/96443/CONICET_Digital_Nro.da65c2e5-1e8c-4b01-a5fc-66254c9b6571_A.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
20. Cardenas JP, Gonzales I, Vidal G, Fuentes MA. Does network complexity help organize Babel’s library? Physica A. 2016;447(1):188-198. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7336
21. Cardenas JP, Vidal G, Olivares G. Complexity, selectivity, and asymmetry in the conformation of the power phenomenon: Analysis of Chilean society. Networks Heterog Media. 2015;10(1):167–194. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.7862
22. Barabási AL. Linked: The new science of networks. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing; 2002. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20033300
23. Newman MEJ. Networks: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. Available from: https://math.bme.hu/~gabor/oktatas/SztoM/Newman_Networks.pdf
24. Sterman JD. Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill; 2000. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/44827001_Business_Dynamics_System_Thinking_and_Modeling_for_a_Complex_World
25. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature. 1998;393(6684):440–442. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/30918
26. Newman MEJ. Modularity and community structure in networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2006;103(23):8577–8582. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601602103
27. Watts DJ. The “New” science of networks. Annu Rev Sociol. 2004;30:243–270. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.020404.104342
28. Forrester JW. Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1961. Available from: http://www.laprospective.fr/dyn/francais/memoire/autres_textes_de_la_prospective/autres_ouvrages_numerises/industrial-dynamics-forrester-1961.pdf
29. Senge PM. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday; 1990. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930290308
30. Hidalgo CA, Hausmann R. The building blocks of economic complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2009;106(26):10570–10575. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106
31. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Human development report 2020: The next frontier – Human development and the Anthropocene. UNDP Publishing; 2020. Available from: https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2020
32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Working Group I contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The digital transformation of Latin American and Caribbean cities. OECD Publishing; 2019. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/10/shaping-the-digital-transformation-in-latin-america_376dba7c/8bb3c9f1-en.pdf
34. International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2020. ITU Publishing; 2020. Available from: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2020.pdf