Fragility in human progress. A perspective on governance, technology and societal resilience

Abstract

The technological foundation of each civilization determines its living conditions and prosperity [2,3,4]. Access to discussed resources should not be viewed as solely an individual concern, since abundance is significantly shaped by economies of scale and collective practices. At the same time, they are fundamentally linked to the political practices that must be followed. Wittfogel noted that hydraulic works requiring collective effort have underpinned social structures depending on elite oversight mainly due to their complexity [5] which refers to the behaviour of a system or model characterized by a large number of interconnected components, nonlinear interactions, and emergent properties that cannot be fully understood by analysing individual parts in isolation [6].However, there is always a turning point in economies of scale where, past a certain threshold, the rising managerial costs increases the unit cost [7,8]. Projecting this principle onto social dynamics, we note that, there is an optimal point at which society gains the most from cooperative behaviour [9], yet it becomes inefficient when social structures expand to such an extent that the cost of their coordination outweighs the provided benefits [10,11].The challenges of balancing cooperative benefits with coordination costs in achieving economies of scale by state regulations have been addressed through socio-political theories emphasizing the state's role. Adam Smith recognized that cooperative market interactions, facilitated by minimal state intervention, could create economies of scale through specialization and trade, with the state ensuring basic legal frameworks [12,13]. Karl Marx argued that cooperative labor under capitalism, while initially fostering economies of scale, required state-led collectivization to equitably distribute benefits and overcome exploitative capital accumulation [14,15]. John Maynard Keynes emphasized state-driven cooperation, advocating for public investment and demand management to stabilize markets and sustain economies of scale during economic downturns [16]. Neoliberalism, led by figures like Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, critiqued state overreach, promoting cooperative market mechanisms with minimal state involvement to maximize economies of scale through competition and innovation [17,18]. These perspectives shaped societal systems, with capitalism and communism as the most prominent rivals [19]. However, both the Soviet Union (communism) and the United States (capitalism) landed humans on the moon in late 1960s, demonstrating that each system, could equally effectively achieve the monumental milestone of that era [20,21].The same principle applies to technological applications-there is a limit beyond which the evolution of complexity ceases to be beneficial. For instance, the embedded complexity in various consumer goods, such as cars, creates vulnerabilities that render these vehicles prematurely obsolete [22,23]. While in earlier times this was often regarded as a disadvantage, today it appears that the temporariness of an object, which creates the need for its replacement within a short period, promotes the desired outcome: the consumption of new products to replace it [24]. This could imply that the durability of things is almost undesirable [25].Within the framework of globalization, this may not have been a flaw, as global trade was encouraged to enable easy replacement and consumption, affecting every aspect of modern life [26,27]. However, it presupposes a complex, interconnected economic system that is fragile in the face of various regulatory attempts [28]. For example, maritime transport (Figure 1) underpins the global economy, facilitating approximately 80% of international trade by volume (left pie chart in the bottom of Figure 1) and around 70% by value (right pie chart in the bottom of Figure 1), underscoring its critical role in the global movement of goods (Figure 1) [29]. Systemic vulnerabilities are weaknesses within a system that arise from its structure, interconnections, or dependencies, making it susceptible to cascading failures or disruptions when stressed [31]. These vulnerabilities are often hidden and emerge under specific conditions as in electronic-based solutions. Electronics-based solutions [32] present systemic vulnerabilities beyond the regulatory risks evident in the 2022 Russian sanctions [33] or the recent U.S. trade conflicts (April 2025) [34]. Unlike simpler mechanical systems, these technologies are inherently susceptible to disruptions in sensitive supply chains, cyberattacks, and electromagnetic pulses-creating layers of systemic vulnerability often overlooked in technological adoption decisions [22,35].Systemic vulnerabilities in complex system appears highly unstable-especially when considering isolated technical incidents, such as two small fires at Heathrow Airport which disrupted global air travel. In addition, the rapidly interconnected world, which must manage emerging complexity with tools that have not yet reached full maturity, becomes vulnerable to malicious actions such as the Mt. Gox Hack (2014).Resilience is the capacity of a system to absorb disturbances, adapt to changes, and maintain its core functions and structure in the face of stress or shocks [36]. As it is a desired goal, a question arises as to whether and how societies can thrive without the emerging complexity that has been imposed through technological solutions as well as the communication and cooperative policies that sustain global trade.Ensuring social thriving is critical, an optimization is required-one that is simple, resilient, self-sufficient, and capable of supporting at least the foundation of societal prosperity-through available adaptations [37,38].Section 2 analyzes the methodology used to approach the vulnerabilities inherent in complex systems, focusing on their susceptibility to disruptions. Section 3 delves into examples of governmental failures and technical failures, using the evolution of technology of vehicles and digital infrastructure as case studies to illustrate fragility in advanced technologies. Section 4 emerges the role of critical aspects of modern civilization: digital infrastructures and satellites. Section 5 explores future technological paradigms, weighing the promises and perils of automation, digital currencies, and interconnected systems arguing that progress is neither linear nor guaranteed. The discussion in Section 6 synthesizes these insights, proposing strategies for resilience at governance and technological levels. Finally, Section 7 concludes with recommendations for proactive design and planning to ensure robust systems, emphasizing the urgency of action during periods of stability.This study adopts a multidisciplinary approach to analyze the interplay between technological complexity, systemic vulnerabilities, and resilience in modern civilizations, with a focus on resource management perspectives. The methodology comprises three key components:• Historical and Comparative Analysis: Historical case studies, such as the collapse of the Roman Empire, Soviet Union and the Qing Dynasty (China) are examined to identify patterns of overextended infrastructure and administrative complexity leading to systemic failure. These are compared with contemporary examples (e.g., megacity resource management, global trade disruptions) to draw parallels and highlight recurring vulnerabilities.• Data-Driven Visualization:Quantitative data from global datasets (e.g., World Bank, Marine Traffic-cargo ship positions, Flightradar-air traffic, TeleGeography-submarine cable) are analyzed to illustrate the scale and fragility of interconnected systems. Visualizations are generated to map trade complexity, economic impacts, and cascading failures.• Qualitative Risk Assessment: Technical and governance failures are evaluated through qualitative frameworks, focusing on vulnerabilities in digital systems (e.g., ECUs in vehicles, cyber-hacks, CBDCs and resource distribution). Scenarios such as EMP attacks and trade wars are explored to assess cascading risks.Insights are drawn from real-world incidents e.g., Mt. Gox hack (February 2014) Heathrow fires (March 2025) and the blackout in Iberian Peninsula (April 2025) to propose adaptability strategies.The above examples were used for the revision of the pyramid of human needs. This mixed-methods approach emphasizes governance and technological perspectives to propose resilience frameworks.Limitations include the speculative nature of future risk scenarios, which however are addressed through transparent sourcing and conservative assumptions.The methodological steps of the paper, the examined issues and the conclusions are visualized in Figure 2. The Industrial Revolution and the Electronic Era established sophisticated infrastructures driven by economies of scale, rapid communication, global connectivity, and widespread access to knowledge. Evidently, global poverty rates dropped dramatically over the past century, a triumph humanity owes to these technological breakthroughs [39].Economies of scale and large-scale infrastructure have enabled the clustering of the population in major urban centers [40]. Megacity aqueducts [41], supply chains [26], industrial production, refineries, and critical infrastructure facilitate human coexistence [42]. However, these systems demand complex management, forming a fragile equilibrium that sustains societies. A deliberate or accidental failure in any major infrastructure, especially to the communication system which solves this puzzle, could immediately trigger an existential crisis.The vulnerability of the contemporary communication system, underpinned by the internet, is exemplified by approximately 1.4 million kilometers of submarine fiber-optic cables linking over 1,200 landing points worldwide [43]. Figure 3 Today, the discourse on climate change [55, 56], a narrative that remains under discussion and not fully understood due to its complexity and conflicting viewpoints [57,58,59,60,61], has led to policies aimed at reshaping the energy mix through the adoption of renewable energy sources. Even if the narrative of climate change and the associated technologies supporting it are subject to debate [62], the associated technologies introduce new challenges in their management due to their stochastic nature.The above vulnerabilities suggest that there is always the possibility that society could become trapped in a death spiral [63] of complexity, from which it would be very difficult to break free.Historically, excessive bureaucratic complexity and endemic corruption have precipitated the collapse of entire societies, as seen in Roman Empire, the Soviet Union and the late Qing Dynasty.Tainter argues that the collapse of the Roman Empire illustrates how overextended infrastructure and reliance on complex administrative systems precipitate societal decline [64]. He contends that the empire's dependence on intricate networks-such as extensive road systems, aqueducts, and a sprawling bureaucracy-demanded substantial resources to sustain. As economic returns diminished, these systems rendered the empire vulnerable to external pressures (e.g., barbarian invasions) and internal weaknesses (e.g., corruption) [65,66]. The rigid centralized administrative structure further constrained adaptability, as simplifying governance through decentralization was politically and culturally untenable, accelerating systemic failure.The Soviet Union (1922-1991) developed a highly centralized, bureaucratic system to manage its vast economy and diverse population, but this complexity fostered inefficiencies and corruption. Lengthy administrative processes, coupled with opaque resource allocation, enabled the elites to siphon resources, eroding public trust and economic stability [67]. By the 1980s, the system's rigidity stifled innovation and failed to address growing economic stagnation, culminating in the USSR's dissolution in 1991 [68].The Qing Dynasty in China succumbed to bureaucratic bloat and corruption, were intricate governance structures and rampant bribery undermined resource distribution and public welfare, particularly in urban centers. This weakened the dynasty's ability to respond to internal rebellions and external pressures, leading to its collapse in 1912 [69].The complexity of managing resources such as Water-Energy and Food nexus [70] in present megacities is a critical factor underpinning their sustainability and functionality, rendering them highly vulnerable to disruptions like tariffs and trade wars.Megacities, characterized by dense populations and intricate infrastructural networks, rely on efficient resource distribution systems that are often strained by global economic policies. For instance, tariffs can increase the cost of imported food in mega-cities which could be considered as food deserts [71,72,73]. Trade wars further complicate this by disrupting supply chains, as seen in the U.S.-China trade tensions affecting waterintensive agricultural exports [74].The interconnectedness of resource systems amplifies these risks, with energy shortages potentially cascading into water and food crises [75]. Moreover, the governance of these resources in megacities often involves multiple stakeholders, adding layers of complexity that tariffs can destabilize by altering economic incentives [76]. Consequently, such economic policies pose perilous threats to megacities' stability, where resource mismanagement could lead to existential challenges [77].Our interconnected world relies on the complexity of created synergies [78], as highlighted by the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. During this period, global trade was agitated, and global growth was halted as it is evident by Gross National Income (GNI) growth and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. Therefore, these synergies promote advancement, but they also made systems vulnerable to unexpected disruptions [79] (Figure 4). While complexity in governance is often necessary for managing intricate systems, it can also harbor corruption, as the concealment of resources or procedures from public scrutiny may obscure unethical practices. When governmental systems are perceived as overly complex and subjective, they often fail to deliver timely resolutions, leading to a loss of public trust. This occurs as lengthy procedures for processing standard requests, such as issuing permits or accessing public services, may create opportunities for bribery payments, particularly in countries with high corruption levels [82,83,84].Modern vehicles have advanced through Electronic that and compared to simpler However, this a critical failure in an system can render these a to the resilience of vehicles Unlike that changes, technological design that address challenges Electronic both complexity and For example, a in systems, its core modern cars, such as from rely on intricate and sophisticated making them and but Figure 4 the of a with of The of technological and that the can be using tools if it while the replacement with the specific that presupposes the of supply The reliance on and modern to supply risks, as seen during the COVID-19 when shortages halted in an increase in their While these design specific they not compared to the of requiring that not The this with not to goods but to vehicles due to their dependence on how resource can these systems the between advanced and resilience the of these technological complexity can be to infrastructure and a failure can a in the collapse of the entire system it For example, the two small fires in critical of Heathrow Airport on a that global air (Figure underscoring how complexity but amplifies the risk of cascading failures when key The digital world is a of with social and how we and As we rely on these systems, they complex, the intricate social structures of such as and have become to modern communication, but their by vast and such as the data million political and eroding trust This complexity, can lead to vulnerabilities, such as or social networks, which digital or digital (Figure technologies are for interconnected systems, but their complexity can create critical vulnerabilities if not The which and through a supply how sophisticated systems can be the of on robust frameworks to that could destabilize entire economies As digital infrastructures become into as and risk of systemic A of risk that cost in emphasizing the of the economic and its for global stability technologies like which underpins such as further increase systemic complexity due to their and reliance on While is for data it remains susceptible to sophisticated The World 2022 on digital how such complexity can risks, particularly when digital systems are embedded in critical infrastructure This reliance on digital that any failure or can have for society and the economy in of a can as seen in the Mt. Gox where were of In that the cost of Mt. Gox hack was million but with the present Mt. Gox hack would cost (Figure where a gains of the of a can as seen in the This illustrates that as dependence on interconnected digital systems vulnerability to large-scale dependence on digital systems for communication, and these vulnerabilities into existential further illustrate this point we highlight a hack like the data which million and leading to required complexity, which should in the energy evident during the blackout in the Iberian Peninsula on The the intricate nature of modern management, as the system's complexity was that the could not identify the of the the the with from a in to with by renewable energy As the that to a critical in the energy the of high renewable energy particularly from like and that can vulnerabilities, as seen in the rapid and collapse during the not solely highlight the need for digital as it is to with a the need for a of the technological approach and its to cascading failures, ensuring that complexity not examples highlight systemic issues from complexity in various the fragility of systems to systemic dependence on automation, the of or in and the dependence in technologies as renewable energy could in cascading failures and the loss of of collapse a is provided by how three over the United States could and critical to the would water supply systems, and This reliance on interconnected systems amplifies as a could trigger cascading failures urban further arise with the of while digital could become in such due to their dependence on infrastructure, economic systems like could ensuring and in critical supply chains or coordination nature data if parts of the a to centralized vulnerabilities While these technologies their on and robust infrastructure, the nature of innovation in existential threats like an each in critical resources is to basic as in which the of human (Figure and Figure In the appears to a to modern critical dependence on digital technology and the of the which such as energy and we could a digital This and infrastructures their which have become for accessing communication, and the management of complexity as supply chains, energy water economy and (Figure that modern societies, overly on could collapse to levels in a like an electromagnetic technologies or infrastructure and note that, in on digital the technologies of the and are in developed societies Therefore, modern societies cannot sustain their basic as digital infrastructure is into every aspect of In a the collapse of this digital could societies, making the of basic the to of automation, the of and and the of through digital have as they but also and stability These rely on a world with and robust digital to data or yet such is from governance on digital stability is not as vulnerabilities in interconnected systems can lead to failures, such as data or system (e.g., the reliance on digital like CBDCs could economies to risks, where a entire systems, the fragility of these technological is that progress is not and the complexity of modern systems may precipitate as seen in the civilization around which advanced systems, a technology that was for collapse that the future for with technological is not a world could as due to on fragile digital infrastructure The risk of large if and systemic resilience are not potentially leading to a where the of the modern era could be to the of if each of the which were in 3 Soviet Qing the recurring of the to through inefficient bureaucratic complexity, rising corruption, and external pressures, strained their systems. This often and systemic as these structures failed to ensure for the of a new social embedded in complex governance systems a critical When this corruption can trigger that social The becomes particularly when political or governance that could effectively address these systemic the and resilience by systems of The their vast into with managing and while The the system, and administrative to under the Empire small and them to and provided they and This of and fostered stability these dependence on digital systems and the risk of systemic failure if they collapse EMP and that societies with resources, such as to during crises Therefore, real-world social and economic structures is critical and trade to a basic of life with without prosperity it is an particularly for social and an in society is in infrastructure, and societies that clustering the and management of growth through economies of scale the of resources but resilience as a but growth. that adapt their model to ensure stability, and vulnerabilities embedded in intricate systems, whether governmental corruption, economic or fragile technological societal stability, as by and contemporary rely on intricate supply chains, and industrial a fragile equilibrium where failures, like and food supply disruptions can trigger existential systems, such as and food management or can resilience by on interconnected resilience of governmental and technological systems on deliberate during periods of stability and is an or a become a systemic underscoring the urgency for proactive planning is for societies to in critical to robust governance frameworks and technological a that both resilience frameworks and humanity can technological growth thriving