**7. The tragedy of autopoietic social subsystems**

The challenge to integrate exploitation measures of energy or IT resources, which follow technically a systemic approach and thus beat the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity,* into society involves naturally all stakeholders of society (Fig. 1, 2). The existence of a *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* and an *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* and its macro social aspects, point to the major importance of the interaction complexity of the social subsystems theory by Niklas Luhmann (Luhmann, 2004, 2008), i.e. a systemic approach analysing and describing the social system and the subsystems it consists of: It is based on the autopoietic concept of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (Maturana & Varela, 1992), and is the most advanced social systems theory, describing the huge complexity of the macro sociality of the renewable energy as well as grid IT phenomenon. An autopoietic system is a network of processes consisting of: i) interactions and transformations continuously regenerating and realizing its networks of existence, and ii) the constitution of the system as a unity in space in which the component exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization. Central to this description of evolutionary emergence, i.e. self-reproducing systems, is the material and information exchange between the components. Social systems are obviously communication systems, with society being the most encompassing one. Immediately that makes clear what challenge that suggests: what are the social systems, is there more than one, if so how do they interact, and most importantly who can they act together in a systemic manner to achieve a goal which is either emerging from one system internally or introduced from the outside. Consequently, many of the conundrums appearing during the society internalization become evident and are in agreement with the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* and the *Inverse Tragedy of the Renewable and Grid Commons*:

Around seven social subsystems can be defined and reflect the evolutionary emergence from deep psychology to society (Luhmann, 2008): i) religion, ii) education, iii) science, iv) art, v) economy, vi) jurisdiction, and vii) policy. All of these systems have their internal code of communication and their own connectivity interface to the other subsystems. Thus, the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* struck now in principle again, although this time on a social level, which results in huge barriers: e.g. the religious code of believe or notbelieve is incompatible with the have or not have money code of the economic sector. This is even truer for science (true vs. non-true), jurisdiction (just vs. un-just) and politics (power vs. no-power), which have nothing to do with education (knowledge vs. noknowledge). Renewable energy exploitation belongs to several subsystems, mainly those of science and economy in contrast to grid IT infrastructures, which belong currently mostly to the academic sector (de Zeeuw et al., 2007; Krefting et al. 2008; Sax et al., 2007, 2008). Despite the success of both renewable energy exploitation approaches as well as the widespread usage of grid IT infrastructures within society, the broad rollout, i.e. the internalization of systemic approaches into society, is decelerated by the lack of interoperability between these subsystems. Consequently, the *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* results in

#### *The Tragedy of Autopoietic Social Subsystems:*

*Subsystems have their own code of communication and are separated from each other in a way blocking in principle a consistent integration although they form a society, with all their contradictions, which thus leads to blockage of the system.* 

The challenge to integrate exploitation measures of energy or IT resources, which follow technically a systemic approach and thus beat the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity,* into society involves naturally all stakeholders of society (Fig. 1, 2). The existence of a *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* and an *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* and its macro social aspects, point to the major importance of the interaction complexity of the social subsystems theory by Niklas Luhmann (Luhmann, 2004, 2008), i.e. a systemic approach analysing and describing the social system and the subsystems it consists of: It is based on the autopoietic concept of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela (Maturana & Varela, 1992), and is the most advanced social systems theory, describing the huge complexity of the macro sociality of the renewable energy as well as grid IT phenomenon. An autopoietic system is a network of processes consisting of: i) interactions and transformations continuously regenerating and realizing its networks of existence, and ii) the constitution of the system as a unity in space in which the component exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization. Central to this description of evolutionary emergence, i.e. self-reproducing systems, is the material and information exchange between the components. Social systems are obviously communication systems, with society being the most encompassing one. Immediately that makes clear what challenge that suggests: what are the social systems, is there more than one, if so how do they interact, and most importantly who can they act together in a systemic manner to achieve a goal which is either emerging from one system internally or introduced from the outside. Consequently, many of the conundrums appearing during the society internalization become evident and are in agreement with the *Tragedy of Systemic* 

**7. The tragedy of autopoietic social subsystems** 

*Complexity* and the *Inverse Tragedy of the Renewable and Grid Commons*:

*Commons* results in

Around seven social subsystems can be defined and reflect the evolutionary emergence from deep psychology to society (Luhmann, 2008): i) religion, ii) education, iii) science, iv) art, v) economy, vi) jurisdiction, and vii) policy. All of these systems have their internal code of communication and their own connectivity interface to the other subsystems. Thus, the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* struck now in principle again, although this time on a social level, which results in huge barriers: e.g. the religious code of believe or notbelieve is incompatible with the have or not have money code of the economic sector. This is even truer for science (true vs. non-true), jurisdiction (just vs. un-just) and politics (power vs. no-power), which have nothing to do with education (knowledge vs. noknowledge). Renewable energy exploitation belongs to several subsystems, mainly those of science and economy in contrast to grid IT infrastructures, which belong currently mostly to the academic sector (de Zeeuw et al., 2007; Krefting et al. 2008; Sax et al., 2007, 2008). Despite the success of both renewable energy exploitation approaches as well as the widespread usage of grid IT infrastructures within society, the broad rollout, i.e. the internalization of systemic approaches into society, is decelerated by the lack of interoperability between these subsystems. Consequently, the *Inverse Tragedy of the* 

*The Tragedy of Autopoietic Social Subsystems: Subsystems have their own code of communication and are separated from each other in a way blocking in principle a consistent integration although they form a society, with all their contradictions, which thus leads to blockage of the system.* 

This macro level tragedy clarifies that renewable energy and grid IT organizations are just another example for complex infrastructures whose efficiency increase depends beyond more or less complex technical solutions on the participation of all subsystems concerning their societal internalization. In detail this means that each of those social subsystems must be analysed according to their internal constituents in respect towards the implementation of a systemic approach in respect to the status quo as well as to the ability to react to an until then not used or entire novel systemic approach. Thus, it might be, that such a systemic approach might not at all be implementable within such a subsystem at first, that major transformation need to be made, or that in the best case already existing structures can be used. The same holds for the communication between the subsystems, since here different internal preparedness levels might either ease or worse the communication in respect to such an implementation. Consequently, the challenge of implementation of *Sustained Renewability* approaches into society involves again two levels: On the micro level of individual subsystems the move towards implementation depends on the subsystem "stickiness" of individuals. On the macro subsystem level the integration of institutionalized subsystems via soft interfaces, which allow the communication barriers to be lowered, is central. Both has to be taken care of since this is given beyond the systemic pathways within the subsystem and the setting how subsystems can be moved or interact with others.

The acceptance of this is an important knowledge opening huge opportunities to examine and approach the challenge of introducing renewables or grids and their management. Beyond, this clarifies the challenges in all other exploitation sectors (probably residing in other subsystems) since all subsystems should always be involved. Thus, the *Tragedy of the Systemic Complexity* in terms of systemic integration into society can be understood and has to be taken into account. Beyond, the *Classic* and *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* are a societal challenge with the opportunity to be resolved, if as well the technical systemic approach is combined on the social system level in a sustainable systemic manner.

## **8. The tragedy of security/risk/profit psychology**

Since the macro level of social subsystems emerges evolutionarily from the micro level (Egger, 2008), one needs to consider the individual for whom each implementation and internalization of a new technology is based on a positive relation between the risk and the profit involved from the perspective of the individual. This is the core of any action a human individual takes and defines the degree of motivation a person commits to an action, i.e. the change of something in contrast to doing nothing. Thus, the level of altruism leading to successful implementation as in the renewable energy case or the sharing in the grid IT case on the individual level and its commitment beyond its own job/agenda, as well as that of its own institution without incentive structure to take responsibilities, is essential and leads to responsibility diffusion: Even the obvious winwin situation renewables like photovoltaic on the roof, or small hydroelectrics on the grounds of an individual, are hard to communicate and even the clear effects of producing with no energy resource costs the own energy result in slow implementation of renewables compared to the benefits and the climate issue at face. Even more so, the clear win-win situations for individual grid users are under these circumstances hard to communicate and even the additional networking effects result hardly in the set-up or usage of grids. It is also unlikely that people take the risk to exceed their own budget and corresponding responsibilities, when future results and its benefits are unclear to them.

Sustained Renewability: Approached by Systems Theory and Human Ecology 39

To overcome the *Tragedy of Systems Complexity* and the *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* together with the base tragedies of the latter, the *Tragedy of Autopoietic Social Subsystems* as well as the *Tragedy of Security/Risk/Profit Psychology* in the renewable energy and grid IT sectors a systemic approach on the technical level combined with an approach to tackle the micro and macro social levels is crucial to reach *Sustained Renewability* in these and in principle generically any exploitation sector. The basis of all these is the level of complexity in the corresponding areas leading to the heart of the matter – responsibility diffusion. For this the inter- and transdisciplinary field of *Human Ecology* (Egger, 1992, 1996, 2004; Bruckmeier & Serbser, 2008) gives a framework for their combination, followed by understanding and approaching direct guidelines for the management of renewable energy and grid IT resources. I.e. *Human Ecology* embeds the technical systemic solutions with a systemic approach on the micro and macro level of societies. *Human Ecology* was developed originally by Robert Park (1864-1944) and Ernest Burgess (1886-1966) and evolved in Chicago in the 1920's in close connection to the field of city development. Here complex questions and challenges arose, ranging from e.g. i) fundamental technical questions of how to structure a city in terms of spatial use, transport of the basic supplies as energy and water, and the removal of waste, ii) of how to structure and organize social needs from governmental services and schools to commercial shopping malls to economic entities for production, as well as iii) cultural issues as how to plan a modern human city which allows everybody to achieve a fair share of the pursuit of happiness, whether one belonged to the poor or the wealthy part of society. By analysing the different stakeholders playing the fundamental roles there, the complex system challenges appearing were abstracted on the social level, since this was seen as the main issue of the – at that time – not yet in detail defined and worked out *Tragedy of the Commons*. Thus, *Human Ecology* classically deals with the complex interplay between i) the individual, ii) the society, and iii) the environment, which usually is symbolized in the so called *Human Ecology* triangle. This triangle is the paper tool representation and believed to be the core of the complex interplay factors in society. The framework has been used to investigate many a complex mankind related challenges as e.g. the exponential demand growth until reaching a limit, its inherent property of life and evolution, as well as waste and pollution related issues, i.e. in principle all the above mentioned tragedies. Obviously, these sustainability questions beyond the materialistic world are found on all evolutionary levels up to the psychological, societal and cultural one and involve also every cause for exponential growth, which is the major reason

**9. Human ecology for a sustained renewable energy and grid IT resource** 

for reaching the natural unchangeable and thus unavoidable limits extremely fast.

Already, the *Tragedy of the Systemic Complexity* on the technical level shows that this rationalization and projection to three major constituents needs at least to be extended by a systemic approach on the technical level or better, the technical systemic approach must be embedded within the triangle. Beyond, the detailed analysis of the generic organization of the fossil and renewable energy as well as grid and cloud IT infrastructures proposed a micro and a macro level. Thus additionally, the detailed dissection of the *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* by investigating the *Tragedy of Autopoietic Social Subsystems* and the *Tragedy of Security/Risk/Profit Psychology*, proposes the extension of the classical *Human Ecology* triangle to a rectangle consisting of: i) invironment, ii) individual, iii) society, and iv) environment

**network exploitation** 

As long as exploiting the renewable energy resources or sharing in the grid IT sector is voluntary and in hand with uncertainty and risks, it is less likely that individuals will behave altruistically on behalf the societal benefit. Consequently, on the micro level the situation is that of a perverse *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons*: the commons is not abused or overexploited, but in contrast the tremendous resources are not used at all despite the needs and obvious benefits, due to secondary (mostly "irrational") interests.

Thus, the integration challenge involves the individual of the different institutionalized society stakeholders in a very deep way since these individuals shape the individual actions according to their function in a social subsystem. How an individual perceives the security/risk/profit ratio depends on its personal security/risk/profit psychology matrix:


Thus, this matrix describes a similar challenge on the micro level similar to the macro level with conflicting personal positions and internal balancing the invironment with the environment. This creates on the micro level again a tragedy:

*The Tragedy of Security/Risk/Profit Psychology:* 

*Individuals balance constantly a complex combination of invironmental and environmental security/risk/profit deep psychology factors,* 

*whose contradictions lead to responsibility diffusion.* 

In detail this means that each of those levels need to be considered especially from key individuals, i.e. of those, who hold important positions within social subsystems, to just the collective invironment of an entire population. And again this poses two obvious challenges in a systematic concept: on the micro level, the risk perception and the emotional well-being of the individual has to be considered, whereas on the macro level, the risk perception in the procedural and institutionalization in organizations have to be considered, i.e. the interaction of the individual with the organization it is working in. Thus, it might be that such a systemic approach might not at all be implementable with certain individuals or collective emotions in place at first, that major transformations need to be made, or that in the best case already existing structures can be used. Unfortunately, the identification and analysis of this tragedy is by far more challenging in every respect and especially concerning management guidelines, due to the hardly changeable basis, due to its genetic and evolutionary basis and the time scales involved to change archetypical societal concepts, in contrast to the macro level, where bypassing measures and changes can in principle be implemented *at will*, i.e. major screws can be relatively easy adjusted by order with or without societal participation and/or agreement. Consequently, this tragedy has to be tackled with big care and shows that the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* as well as that of the *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* can really be addressed by a *Human Ecology* rectangle approach integrating the different tragedies in a systemic manner and thus to reach systemic renewability by such super-systemic approach, as will be shown in the following.

As long as exploiting the renewable energy resources or sharing in the grid IT sector is voluntary and in hand with uncertainty and risks, it is less likely that individuals will behave altruistically on behalf the societal benefit. Consequently, on the micro level the situation is that of a perverse *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons*: the commons is not abused or overexploited, but in contrast the tremendous resources are not used at all despite the

Thus, the integration challenge involves the individual of the different institutionalized society stakeholders in a very deep way since these individuals shape the individual actions according to their function in a social subsystem. How an individual perceives the security/risk/profit ratio depends on its personal security/risk/profit psychology

*Deep Psychology Security/Risk/Profit Cascade: :Autopoietic Subsystem Correspondence emotional individual s/r/p perception genetics and deep psychology rational s/r/p knowledge acceptance education and science internalized incidental s/r/p behaviour economics accepted legal and political s/r/p scenarios jurisdiction and politics lived religious and cultural s/r/p archetypi religion, art and culture*  Thus, this matrix describes a similar challenge on the micro level similar to the macro level with conflicting personal positions and internal balancing the invironment with the

*The Tragedy of Security/Risk/Profit Psychology: Individuals balance constantly a complex combination of invironmental and environmental security/risk/profit deep psychology factors, whose contradictions lead to responsibility diffusion.*  In detail this means that each of those levels need to be considered especially from key individuals, i.e. of those, who hold important positions within social subsystems, to just the collective invironment of an entire population. And again this poses two obvious challenges in a systematic concept: on the micro level, the risk perception and the emotional well-being of the individual has to be considered, whereas on the macro level, the risk perception in the procedural and institutionalization in organizations have to be considered, i.e. the interaction of the individual with the organization it is working in. Thus, it might be that such a systemic approach might not at all be implementable with certain individuals or collective emotions in place at first, that major transformations need to be made, or that in the best case already existing structures can be used. Unfortunately, the identification and analysis of this tragedy is by far more challenging in every respect and especially concerning management guidelines, due to the hardly changeable basis, due to its genetic and evolutionary basis and the time scales involved to change archetypical societal concepts, in contrast to the macro level, where bypassing measures and changes can in principle be implemented *at will*, i.e. major screws can be relatively easy adjusted by order with or without societal participation and/or agreement. Consequently, this tragedy has to be tackled with big care and shows that the *Tragedy of Systemic Complexity* as well as that of the *Inverse Tragedy of the Commons* can really be addressed by a *Human Ecology* rectangle approach integrating the different tragedies in a systemic manner and thus to reach systemic

renewability by such super-systemic approach, as will be shown in the following.

needs and obvious benefits, due to secondary (mostly "irrational") interests.

environment. This creates on the micro level again a tragedy:

matrix:
