[FulcrumPilot]

Need examples. in Computer networks (that there are critical nodes that can bring the whole network down despite our aim for redundancy), weather systems, People (osama? and bush?), politics (oligarchies), corporations (easy!), consumer products (ipod), example in other animal societies (?). I would like to defend a point of view that power centralizations are a natural law, contrary to our wishes and inevitable one may say, whether we like it or not. any articles on this subject already well written?

[Kilbey]

Your shift key appears broken.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by FulcrumPilot:
Need examples. in Computer networks (that there are critical nodes that can bring the whole network down despite our aim for redundancy), weather systems, People (osama? and bush?), politics (oligarchies), corporations (easy!), consumer products (ipod), example in other animal societies (?). I would like to defend a point of view that power centralizations are a natural law, contrary to our wishes and inevitable one may say, whether we like it or not. any articles on this subject already well written?

Incorrect. The definitions of power you're using are overly broad/vague to be useful for starters. The first two examples (networks and weather) are explainable with chaos theory - the borders between regions of behavior (eg stability and instability) tend to be infinitely detailed and thus highly sensitive to initial conditions. That principle actually contradicts your political observation in that the "power" to change the future can pop up in unexpected places as much as where you'd expect to find it.

You don't need to make the broad generalizations in order to observe that power (in the political sense) can be bent towards attaining more power. Because of that, people with power can increase their power more quickly than those without. It's also true, however, that power tends to breed opposition or even revolt - a chaotic situation if there ever was one.

Suffice it to say, if your observation were true, Rome would never have fallen, China would have continued to expand, Napoleon would have conquered the world, etc. Instead, Rome fell apart, China stagnated, and Napoleon, Hitler, et al. fell to the alliances their own quest for power brought about.

BlackGriffen

[FulcrumPilot]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Incorrect.

Suffice it to say, if your observation were true, Rome would never have fallen, China would have continued to expand, Napoleon would have conquered the world, etc. Instead, Rome fell apart, China stagnated, and Napoleon, Hitler, et al. fell to the alliances their own quest for power brought about.

BlackGriffen

Excellent points! Thank you for the criticism.
Allow me to redefine. I am not claiming that power centers cannot be destabilized and they tend to progress towards infinite stability (so to speak), I am just contending that in any complex system there is usually a drift towards power centralization into unexpected pockets. In other words power cannot be equally distributed among many nodes, there will always be one major node that will try supress other or become critical by default or become critical so that a failure at this center will cause major disturbances through out the system. I hope this is now a bit more clear.