Resilience Theory attempts to analyze what makes ecological systems resilient, and use that as guidelines for applying it to a huge variety of other fields. The goal is to make systems resilient to unknown future shocks which might disrupt the system. One of the central tenets of the idea is that we won’t necessarily know what those disruptions will be, but we know that certain conditions will be more resilient to shocks than others. It is an extremely cross-disciplinary approach that attempts to explain phenomena in a wide variety of areas.
For example, ecological systems are generally most resilient when they exhibit large amounts of biodiversity. If the environment changes suddenly, chances are higher in a widely diverse system that at least some members of that system will be able to adapt into new niches.
Monocultures can be extremely effective for a time, but failures in the system can often be catastrophic. The Irish, for example, thrived for a time almost exclusively on potatoes, until the potato blight destroyed a huge portion of the crop and led to the starvation of millions. Many businesses thrive doing one thing extremely well, only to suffer when the market changed (think Polaroid, for example, which is slowly collapsing because of their reliance on the instant film market, which is itself in rapid decline).

This concept could also apply to many other facets of society. Our utter reliance on oil might soon prove to be an excellent example, as our supply looks ever more depleted, and rising costs look to make oil and its byproducts more expensive. We are utterly dependent on cheap oil for transportation, heating, and agriculture, but we aren’t working as hard as we could to create viable alternatives. Resilience theory posits that moving away from our dependance on oil would be good not just for the environment, it would also make our society more resilient to unknown shocks. We should have known better than to be so utterly reliant on something as unstable as oil.
This is just the very tip of the iceberg – the field looks at different states of equilibrium and attempts to show how and why systems balance themselves in different states, and how systems can often tip very quickly from one self-organized state to another. If global warming increases temperatures much more than 2 degrees centigrade, it’s worried that a bevy of further events – evaporating methane reserves under the arctic, desertification of the Amazon rainforest, and changes in reflective albedo could usher in a sort of quick flip to an even hotter state of equilibrium in a very short time. By all accounts it is extremely important to avoid hitting that point. The closer we move to it, the greater our risk.
A diagram showing two hypothetical steady states as balls lying on a curved surface. If the ball is pushed beyond a certain point, it might be pushed past a peak, at which point it could fall into a different trough.
An important aspect of Resilience theory is to study how and why these sudden shifts, or regime changes, take place. A standard maximization approach on a system (let’s say fisheries) may, in an attempt to get the highest possible yields, come closer to a threshold of regime change than they otherwise should. Resilience theory makes a point of studying how this works, and urges caution in such areas.
“Our focus should not be on constancy,” says father of resilience study Buzz Holling, “but on variability. Not on single equilibrium, but on events far from equilibria at the stability boundaries. That’s where the action was, that’s where evolution took place. That’s where the turbulence of nature occured upon which adaptive changes created new species, or new policies . . . these systems have multi-stable states, and they can flip from one to another. And if you don’t attend to the boundaries of stability, you’re losing the game. Variability is extremely important . . .”
Holling also cites a somewhat predictable cycle of boom, bust, and renewal which can be applied to everything from businesses, to forests, to ocean fisheries, to politics. Holling describes a business becoming very effective at one thing, specializing, becoming dependent on than one thing, becoming too rigid and resistant to change, going bust and then rebuilding itself with a new board and new direction as being rather similar to a forest maturing from a diverse polycultural grassland, into an old growth forest before being gutted by a forest fire and reverting back to small and diverse growth.