1
Fundamental properties of society
Cyclic character of world conflicts development
С -cycles
Cyclic character of economic development
К - cycles
Is there interdependence between these processes?
Are they coordinated between themselves?
If yes, what is the regularity of this coordination?
2
LAW OF STRUCTURAL HARMONY [SERGEY KAPITSA,
E . SOROKO];
MODERN CONCEPT ON THE ACCELERATION OF
HISTORICAL TIME [SERGEY KAPITSA ] ;
CONCEPT OF GREAT KONDRATIEFF CYCLES [NICOLAY
KONDRATIEFF] ;
GLOBAL FORECASTS FOR THE XXI -ST CENTURY
[VLADIMIR VERNADSKY, N IKITA MOISEEV] .
Additional conditions to the fundamental properties of
periodic processes3
«Structural portrait» of Cn – world conflicts waves
4
705 B
C
years
∆n = 50 years – 5years∙n;n = 1, 2,…, n = 9; ∆n= 5 year
5
Phase Cn - waves
T time
Inte
nsity p
hase
Characteristic features of Cn - waves
The life of each Cn – wave generates five sequential evolutionary phases (stages)
{Cn,і}, i = 1.,5:
Cn,1 (origin) > Cn,2 (growth) > Cn,3 (culmination) > Cn,4 (decrease) > Cn,5(decline).
The life duration T(Cn) of each subsequent
Cn –wave is uniquely determines by the life duration of two previous
waves, namely, T(Cn) =T(Cn-2) - T(Cn-1).
Conflict intensity I(Cn)=N(Cn)/T(Сn)
for Cn - waves, n=1,2,3.,6 increases: I(Cn+1)>I(Cn)(N (Cn) –number of conflicts that form Cn - wave)
6
7
Cn-waves intensity
time
time
Kapitsa„s formula
0
400
800
1200
― 15
― 10
― 5
Duration T(Cn) and intensity I(Сn)of world conflicts (n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7) 8
Table 1. Main characteristics of Cn-waves of conflicts
Cn-waves
Time interval of
Cn-wave,
years
Time interval of
life cycle of
Cn-wave,
years
Number of
conflicts that
form Cn-wave
Conflicts
intensity in Cn-
wave,
I(Cn), n=1,…,7
Correspondence
of Cn-waves to
Fibonacci
numbers (Fs)
C1 705 bc – 401 ab 1106 1218 I(C1)=1,101 F7=13
C2 402 – 1074 674 756 I(C2)=1,122 F6=8
C3 1075 – 1497 422 1680 I(C3)=3,981 F5=5
C4 1498 – 1749 252 1543 I(C4)=6,123 F4=3
C5 1750 – 1919 170 1485 I(C5)=8,735 F3=2
C6 1920 – 2007 87 1035 I(C6)=11,897 F2=1
C7
(Forecast wave)2008 – 2092 85 >1400 I(C7)>16 F1=1
9
Table 2. “Golden section” coefficient, Fibonacci numbers and world conflicts periods for the sequence {Cn}, n=1,2,…,7
{Cn} C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
T (Cn),
years1106 674 422 252 170 87 85
T (Cn)
/T(Cn+1)1,641 1,597 1,675 1,482 1,954 1,023 –
Fs, s=8-n 13 8 5 3 2 1 1
F8-n/F8-n-1 1,625 1,6 1,667 1,5 2 1 –
T(C1)=13kс; T(C2)=8kс; T(C3)=5kс; T(C4)=3kс; T(C5)=2kс;T(C6)=1kс; T(C7)=1kс,
where kс=85 years – universal time quantum of life cycles for C-waves
10
The first decade of the XXI century – origin;
The conflict of the XXI century(2010 – 2092)
Beginning of 20-s – end of 40-s – growth;
50-s – culmination, I*(C7)> 16;
Beginning of 60-s – end of 70-s – decrease;
80-s – decline11
Global threats generating “Conflict of the ХХІ century”(UN, UNICEF, WHO,…,
1. Global decrease of energy security;2. Balance gap between bio-capacity of the Earth and totalrequirements of mankind in context of changing ofdemographic situation;3. An increasing inequality between people and thecountries on the Earth;4. Spreading of global diseases;5. Child mortality;6. Corruption perception;7. Limited access to potable water;8. Global warming;9. The state instability (State Fragility);10. Global climate change and natural disasters
12
I A S A
І П С А
Security index
(Minkovsky norm)3
1
3)(n
l
o
jlj TrrT
1. Preparation of data
ND)SFGWWACP,CM,CD,GINI,FB,(ES=rTj
,,,,
jkjk rTrTKK
4. Clustering
3. Aggregated impact of threats totality
ES – Energy security
FB – Balance:
Bio resources/
Consumption
GINI – Inequality
GD – Global
diseases
CM – Child mortality
CP – Corruption
WA – Drinking water
GW – Global
warming
SF – State fragility
ND – Natural
disasters
2. Normalization
)NDSFGWWA,,CP,CM,CD,GINIFB,(ES=orT oooooooooo
j,,,
Isec =
Global threats generating “Conflict of
the ХХІ century”
I A S A
І П С А
Impact of threats totality
Threat 1
(ES)
Threat 10
(ND)Threat 2
(FB)
Vulnerability
FBND
ES
•••
3
1
3)(n
l
o
jlj TrrT
Vulnerability - (Minkovsky
Norm) Isec =
Threats
Totality
I A S A
І П С А
10 most safe countries
Country
Se
cu
rity
Ran
k
Se
cu
rity
Ind
ex
(M
ink
ow
sk
iN
orm
) Global Threats
En
erg
y S
ec
uri
ty I
nd
ex
Fo
otp
rin
t a
nd
bio
ca
pac
ity
Bala
nce
Ine
gu
ali
ty
(Gin
i
Ind
ex
)
Co
rru
pti
on
Pe
rce
pti
on
Wa
ter
Ac
ce
ss
CO
2 E
mis
sio
n
Ch
ild
Mo
rta
lity
Natu
ral C
ata
str
op
he
s
Sta
te F
rag
ilit
y
Natu
ral D
isa
ste
rs
Very highCanada 1 0,736 0,810 0,909 0,674 0,870 1,000 0,333 0,976 1,000 1,000 0,762
Sweden 2 0,724 0,116 0,725 0,750 0,930 1,000 0,803 0,984 1,000 1,000 0,762
Norway 3 0,720 0,909 0,783 0,742 0,870 1,000 0,363 0,984 1,000 0,920 0,740
Australia 4 0,705 0,800 0,858 0,648 0,860 1,000 0,460 0,976 0,999 0,920 0,775
Finland 5 0,696 0,091 0,775 0,731 0,940 1,000 0,580 0,984 1,000 1,000 0,730
New
Zealand
6 0,692 0,146 0,769 0,638 0,940 1,000 0,743 0,976 1,000 0,960 0,742
Denmark 7 0,671 0,107 0,494 0,753 0,940 1,000 0,673 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,699
Switzerland 8 0,671 0,068 0,440 0,663 0,900 1,000 0,820 0,980 1,000 0,960 0,780
Netherlands 9 0,658 0,160 0,423 0,691 0,900 1,000 0,710 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,732
Austria 10 0,649 0,088 0,531 0,709 0,810 1,000 0,713 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,738
10
I A S A
І П С А
G8 Countries in Terms of Safety
Country
Se
cu
rity
Ran
k
Se
cu
rity
Ind
ex
(M
ink
ow
sk
iN
orm
)
Global Threats
En
erg
y S
ec
uri
ty I
nd
ex
Fo
otp
rin
t a
nd
bio
ca
pac
ity
Bala
nce
Ine
gu
ali
ty
(Gin
iIn
de
x)
Co
rru
pti
on
Pe
rce
pti
on
Wa
ter
Ac
ce
ss
CO
2 E
mis
sio
n
Ch
ild
Mo
rta
lity
Natu
ral C
ata
str
op
hes
Sta
te F
rag
ilit
y
Natu
ral D
isa
ste
rs
Canada 1 0,736 0,810 0,909 0,674 0,870 1,000 0,333 0,976 1,000 1,000 0,762
Japan 12 0,644 0,012 0,394 0,751 0,750 1,000 0,670 0,984 0,995 1,000 0,815
France 14 0,632 0,031 0,429 0,673 0,730 1,000 0,800 0,980 1,000 0,960 0,773
Germany 15 0,628 0,028 0,412 0,717 0,780 1,000 0,673 0,980 1,000 1,000 0,721
United
Kingdom
20 0,606 0,044 0,384 0,640 0,840 1,000 0,673 0,976 1,000 0,920 0,734
Italy 23 0,596 0,031 0,394 0,640 0,520 1,000 0,740 0,984 0,993 1,000 0,751
USA 32 0,546 0,028 0,449 0,592 0,720 1,000 0,313 0,972 0,998 0,920 0,721
Russia 63 0,428 0,562 0,225 0,601 0,230 0,970 0,647 0,928 0,999 0,720 0,321
G8
I A S A
І П С А
Postsocialist Countries in terms of
Safety
Country
Se
cu
rity
Ran
k
Se
cu
rity
Ind
ex
(M
ink
ow
sk
i
No
rm)
Global Threats
En
erg
y S
ecu
rity
Ind
ex
Fo
otp
rin
t a
nd
bio
cap
ac
ity
Ba
lan
ce
Ineg
ua
lity
(Gin
iIn
de
x)
Co
rru
pti
on
Pe
rce
pti
on
Wa
ter
Ac
ce
ss
CO
2 E
mis
sio
n
Ch
ild
Mo
rta
lity
Na
tura
l
Ca
tas
tro
ph
es
Sta
te F
rag
ilit
y
Na
tura
l D
isas
ters
Latvia 25 0,579 0,141 0,307 0,623 0,480 0,990 0,900 0,956 1,000 1,000 0,479
Slovakia 28 0,572 0,017 0,262 0,742 0,490 1,000 0,777 0,968 0,999 0,960 0,590
Lithuania 29 0,571 0,041 0,232 0,640 0,480 1,000 0,873 0,964 1,000 0,960 0,551
Poland 30 0,561 0,027 0,217 0,655 0,420 1,000 0,733 0,972 1,000 1,000 0,612
Czech
Republic
31 0,561 0,033 0,296 0,746 0,520 1,000 0,620 0,984 1,000 0,960 0,626
Bulgaria 33 0,536 0,081 0,145 0,708 0,410 0,990 0,817 0,940 1,000 0,920 0,506
Estonia 35 0,533 0,047 0,249 0,642 0,650 1,000 0,533 0,972 1,000 0,960 0,530
Croatia 36 0,532 0,052 0,225 0,710 0,410 1,000 0,823 0,972 1,000 0,800 0,603
Byelorus 38 0,509 0,018 0,123 0,703 0,210 1,000 0,780 0,952 1,000 0,880 0,421
Ukraine 50 0,466 0,010 0,106 0,719 0,270 0,960 0,767 0,932 1,000 0,800 0,379
Moldova 54 0,451 0,008 0,029 0,668 0,280 0,920 0,940 0,936 0,999 0,560 0,398
Romania 55 0,447 0,609 0,153 0,690 0,370 0,570 0,860 0,924 0,999 0,840 0,526
Russia 63 0,428 0,562 0,225 0,601 0,230 0,970 0,647 0,928 0,999 0,720 0,321
Georgia 69 0,401 0,144 0,056 0,596 0,340 0,820 0,973 0,820 0,994 0,600 0,498
Armenia 81 0,352 0,023 0,077 0,662 0,300 0,920 0,960 0,884 0,466 0,720 0,485
Azerbaijan 84 0,333 0,025 0,078 0,810 0,210 0,770 0,873 0,644 1,000 0,480 0,444
Uzbekistan 85 0,326 0,032 0,030 0,732 0,170 0,820 0,823 0,728 1,000 0,480 0,429
Kazakhstan 89 0,294 0,425 0,141 0,661 0,210 0,860 0,557 0,708 0,999 0,680 0,293
Tadjikistan 91 0,289 0,161 0,019 0,674 0,210 0,590 0,973 0,716 0,976 0,400 0,336
Turkmenistan 102 0,206 0,262 0,133 0,592 0,200 0,720 0,707 0,584 1,000 0,560 0,286
I A S A
І П С А
BRIC Countries in Terms of
Safety
Country
Se
cu
rity
Ra
nk
Se
cu
rity
Ind
ex
(M
ink
ow
sk
iN
orm
)
Global Threats
En
erg
y S
ec
uri
ty I
nd
ex
Fo
otp
rin
t a
nd
bio
ca
pa
cit
yB
ala
nc
e
Ine
qu
ali
ty
(Gin
iIn
de
x)
Co
rru
pti
on
Pe
rce
pti
on
Wa
ter
Ac
ce
ss
CO
2 E
mis
sio
n
Ch
ild
Mo
rta
lity
Natu
ral C
ata
str
op
hes
Sta
te F
rag
ilit
y
Nat
ura
l Dis
aste
rs
Brazil 49 0,469 0,170 0,249 0,420 0,350 0,900 0,940 0,868 0,999 0,840 0,569
Russia 63 0,428 0,562 0,225 0,601 0,230 0,970 0,647 0,928 0,999 0,720 0,321
China 73 0,382 0,066 0,095 0,553 0,350 0,770 0,873 0,892 0,997 0,600 0,600
India 75 0,377 0,122 0,056 0,675 0,350 0,860 0,960 0,704 0,994 0,440 0,522
BRIC
I A S A
І П С А
10 Least Safe Countries
Country
Sec
uri
ty
Ran
k
Se
cu
rity
Ind
ex
(M
ink
ow
skiN
orm
) Global Threats
En
erg
y S
ecu
rity
In
dex
Fo
otp
rin
t a
nd
bio
ca
pa
cit
yB
ala
nc
e
Ineq
uali
ty
(Gin
iIn
de
x)
Co
rru
pti
on
Pe
rce
pti
on
Wa
ter
Ac
ce
ss
CO
2 E
mis
sio
n
Ch
ild
Mo
rta
lity
Na
tura
l C
ata
str
op
he
s
Sta
te F
rag
ilit
y
Nat
ura
l Dis
aste
rs
Kenya 96 0,268 0,313 0,018 0,575 0,210 0,610 0,990 0,520 0,999 0,480 0,345
Zimbabve 97 0,261 0,267 0,009 0,390 0,210 0,810 0,973 0,472 0,999 0,320 0,076
Kameroon 98 0,256 0,329 0,039 0,554 0,240 0,660 0,990 0,404 1,000 0,360 0,381
Cambodia 99 0,237 0,285 0,043 0,596 0,200 0,410 0,997 0,428 0,993 0,440 0,445
Zambiya 100 0,231 0,347 0,019 0,579 0,260 0,580 0,993 0,272 1,000 0,320 0,268
Haiti 101 0,228 0,298 0,032 0,408 0,160 0,540 0,993 0,520 0,977 0,400 0,472
Turkmenista
n
102 0,206 0,262 0,133 0,592 0,200 0,720 0,707 0,584 1,000 0,560 0,286
Nigeria 103 0,203 0,375 0,022 0,563 0,220 0,480 0,970 0,224 1,000 0,240 0,376
Ethiopia 104 0,078 0,357 0,013 0,700 0,240 0,220 0,997 0,344 0,550 0,240 0,461
Mozambique 105 0,057 0,380 0,024 0,604 0,280 0,430 0,997 0,420 0,459 0,400 0,296
I A S A
І П С А
Internet-portal:
wdc.org.ua
Table 3. Cyclic character of economic developmentBig Kondratieff cycles
Number (n) of big
Kondratieff cycle in
generally accepted
chronology
Cycle designationTime interval of full
cycle
Time interval of
up wave of cycle
Time interval of
down wave of cycle
1 1779 – 1844/51 1779 – 1810/17 1810/17 – 1844/51
2 1844/51 – 1890/96 1844/51 – 1870/75 1870/75 – 1890/96
3 1890/96 – 1936/40 1890/96 – 1914/20 1914/20 – 1936/40
4 1936/40 – 1980/85 1936/40 – 1966/71 1966/71 – 1980/85
5 1980/85 – 2020/25 1980/85 – 2003/09 2003/09 – ???
0
1K
0
2K
0
3K
0
4K
0
5K 21
Big Kondratieff cycles in the XX-XXI centuries
22
co
st
of
cap
ital
3-rd cycle 4-th cycle 5-th cycle 6-th cycle
5-th technological
mode(microelectronics,
mobile communications,
Internet, computer)
6-th
technological
way
(bioengineering
, space
chemistry,
genetics, the
science of man)
years
23
5-7% of world GDP
Overcoming the world crisis
Periods of upwaves of Kondratieff cycles areusually accompanied by more serious socialdisruptions (revolutions, wars, etc.) than theperiods of downwaves. Hence, Kondratieff
cycles characterize not only economic, but alsosocio-political dynamics N. Коndratieff
This indicates the interconnection between two cyclic processes – development of world
economy and course of system world conflicts.24
Main assumptionThere is one more down wave in the Kondratieff cycle that
lasts for about 28 years, (1750-1779), and precedes the first up wave (1779 – 1810) identified by Kondratieff
Metric correspondence of length -down wave ( 28 years) (assumption) andfirst up wave ( 30 years) of N. Kondratieff
Innovative concept of J. Schupeter: “There exists infinite series of Kondratieff cycles” (30-s of the XX century)
F. Braudel considered Kondratieff waves as a variety of historic cycles and dated their origination several centuries earlier.
…
...
Ob
ject
ive
just
ify
ass
um
pti
on
s
25
Table 4. Modified sequence of big Kondratieff cycles
Number (n) of big
Kondratieff cycle
in a modified
sequence
Cycle designationTime interval of full
cycle
Time interval of
cycle upwave
Time interval of
cycle downwave
1 K 1 1750/55 – 1810/17 1750/55 – 1779/85 1779/85 – 1810/17
2 K 2 1810/17 – 1870/75 1810/17 – 1844/51 1844/51– 1870/75
3 K 3 1870/75 – 1914/20 1870/75 – 1890/96 1890/96– 1914/20
4 K 4 1914/20 – 1966/71 1914/20 – 1936/40 1936/40– 1966/71
5 K 5 1966/71 – 2003/09 1966/71 – 1980/85 1980/85– 2003/09
Generally accepted sequence:АВ = UPWAVE, DOWNWAVE ,
Modified sequence :ВА = DOWNWAVE, UPWAVE .
26
Overlapping of the sequence {Kn}n 1
and C5-wave on the time interval 1750 -1920
2 3; ;G C K K K K5 n 1n 1; ,
56,6y.k 5
1T C = T T T
3K K K1 2 3
k 5n ( (C )=3
27
Cycle Cycle Cycle
Overlapping of the sequence {Kn}n 1
and C6 -wave on the time interval 1920 -2008
5;G C K K K6 n 4n 1; , 43,5y.k 6
1T C = T T
2K K4 4
k 6n ( (C )=2
28
Cycle Cycle
The revealed regularity (processes synchronicity)
QUANTIZATION PRINCIPLE
The time intervals ∆(Cn), n 5,on which the wave Cnundergoes its five phases of evolution
(origin) > (growth > (culmination) > (decrease) > (decline)
Contain an integer number nk(∆(Cn)) of full K –cycles of the sequence {Kn}n 1.
MONOTONICITY PRINCIPLE
The average duration of Tk(∆(Cn) of one full K – cycle of the sequence {Kn}n 1
on time intervals ∆(Cn) decreases as n grows.
29
MAIN HYPOTHESIS
Since development of global economy and the course of systemic global conflicts are interdependent
components of the same process – evolutionary development of globalized society, the revealed regularity (synchronicity) of these processes on time intervals ∆(C5) и ∆(C6) as to obeying the
quantization and monotonicity principles holds true also on the time interval ∆(C7)
30
31
Scenario A of K - cycles course in the XXI century.
Distinction of "conflict of the XXI century" (critical zone)
Distinction of the
C7-wave
years
production ↓↑ consumption
32
Tk(∆(C7) )=28.3years3 K-cycles
33
Time intervals of the critical zones
of the XXI century
Scenario A
Scenario B
time
time
Additional conditions
Traditional notion about the average duration of Kondratieff cycle (40-60 years) (Confirmation of
Scenario A)
The modern concept on the acceleration of historical time (S. Kapitsa, 2004) (Confirmation of Scenario B)
Hypothesis on decreasing big Kondratieff cycles with acceleration of science and technical progress
(Yu. Yakovets, 2000) (Confirmation of Scenario B)
34
1. T (K6)=T(K7)=T(K8); 2. T(K6)=T(K7)<T(K8); 3. T(K6)=T(K8)<T(K7);
4. T(K6)>T(K7)=T(K8); 5. T(K6)=T(K7)>T(K8); 6. T(K6)=T(K8)>T(K7);
7.T(K7)=T(K8)>T(K6); 8.T(K6)<T(K7)<T(K8); 9.T(K6)<T(K8)<T(K7);
10.T(K7)<T(K6)<T(K8); 11.T(K7)<T(K8)<T(K6); 12.T(K8)<T(K7)<T(K6);
13.T(K8)<T(K6)<T(K7),
where T(K6)+T(K7)+T(K8)=T(C7)=85y.
Scenario B:possible relationships between T(K6),
T(K7), T(K8)
35
36
Fibonacci – dependence
T(C1) 13∙γk; T(C2) 8∙γk; T(C3) 5∙γk;
T(C4) 3∙γk; T(C5) 2∙γk; T(C6) 1∙γk;
T(C7) 1∙γk;
where γk =2TK (1750; 2092)
of life cycles of all Cn - waves
on the average duration of one full cycle of
modified sequence of big Kondratieff cycles
on the time interval since 1750 till 2092
37
Important corollary
The revealed coordination (synchronicity) of the world
economy development and the course of systemic global conflicts
may be interpreted as indirect confirmation of the correctness of construction of the models of big
Kondratieff cycles and C-waves
3. The Fibonacci dependence was revealed between C-cycles and K-cycles on the time interval 1750-2092г.г
2. In the XXI century most probable will be theoccurrence of three Kondratieff cycles withduration of 30 years.
1. The coordination of systemic world conflicts and Kondratieff cycles as interconnected fundamental properties of society was confirmed.
Conclusions
38