Having read the ASM Journal article by N. Rosenberg and L.E. Birdzell, Nov. 90, Vol. 263, No. 5., I have interpreted their presentation, integrated with my own systems perspective, to have several key points.

There are two types of communication systems: exchange and interchange. Each communication system has its own particular infrastructure. These infrastructures allow flows of products in one to one, one to many, many to one, or many to many patterns.

Exchange systems would involve actual movement of material and goods, such as in transportation systems and markets. These exchanges would involve the movement of physical products (manufactured goods and raw materials), as system output into subsequent system inputs. These reflect a resource transfer between two entities, such as in a market.

Interchange systems would involve transmission of information, such as education, publication, research, intelligence collectin and dissemination, and news media systems. These interchanges would involve the presentation of knowledge products (facts and interpretations), as system output into subsequent system inputs. These reflect a resource replication between two or more entities, such as in a school, a publication, or a survey.

The degrees of contraint applied to the research/exploration of a society's environment and to the subsequent application of resultant discoveries, is inversely related to the standard of living of the society applying those constraints. The highest standard of living is achieved by the societies that apply the least constraints (i.e., most support) in research/exploration and knowledge application.

The types of constraints involve the societal assumptions reflected in the distribution of goods, the freedom of travel and association, protection from environmental and manmade hazards, economic freedom, educational freedom, and information sharing. These constraints would result from political, cultural, political, and/or religious belief systems, and the distribution of exchange and interchange resources. The beliefs would either be those perceptions that are accepted, or in which the society has future expectations.

Societies in which a larger group (e.g., a nation) is applied as the expendable instrument of a smaller group (e.g., ruling person or party), are consistently going to apply societal constraints to contribute to the smaller group's benefit, perpetuation, and enrichment. Societies in which a smaller group (e.g., a representative person or party) is seen as the expendable instrument of a larger group (e.g., the elective body) are consistently going to apply less constraints, pursueing the benefit, perpetuation, and enrichment of the larger group. Most of our societies reflect a combination of both situations, dependent on the scale of groups in relation to the society. The former situation is inherently self-defeating. The latter situation is inherently self-perpetuating.

The resources to be exchanged or interchanged would be all of the products available from the transportation, economic, educational, and informational activities of the society. The freedom from constraints, as reflected in the social acceptance of challenging the societies' beliefs/assumptions and distribution of resources, would directly relate to the standard of living of the population group.

If a society uses its beliefs, its leadership position, and its resource distribution as an anchor to hold it back from exploring the boundaries of its environment, if areas of its domain are taboo or operating under inconsistent standards of perception, then that society is condemning itself to isolation, loss of interchange and exchange, decrease of resources, stagnation, and eventual dissolution.

A society must fully explore, redefine, and justify its limits assumptions in order to thrive.