4 ms·

The question we should be asking is whether these complex systems are actually required. In absolute terms, our ancestors lived much much simpler lives and som

The question we should be asking is whether these complex systems are actually required. In absolute terms, our ancestors lived much much simpler lives and somehow managed to survive. So, it's not that we're required to have such complex systems, it's that we've decided that the reward is higher than the cost (which is fine). But, I wonder, how accurately have the costs and the rewards been evaluated? I suspect that we don't always take into account the full cost and risks of complexity. If we did, I suspect we'd build fewer highly complex systems, and the systems we did build would be better. If you think of the entire IT experience as a system, somehow all the various social, economic, and technical forces have conspired to produce massive complexity which shows in constant bugs, failures, broken websites, and security breaches. I wish we could just step back, take a deep breath, and find ways to simplify and clean some of this up.

josephdviviano 7y ago
One of the beauties of complex systems is that these individual failures do not produce system-level failure unless you are extremely unlucky and they all fail simultaneously. If you are simply counting the number of failures, complex systems do look a lot less appealing than simple ones. But if you count only catastrophic failures, complex systems begin to look more worth the energy tax spent maintaining them. This is the guiding design principal behind most biological, social, economic, and (now) internet-related systems. I don't even think it is intentional. It is simply the best solution so it was discovered by natures and is constantly rediscovered by engineers.
rhacker 7y ago
Technically we could simply stop all of this IT stuff, re-allocate the world so everyone gets an acre and dissolve the government. No one would work more than a few hours per day (tending the garden, etc..) The problem is trust. We can't trust someone else because there will be stealing. Those thieves will meet others like them that steal, rape, pillage. Cycle of mis-trust starts all over again and societies form to do something about it. Then things go from there. Now that I think about what I write, we have Facebook because of thievery (just a joke). I do get your point of not starting over, but just listing the case why we get complexity. Some of it is likely not necessary but it's usually because of something.
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  Technically we could not do this. This is wildly inaccurate. The massive redistribution of population alone would be totally infeasible. And if everyone is going to make due with what they can grow in their acre, how is famine going to be dealt with? Is everyone expected to become vegetarian? What about diseases? What about transportation?
  - pixl97 7y ago
    Who cares about transportation, lack of water would kill the majority very quickly.
- josephdviviano 7y ago
  this would result in the life expectancy hitting ~25-30, just like the good old days.
  - pixl97 7y ago
    If you lived past childhood it is highly likely you would live to your 50s or 60s. Surviving your first few years was the hard part.
    - josephdviviano 7y ago
      It would be hard again, under your arrangement.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Technically we could simply stop all of this IT stuff, re-allocate the world so everyone gets an acre and dissolve the government. No one would work more than a few hours per day Well, apart from all the people who would be dead; the diabetics, many of the elderly, and those with various other chronic conditions. The gradual reintroduction of fatal measles would kill from the other end of life. Women would probably be extremely upset about the end of access to contraception, especially as the maternal mortality rate crept back above 1/100.
jmcqk6 7y ago
> In absolute terms, our ancestors lived much much simpler lives and somehow managed to survive. The quality of life was radically different, and they didn't live as long. The complexity we see today exists for a reason, or really, a multitude of reasons. Would it be nice if things weren't as complex? Definitely, but do we have any reason to believe that you can have a world-wide distribution network of goods without this complexity? I would be very interested to hear any argument that this is possible, but I don't think it exists. It is certainly possible to simplify some things in isolation, but the complexity we see is the product of billions of humans interacting with different governing and power structures, cultures, monetary systems, value systems, and more. So any simplification would demand a simplification of those systems. How realistic is that? How desirable is that?
- packet_nerd 7y ago
  Of course I wasn't suggesting that we should all give up and live in caves or something. It's not a binary choice. I refuse to believe that the way our world, society, and lives currently work is the best it could possibly be, because it seriously sucks. There's got to be a way to improve and simplify the system incrementally. Also, I dispute the idea that simpler societies have lower absolute quality of life in every way. Having lived part of my life with an isolated tribal society, there are definitely pros and cons. (A close knit community is one huge pro that I really really miss.) Instead of a blind "our complex systems are better just because they are" I think we should step back and take actual stock of the costs and rewards and really ask ourselves, for each individual thing, whether it's worth it.
  - jmcqk6 7y ago
    >Also, I dispute the idea that simpler societies have lower absolute quality of life in every way. I didn't argue this. I only argued that our ancestors didn't live as long on average as we did. Nor did I argue that the way things currently are is the best it could possibly be. I think there is a way for us to improve incrementally, and in some cases that means simplification. But if that simplification does not respect the root causes for the initial complexity, the resulting system will be just as flawed as the current system. That is my point. Complexity is a symptom of the underlying system, and to try to address complexity on it's own without the underlying causes for that complexity will just lead to more pain in the future.
paulsutter 7y ago
That's the whole point of the document - that we should simplify systems whenever possible, to avoid the dysfunctions listed.

josephdviviano 7y ago

One of the beauties of complex systems is that these individual failures do not produce system-level failure unless you are extremely unlucky and they all fail simultaneously. If you are simply counting the number of failures, complex systems do look a lot less appealing than simple ones. But if you count only catastrophic failures, complex systems begin to look more worth the energy tax spent maintaining them. This is the guiding design principal behind most biological, social, economic, and (now) internet-related systems. I don't even think it is intentional. It is simply the best solution so it was discovered by natures and is constantly rediscovered by engineers.

rhacker 7y ago

Technically we could simply stop all of this IT stuff, re-allocate the world so everyone gets an acre and dissolve the government. No one would work more than a few hours per day (tending the garden, etc..) The problem is trust. We can't trust someone else because there will be stealing. Those thieves will meet others like them that steal, rape, pillage. Cycle of mis-trust starts all over again and societies form to do something about it. Then things go from there. Now that I think about what I write, we have Facebook because of thievery (just a joke). I do get your point of not starting over, but just listing the case why we get complexity. Some of it is likely not necessary but it's usually because of something.

jmcqk6 7y ago
Technically we could not do this. This is wildly inaccurate. The massive redistribution of population alone would be totally infeasible. And if everyone is going to make due with what they can grow in their acre, how is famine going to be dealt with? Is everyone expected to become vegetarian? What about diseases? What about transportation?
- pixl97 7y ago
  Who cares about transportation, lack of water would kill the majority very quickly.
josephdviviano 7y ago
this would result in the life expectancy hitting ~25-30, just like the good old days.
- pixl97 7y ago
  If you lived past childhood it is highly likely you would live to your 50s or 60s. Surviving your first few years was the hard part.
  - josephdviviano 7y ago
    It would be hard again, under your arrangement.
pjc50 7y ago
> Technically we could simply stop all of this IT stuff, re-allocate the world so everyone gets an acre and dissolve the government. No one would work more than a few hours per day Well, apart from all the people who would be dead; the diabetics, many of the elderly, and those with various other chronic conditions. The gradual reintroduction of fatal measles would kill from the other end of life. Women would probably be extremely upset about the end of access to contraception, especially as the maternal mortality rate crept back above 1/100.

jmcqk6 7y ago

> In absolute terms, our ancestors lived much much simpler lives and somehow managed to survive. The quality of life was radically different, and they didn't live as long. The complexity we see today exists for a reason, or really, a multitude of reasons. Would it be nice if things weren't as complex? Definitely, but do we have any reason to believe that you can have a world-wide distribution network of goods without this complexity? I would be very interested to hear any argument that this is possible, but I don't think it exists. It is certainly possible to simplify some things in isolation, but the complexity we see is the product of billions of humans interacting with different governing and power structures, cultures, monetary systems, value systems, and more. So any simplification would demand a simplification of those systems. How realistic is that? How desirable is that?

packet_nerd 7y ago
Of course I wasn't suggesting that we should all give up and live in caves or something. It's not a binary choice. I refuse to believe that the way our world, society, and lives currently work is the best it could possibly be, because it seriously sucks. There's got to be a way to improve and simplify the system incrementally. Also, I dispute the idea that simpler societies have lower absolute quality of life in every way. Having lived part of my life with an isolated tribal society, there are definitely pros and cons. (A close knit community is one huge pro that I really really miss.) Instead of a blind "our complex systems are better just because they are" I think we should step back and take actual stock of the costs and rewards and really ask ourselves, for each individual thing, whether it's worth it.
- jmcqk6 7y ago
  >Also, I dispute the idea that simpler societies have lower absolute quality of life in every way. I didn't argue this. I only argued that our ancestors didn't live as long on average as we did. Nor did I argue that the way things currently are is the best it could possibly be. I think there is a way for us to improve incrementally, and in some cases that means simplification. But if that simplification does not respect the root causes for the initial complexity, the resulting system will be just as flawed as the current system. That is my point. Complexity is a symptom of the underlying system, and to try to address complexity on it's own without the underlying causes for that complexity will just lead to more pain in the future.

paulsutter 7y ago

That's the whole point of the document - that we should simplify systems whenever possible, to avoid the dysfunctions listed.