I think the arguments being made here in this thread are largely missing the point, although that's because the author of the article also didn't put his finger

I think the arguments being made here in this thread are largely missing the point, although that's because the author of the article also didn't put his finger on it very well... yes everything is incomprehensibly complex, but what about this is it that makes it not work very well anymore and how exactly is it different from past complexity? I think the answer is that as we add complexity to the world there is always some benefit, some problem is solved or new form of wealth created, and there is also some cost, not just in the obvious terms of energy used, but also in terms of "brittleness" of the system and long-term sustainability of it all. As Joseph Tainter said in his ground-breaking 1989 book "The Collapse of Complex Societies", as societies get more and more complex the return on this cost (the ROI on additional complexity) diminishes, i.e. the costs of additional complexity at some point start to outweigh its benefit. That's what I think is really going on... we've crossed that point and the while the problems we have created with added complexity in the past might be solvable with additional added complexity (i.e. global warming might be solvable with a combination of "green" energy and carbon capture and draw-down) the additional complexity needed for such solutions is now incomprehensibly expensive.