3 ms·

> Complex Systems Tend To Oppose Their Own Proper Function. My favorite axiom. Your city has a problem with trash building up on the streets so it sets up a was

> Complex Systems Tend To Oppose Their Own Proper Function. My favorite axiom. Your city has a problem with trash building up on the streets so it sets up a waste management company. The company starts out by collecting trash daily, but then they shift to a Tuesday-only schedule. Next, you get a notice saying that the company will no longer service your building unless you buy their standardized garbage cans (to ensure that the robotic arms on their trucks can pick them up). Eventually, the waste management union goes on strike and the trash starts piling up on the street again anyways. That analogy is bit weak because strikes don't go on forever and trash pickings always resume. The city is not in the same state of perpetual trash everywhere it was in before setting up/contracting the waste management company.

kaycebasques 3y ago
I don't think Gall would disagree with you. He says "systems tend to oppose their own function". He doesn't flat-out say "systems don't work." He would probably explain its functioning in terms of these axioms: > A Simple System, Designed From Scratch, Sometimes Works. > A Complex System That Works Is Invariably Found To Have Evolved From A Simple System That Works. He might also direct your attention to this one: > The Total Amount Of Anergy In The Universe Is Constant. Gall defines anergy as the negative of energy. See also clonal anergy. “The sum total of problems facing the community has not changed. They have merely changed their form and relative importance.” You have reduced the trash on the streets, but where did you shift the anergy by reducing the "trash-on-street" issue? The real fun IMO is contemplating all the other axioms in combination with the trash collection system: > New Systems Mean New Problems. You started out with a trash problem, and now you've got a union problem. Maybe also a powerful mafia-connected monopoly problem. > The Bigger The System, The Narrower And More Specialized The Interface With Individuals. To the waste collection company I am surely just an address, 1 trash bin, 1 recycling bin, and 1 compost bin.
renewiltord 3y ago
The purpose of the waste management company is not to manage waste, it is to gain control of waste management. That's the difference. If you have a problem, often your solution just means you have the same problem but now lack the agency to control it. Once the waste management company has control, they can then extract the majority of surplus from the problem being solved so that if your cost if the problem is unsolved is x, your cost if the problem is solved becomes x-ε. The surplus ε shrinks as the waste management company gains more control of the process. With sufficient control, ε can even go negative. The net result is that you have not created surplus for yourself. You have just found someone to transfer the surplus to.
- johnchristopher 3y ago
  > The surplus ε shrinks as the waste management company gains more control of the process. With sufficient control, ε can even go negative. > The net result is that you have not created surplus for yourself. You have just found someone to transfer the surplus to. That's a good argument for bigger governments instead of a governments hiring private entities whose only goals are to capture surplus :).
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Government departments are not immune to this structure. It's a fundamental property of organizations. It's why you'll find empire building in private companies too.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Interestingly, this happens even if you remove the profit motive, say by making it a government entity or a non-profit with fixed pay structure. The surplus just goes into diffuse inefficiencies instead of being efficiently channeled into someones pocket. Maybe it's just that people still profit from bigger organizations by means of prestige, influence, etc. Whatever the cause, most organizations seem to try to grow to the size equivalent to the value of the solution, not the cost of delivering the solution.
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    Yes! Exactly! I think that's the insight there. It's not the specifics of the org structure that manifest the behavior.
InSteady 3y ago
Also weird example because it's basically describing the process of improving efficiency.. picking up trash every day is a waste of human resources and petroleum. Non-standard cans waste the potential benefits of automation. Poor labor relations are wasteful by hoarding the benefit of an enterprise away from the workers who make it a viable endeavor, and shunting responsibility for the workers' healthcare, retirement, safety nets, and wellbeing onto society.
- kaycebasques 3y ago
  Thanks for the perspective. I agree that improving efficiency is a fair counterargument. > picking up trash every day Yeah, I think that Gall should have started with "twice a week" instead of daily (he might actually use "twice a week" in the book, and the "daily" reference is an error on my part). When you start from bi-weekly to weekly, I'm not sure if the improving efficiency argument holds up that well. I could see twice a week being as efficient as once a week. Not sure about the automation argument in terms of improved efficiency. Brazilian trash collectors work very quickly and do not rely on automation. However I think they're also subjected to more occupational hazard by personally handling more trash. Maybe they're not more efficient. Even if you are more efficient, does the "anergy" (i.e. shifting the problem) idea mean that your improved efficiency essentially enables the community to generate far more trash per capita? Re: unions to be clear, there's no moral judgment intended. It's just another example of the system opposing its own intended function. The purpose is to collect trash, striking workers is one of the ways that the system opposes itself. Also it might be relevant to remember that Gall was writing back in the 70s. I'm pretty sure there strikes were a lot more frequent back then. You can replace the trash collection example with the US federal taxation system if the details of the trash example are distracting. Think of all the ways that the taxation system is set up to push against its own clear goal of collecting tax revenue. It's not really about explaining why it is that way, the most profound insight for me is this curiously common phenomenon of a system opposing its own purpose. One day I dream of coming up with a rigorous analysis of this in terms of entropy

kaycebasques 3y ago

I don't think Gall would disagree with you. He says "systems tend to oppose their own function". He doesn't flat-out say "systems don't work." He would probably explain its functioning in terms of these axioms: > A Simple System, Designed From Scratch, Sometimes Works. > A Complex System That Works Is Invariably Found To Have Evolved From A Simple System That Works. He might also direct your attention to this one: > The Total Amount Of Anergy In The Universe Is Constant. Gall defines anergy as the negative of energy. See also clonal anergy. “The sum total of problems facing the community has not changed. They have merely changed their form and relative importance.” You have reduced the trash on the streets, but where did you shift the anergy by reducing the "trash-on-street" issue? The real fun IMO is contemplating all the other axioms in combination with the trash collection system: > New Systems Mean New Problems. You started out with a trash problem, and now you've got a union problem. Maybe also a powerful mafia-connected monopoly problem. > The Bigger The System, The Narrower And More Specialized The Interface With Individuals. To the waste collection company I am surely just an address, 1 trash bin, 1 recycling bin, and 1 compost bin.

renewiltord 3y ago

The purpose of the waste management company is not to manage waste, it is to gain control of waste management. That's the difference. If you have a problem, often your solution just means you have the same problem but now lack the agency to control it. Once the waste management company has control, they can then extract the majority of surplus from the problem being solved so that if your cost if the problem is unsolved is x, your cost if the problem is solved becomes x-ε. The surplus ε shrinks as the waste management company gains more control of the process. With sufficient control, ε can even go negative. The net result is that you have not created surplus for yourself. You have just found someone to transfer the surplus to.

johnchristopher 3y ago
> The surplus ε shrinks as the waste management company gains more control of the process. With sufficient control, ε can even go negative. > The net result is that you have not created surplus for yourself. You have just found someone to transfer the surplus to. That's a good argument for bigger governments instead of a governments hiring private entities whose only goals are to capture surplus :).
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Government departments are not immune to this structure. It's a fundamental property of organizations. It's why you'll find empire building in private companies too.
wongarsu 3y ago
Interestingly, this happens even if you remove the profit motive, say by making it a government entity or a non-profit with fixed pay structure. The surplus just goes into diffuse inefficiencies instead of being efficiently channeled into someones pocket. Maybe it's just that people still profit from bigger organizations by means of prestige, influence, etc. Whatever the cause, most organizations seem to try to grow to the size equivalent to the value of the solution, not the cost of delivering the solution.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Yes! Exactly! I think that's the insight there. It's not the specifics of the org structure that manifest the behavior.

InSteady 3y ago

Also weird example because it's basically describing the process of improving efficiency.. picking up trash every day is a waste of human resources and petroleum. Non-standard cans waste the potential benefits of automation. Poor labor relations are wasteful by hoarding the benefit of an enterprise away from the workers who make it a viable endeavor, and shunting responsibility for the workers' healthcare, retirement, safety nets, and wellbeing onto society.

kaycebasques 3y ago
Thanks for the perspective. I agree that improving efficiency is a fair counterargument. > picking up trash every day Yeah, I think that Gall should have started with "twice a week" instead of daily (he might actually use "twice a week" in the book, and the "daily" reference is an error on my part). When you start from bi-weekly to weekly, I'm not sure if the improving efficiency argument holds up that well. I could see twice a week being as efficient as once a week. Not sure about the automation argument in terms of improved efficiency. Brazilian trash collectors work very quickly and do not rely on automation. However I think they're also subjected to more occupational hazard by personally handling more trash. Maybe they're not more efficient. Even if you are more efficient, does the "anergy" (i.e. shifting the problem) idea mean that your improved efficiency essentially enables the community to generate far more trash per capita? Re: unions to be clear, there's no moral judgment intended. It's just another example of the system opposing its own intended function. The purpose is to collect trash, striking workers is one of the ways that the system opposes itself. Also it might be relevant to remember that Gall was writing back in the 70s. I'm pretty sure there strikes were a lot more frequent back then. You can replace the trash collection example with the US federal taxation system if the details of the trash example are distracting. Think of all the ways that the taxation system is set up to push against its own clear goal of collecting tax revenue. It's not really about explaining why it is that way, the most profound insight for me is this curiously common phenomenon of a system opposing its own purpose. One day I dream of coming up with a rigorous analysis of this in terms of entropy