Makes sense from a human-ecology point of view (which was trendy in 1980s),
but that thread is rather fatalistic - a more useful question is what can we do about this ?As a software developer, I’m also aware that there can be diminishing returns to increasing complexity and feedbacks, on the other hand more feedbacks can add extra powers and resilience, how to stabilise with a good balance ?
The difference between the complexity of software inputs versus complexity in problem solving the real world systems is the energy and infrastructure it takes in the real world.
Joseph Tainter had a really interesting paper about how real world costs rise in an extremely non linear way after a certain threshold.
" It is not a question of expending a lot of energy to discover “more efficient” ways to do these things - that process amplifies the decline. "
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity,_Problem_Solving,_and_Sustainable_Societies
So you imply there is a balance point, but what’s clear is that complexity in one area actually reduces resources in the other areas and drags lower the external standards to whatever problem you put a focus on.
So backing out and taking another look at this, the solution of adding any complexity in any area actually makes higher problems. More complexity in one area removes the existing complexity in another, complexity is constrained.
Foe example, the more software we make, the less talent, energy, money and resources go into, say, health care or food production…investments are finite.
This is an interesting paper by Tainter, its about how science and innovation and technology have diminishing returns on investment: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/sres.1057
People discover the big easy things first, then it costs more and more to make smaller and less useful advancements…the figures and graphs in this paper tell an amazing story. Society is paying more and more for all these failing sectors. …
Human ecology is the study of how humans are shaped by their environment. Would you say the premise of the classic 2006 Mike Judge film Idiocracy is an application of human-ecology?
Tldr, mastodon guy rambles on about society getting more complex by using a 240 char limit platform to post an essay.
Your snarky anti-intellectualism used 0.0021% of Lemmy’s 10K character limit, and somehow added less value to the conversation than had you not made it at all.
Well there are non-snarky comments available too that echo the same sentiment.
Also, your somehow even more snarky self-imploding mathematicalism is somehow saying the opposite of what you’re intending to say.
I’ll be more clear. The posted essay is thoughtful and regardless of whether you agree with it, provides a lot to discuss and engage with. It’s usually better to say more with less, but if you need more to say more, that also has value.
Just because a comment is pithy does not make it less valuable than a fleshed-out statement. Lemmy is a platform that supports both by design.
Your statement give no useful information about the content of the essay. It doesn’t add to the on-topic conversation one might expect to find under the linked article. It doesn’t communicate who you are or why you might have had an adverse reaction to the essay. It only suggests you don’t like Mastodon because of its short message limit, but also paradoxically that you don’t like to read much.
@HeavenlyPossum@kolektiva.social I think you’re conflating complexity and authoritarianism, or complexity with capitalism, which are both bad ways to think about those concepts.
