Progress at the expense of complexity and fragility

[doodle]

Does it seem to anyone else that progress is being consistently made by relying on solutions of increasing complexity thereby inviting a great deal of fragility into the present system?

I wonder, can progress be made by moving down the ladder of complexity? In other words, can we find solutions to todays problems and create progress by searching out more simple and robust solutions? As systems develop and progress, is it their own complexity that ultimately sabotoges them?

Does anyone see a movement in this direction developing?

[Gumby]

It sounds like you are referring to Minsky's financial instability hypothesis, which he theorized over 50 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_Minsky

Actually, Minsky was an optimist...

...and he also believed that financial reform was possible, and necessary.

From The New Yorker:

The greatest need is for intellectual reappraisal, and a good place to begin is with a statement from a paper co-authored by Minsky that “apt intervention and institutional structures are necessary for market economies to be successful.”? Rather than waging old debates about tax cuts versus spending increases, policymakers ought to be discussing how to reform the financial system so that it serves the rest of the economy, instead of feeding off it and destabilizing it. Among the problems at hand: how to restructure Wall Street remuneration packages that encourage excessive risk-taking; restrict irresponsible lending without shutting out creditworthy borrowers; help victims of predatory practices without bailing out irresponsible lenders; and hold ratings agencies accountable for their assessments. These are complex issues, with few easy solutions, but that’s what makes them interesting. As Minsky believed, “Economies evolve, and so, too, must economic policy.”?
Source: The New Yorker: The Minsky Moment

Does anyone see a movement in this direction developing?

No, not yet... But, maybe one day. Might not really be possible until we get money out of politics. And that's going to be difficult to achieve.

[WildAboutHarry]

Does it seem to anyone else that progress is being consistently made by relying on solutions of increasing complexity thereby inviting a great deal of fragility into the present system?

I wonder, can progress be made by moving down the ladder of complexity? In other words, can we find solutions to todays problems and create progress by searching out more simple and robust solutions? As systems develop and progress, is it their own complexity that ultimately sabotoges them?

Does anyone see a movement in this direction developing?

One could almost define progress as application of increasingly complex solutions to life's problems.  You are correct in that there are usually greater inherent risks in more complex solutions than in simpler ones.  But the benefits of the complex solution typically outweigh the disadvantages.

A trivial example.  The IPod is an incredibly complex device to store and play music.  Contrast that with a previous music storage-and-play solution: vinyl records and a record player (you can substitute cassettes, 8-track tapes, piano rolls, or the music storage device of your youth here).  Storage nightmare, replacing the "needle", scratches, degradation of sound quality with each play, etc.

In one sense, the increasing complexity results in an apparent simplicity of the solution.  I can know where I am on the surface of the earth using a GPS.  I can also know where I am on the surface of the earth by using a chronometer, a sextant, etc.  I don't know how to use those old instruments, but I do know how to use a GPS.  Of course if the satellites fail, etc., then the GPS solution goes out the window.

There is a tendency to reject or replace overly complex solutions to problems that do not offer ease of use, better quality, lower price etc.  I think the films of early flying machines we have all seen attest to that. 

There are many individual/small group movements toward simplicity in one or more of life's aspects.  Hand-tool woodworking.  Needlework.  Vegetable gardening.  Repairing and restoring old cars (no on-board computers, carburetors, etc.).  Staying out of debt.  The Amish.  Etc.

I think that for society as a whole, though, there could be no overall movement toward simplicity, except by accident or catastrophe (think the fall of Rome).   

[6 Iron]

At work, we just went through another round of software upgrades, and as per routine, very few new benefits for me, the end user, but some features that I liked have been removed, or made slower or more cumbersome. As we are nearly dead in the water without this system, we have a healthy fear of these upgrades and unexpected downtime. So at work, no, I do not see a trend to "simple and robust".

I agree with WAH; barring prolonged depression, or some degree of societal collapse, this can only be accomplished on an individual level.

[moda0306]

One could almost define progress as application of increasingly complex solutions to life's problems. 

WAH,

I am no luddite, and I love the opportunities the world is giving me today compared to what would have been available in decades-past, but that's pretty spot on in many ways.

[dualstow]

OP & 6 Iron's post remind me of a book called The Unfinished Revolution : How to Make Technology Work for Us--Instead of the Other Way Around by Michael Dertouzos. I'm not plugging the book- I fell asleep too many times to commit to finishing it. But, it has some of the same views and ideas.

[MediumTex]

One could almost define progress as application of increasingly complex solutions to life's problems. 

WAH,

I am no luddite, and I love the opportunities the world is giving me today compared to what would have been available in decades-past, but that's pretty spot on in many ways.

In Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" he makes the elegant and intuitive argument that at any point in time a society is experiencing an increasing or decreasing marginal utility from additional increments of complexity in the way the society deals with the problems it faces.  Once a society gets too far into a situation of declining marginal utility from additional units of complexity it tends to unravel more quickly than one would imagine.

It's not unlike the point at which additional levels of debt in society stop translating into additional GDP and start actually reducing GDP through the drag of interest payments and the deflationary conditions that high levels of leverage can create.

We don't think this will happen to us, of course, but that's what every society that came before us also thought.  Who knows, maybe we will be different than all human societies that have preceded us.

[WildAboutHarry]

I am no luddite, and I love the opportunities the world is giving me today compared to what would have been available in decades-past, but that's pretty spot on in many ways.

Thanks.  I think.

Once a society gets too far into a situation of declining marginal utility from additional units of complexity it tends to unravel more quickly than one would imagine.

I think that the history of the US shows that, at least so far, we have been able to shed detrimental complexity and add beneficial complexity fairly well.  This process is certainly not continuous or smooth, but in general (so far, fingers crossed) we have been fairly adroit at pulling that off.

I could see, though, situations where the baggage accumulates to the point of "unraveling" and we have been close on occasion (civil war, great depression, disco era, etc.)

[MediumTex]

Once a society gets too far into a situation of declining marginal utility from additional units of complexity it tends to unravel more quickly than one would imagine.

I think that the history of the US shows that, at least so far, we have been able to shed detrimental complexity and add beneficial complexity fairly well.  This process is certainly not continuous or smooth, but in general (so far, fingers crossed) we have been fairly adroit at pulling that off.

I could see, though, situations where the baggage accumulates to the point of "unraveling" and we have been close on occasion (civil war, great depression, disco era, etc.)

The growth of government alone has been staggering.

The growth of debt has also been incredible in recent decades.

I think that in both of these areas (expansion of government and growth of debt) you are seeing this phenomenon of declining marginal utility to each extra increment of complexity.  In the governmental sphere you are seeing it in bureaucracies that defy logic or reason, and in the debt sphere you are seeing it in the form of debt that literally no one understands (such as the exotic instruments that contributed to the 2008 crash).

[WildAboutHarry]

The growth of government alone has been staggering.

I think of the excessive growth of the US government as a 20th century phenomenon.  WWI (income taxes, prohibition), Great Depression (alphabet soup agencies, social security), WWII, Cold War, Civil Rights Movement, Environmental Movement, Wars on Poverty/Drugs et al.  Some of these were obviously necessary for national survival, some had very positive benefits to society, some of these were good ideas poorly executed, and some were downright stupid.  And some was simply a solution looking for a problem.

People and institutions do tend to be able to tolerate a fair degree of this sort of thing, either through compliance, navigating the various loopholes, or by simply avoiding such interactions.  Obviously Harry thought about this fairly deeply.

My favorite fiction that touches on the development and operation of government is Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

One of the main characters, Professor de La Paz (aptly named, considering he is fomenting revolution), says:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do"

When asked: "You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?"

He replied, "Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it."

This book is kind of a tough read (it takes a while to get used to the style) but it is full of pearls of wisdom:

"What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing."

"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden."

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

"Most money is simply bookkeeping."

[MediumTex]

My favorite fiction that touches on the development and operation of government is Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

One of the main characters, Professor de La Paz (aptly named, considering he is fomenting revolution), says:

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do"

When asked: "You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?"

He replied, "Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it."

This book is kind of a tough read (it takes a while to get used to the style) but it is full of pearls of wisdom:

"What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government powers to do something that appears to need doing."

"Seems to be a deep instinct in human beings for making everything compulsory that isn't forbidden."

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

"Most money is simply bookkeeping."

Robert Heinlein is great.  I read "Stranger in a Strange Land" a few years ago and I found the whole thing very entertaining and insightful.

"Starship Troopers" is also terrific (if you don't know it's much different from the movie).

I will put the title above on my list.

[WildAboutHarry]

It has been a while since I read Stranger in a Strange Land, but I'll put that on my list for re-read.

I'd have to say that my favorite Heinlein quote is:

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.