In 1988, Joseph Tainter published “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” in which he published a prescient and simple argument with far-reaching implications:
1) Social complexity is a problem-solving mechanism.
2) Complexity has costs in terms of energy.
3) Societies tend to add rather than subtract complexity when facing new problems.
4) Complexity often reaches a point of diminishing marginal returns in relation to its energy costs.
5) When societies reach this point of diminishing returns, they are vulnerable to collapse to a simpler level of social organization, which is an economizing reaction to problems that can no longer be solved by adding more complexity.
1/8
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. "
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.
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.
…
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. …