Some sound philosophy in my reading. Great to see Illich quoted!!
While I agree with most points, and the biological/life analogy is
striking and strong, I differ in my personal response.
Yes the technology of the future will be built on the bones of the
dinosaurs currently lining up to die. Yes there is no point "fighting"
insane complexity. But that is not the same as stopping pointing out
its insanity to those who will listen.
The reason is that there is going to be a cost to the collapse and
readjustment. It will very likely be a real cost in human lives. And
that makes it a moral duty to continue warnings, even if it cannot be
averted and people will not listen, because it allows mitigations to
be put in place (niche developments that abstract, re-analyse and
reduce complexity).
One mustn't mistake critical commentary, protest, highlighting and
defaming bad practices with actively 'fighting' them. They will fail
in their own good time. Meanwhile intellectual resistance emboldens
those successors building the next generation.
Thanks for the comment. I'm not advocating pacifism, just non-attachment. So where various "anti-complexity" activities do this, I think they are in the right place.
Civboot.org is itself a project which I see as the ultimate "re-analyse and reduce complexity", but I'm not trying to fight against complexity. I simply enjoy the process of refactoring and learning from the ground up. The fact that it will be useful for the future simply aids in the feeling that I am a (small) part of a larger flow of technological growth, death and rebirth.
> I simply enjoy the process of refactoring and learning from the
ground up.
Nice sentiment. I think this is one of the core engineer/hacker
traits. It's not just over-complexity that offends, but the opacity
that comes with the unfathomable. One is compelled to pull it apart
simply to rebuilt it - to hold it in mind.
> I am a (small) part of a larger flow of technological growth, death
and rebirth.
An awesome way of putting it. I wish this conversation could be
amplified. This speaks loudly to the fearful foolishness of labelling
new technological progressives, those with a broader vision who urge
caution and choice, as Luddites or neo-primitives. It reveals the
attachment issues in the accusers who cannot let go of a monotonic
growth model.
In engineering philosophy we had a lesson on the "wheel of life"
development model, where things start at the periphery, are absorbed
into efficient central forms, and then disperse again once the centre
cannot hold. The professor mentioned that it's quite nicely analogous
to a cosmological model, ever forming, exploding and reforming.
Hello, reading your article I realized that you are an extremely intelligent person, I don't know if we simply coincide perfectly on this topic and from there we are simply similar people, but I swear I read this article as if I had been the one who wrote it ... I have sent you my ideas derived from your main article as an 'issue' in your repository.
4 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 23.0 ms ] threadWhile I agree with most points, and the biological/life analogy is striking and strong, I differ in my personal response.
Yes the technology of the future will be built on the bones of the dinosaurs currently lining up to die. Yes there is no point "fighting" insane complexity. But that is not the same as stopping pointing out its insanity to those who will listen.
The reason is that there is going to be a cost to the collapse and readjustment. It will very likely be a real cost in human lives. And that makes it a moral duty to continue warnings, even if it cannot be averted and people will not listen, because it allows mitigations to be put in place (niche developments that abstract, re-analyse and reduce complexity).
One mustn't mistake critical commentary, protest, highlighting and defaming bad practices with actively 'fighting' them. They will fail in their own good time. Meanwhile intellectual resistance emboldens those successors building the next generation.
Civboot.org is itself a project which I see as the ultimate "re-analyse and reduce complexity", but I'm not trying to fight against complexity. I simply enjoy the process of refactoring and learning from the ground up. The fact that it will be useful for the future simply aids in the feeling that I am a (small) part of a larger flow of technological growth, death and rebirth.
Nice sentiment. I think this is one of the core engineer/hacker traits. It's not just over-complexity that offends, but the opacity that comes with the unfathomable. One is compelled to pull it apart simply to rebuilt it - to hold it in mind.
> I am a (small) part of a larger flow of technological growth, death and rebirth.
An awesome way of putting it. I wish this conversation could be amplified. This speaks loudly to the fearful foolishness of labelling new technological progressives, those with a broader vision who urge caution and choice, as Luddites or neo-primitives. It reveals the attachment issues in the accusers who cannot let go of a monotonic growth model.
In engineering philosophy we had a lesson on the "wheel of life" development model, where things start at the periphery, are absorbed into efficient central forms, and then disperse again once the centre cannot hold. The professor mentioned that it's quite nicely analogous to a cosmological model, ever forming, exploding and reforming.