Complexity

Recently finished reading "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter. It is a great book that I highly recommend. I won't summarize here. Why I want to bring it up is because his thesis revolves around increasing costs of complexity. Why must things constantly, or consistently, become more complex?

As a child, parents usually cover for the excessive complexity of the life we are born into. Growing up, the responsibilities of life take are taken upon one's shoulders and life's complexity attempts to bury us. That is melodramatic, but not untrue. Shouldn't we be able to turn the tide against complexity?

The goal of many religions is to keep life simple; those religions that aren't built upon complex rules . Not being a student of world religion, I can't classify them with any specificity. So, I will focus on Buddhism, mainly Zen. Its goal is to eliminate these complexities. There are an endless number of distractions and relations that prevent people from fully living. Worries and suffering bind us to this form of existence. If we break those chains, then we realize the transient nature of life and are free to embrace existence and non-existence. Consequently, we can achieve greatness without the burden of worry.

That was a horrible explanation. But, Zen became popular with samurai for this reason. What reason: My bad explanation or life without worrying? When one isn't worried about death, you can fight truer. You neither embrace life or death, you just move. This is good for simplifying your thoughts, but not life in general.

The necessity of making money and protecting money is the driver behind complexity. We are all fighting for less and less resources. It is a struggle to undermine the next guy and enrich yourself. Governments are constantly fighting loopholes to protect their revenues and "even the playing field" (well, protect the rich). With a constantly increasing population, there is no choice.

In the end, things are too complex and too costly. Is the key in computing technology? An expensive infrastructure is necessary to support computing technology. Is there a point where the infrastructure is advanced enough that it reduces costs? That is the goal with the increases in web applications and online only transactions. This works on a small scale, but I doubt there are enough resources to do it globally.

If population growth can get under control, the world could be reshaped. I could imagine nations being low-tech and high-tech, or higher-tech. In a full world, the daily battle of all nations to advance and consume is silly. Why not have a country that limits its infrastructure development to minimize electricity use and focuses on the basics of quality of life. There wouldn't be sacrifices in health care and related fields, but the economy would be more designed to not overburden the environment.

I imagine this in areas of Africa. Some places are ill-suited for development, the costs are too high. In the new world order (not related to other images of NWO), the people would have more freedom to move, but areas would be development ordered. To put it better, there would be a development hierarchy among nations.

Yes, this is unrealistic. People won't give up the power they have: politicians and businessmen. People would feel discriminated if their homeland isn't allowed to develop. They don't want to leave their homeland just to get material wealth. The wealth should be allowed to come to them. People's propensity for crime and avarice would also remain as a major problem.

I would like to explore this more later.

Trade-off

I have recently been reading about how man has lost his way from nature and togetherness. That kind of makes it sound less than what it is...kind of...well, completely. It harkens back to the hunter-gatherer age. People relied on nature, did not worry about the future, and lived more harmoniously with each other. The Earth was plentiful and man enjoyed it without depleting it. This is presented in contrast the rise of farmers and concentrated populations.

Have we lost something by gaining an individuality and utilizing ever increasing technologies that deplete the planet more and more? I find it a tough call to make. The visual journey from hunter-gatherer to the present involves countless atrocities committed against nature and man. It drove me to depression. How amazing would things be if even the last 2 centuries of human development hadn't happened. So much has died and we are having to more and more adapt to a relatively barren planet. There is no shame, no lament, for what happens everyday in the name of development. What is the benefit?

The ascent of the individual identity is truly unique and interesting if taken for a planetary perspective. No other species is as individualized as man and contemplates existence as we do. There is a beauty to it. If you just think about this, you have accomplished something that no other living thing on this planet can do. Yet, we spend more time thinking about things and consumption that this beauty is lost. We can rebuild our common heritage by simply recognizing it. Life does not have to be a war.

This technology is killing us. The more we reach for, the more we produce, the less we will be able to build, or rebuild, in the future. I am loathe to say "critical point" where we can't go back. But, if it is not approaching now, then when? There must be a way to revalue all that is. The past is dead, it does not exist to be worshipped. Yet, we need to stop worshipping ourselves, and start appreciating all that is around us and all that we can connect to.

Salvation comes in destroying the trade-off between technology and communality.