[tablatom]

Interesting timing for me! Just a couple of days ago I discovered the work of biologist Olivier Hamant who has been raising exactly this issue. His main thesis is that very high performance (which he defines as efficacy towards a known goal plus efficiency) and very high robustness (the ability to withstand large fluctuations in the system) are physically incompatible. Examples abound in nature. Contrary to common perception evolution does not optimise for high performance but high robustness. Giving priority to performance may have made sense in a world of abundant resources, but we are now facing a very different period where instability is the norm. We must (and will be forced to) backtrack on performance in order to become robust. It’s the freshest and most interesting take on the poly-crisis that I’ve seen in a long time.

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Tracts_N_50_Antidote_...

[vlovich123]

I don’t think it’s smart to proactively back track without being very careful. One thing that’s needed is for corporate death to be allowed to occur. Right now the downsides of risky behavior is bailed out for large enough risk. Then the companies that fail aren’t robust and the ones that don’t are but bailouts let non robust companies keep going. Otherwise “robustness” is a property without a measure which means that you’ll get robustness theater where actions are being taken in the name of being robust but it’s not actually making a difference at best and could be making things worse.

As for society itself being robust, it’s a much harder property. Being robust is nice but no one actually wants to live in a metered society where there’s insufficient resources - they’d generally rather kill for resources greedily and let others fail without helping them. That’s why socialized healthcare struggles - while it guarantees a minimum of care for everybody, the care provided has longer wait times and most people are not willing to wait their turn.

[wongarsu]

In a free market economy we shouldn't demand robustness, we should create a system that promotes and rewards robustness. A strict commitment against bail-outs would certainly be part of that. Companies (and private people) can decide to lower their risk exposure (at the cost of efficiency/profit) or take out insurance against risks. And if they go the insurance route they have to assess how likely their insurance is to go insolvent at the next insurance event. That's how you reward those that are actually resilient.

Healthcare is more complicated. It can never work as an efficient free market since nobody goes comparison shopping for the hospital with the best value-for-money when they have a car crash. That's why socialized healthcare achieves much better results per dollar spent. But it's often hamstrung by attempts at efficiency.

I think a better societal example is disaster relief: helping people back up after they have been hit by a hurricane is the humane thing to do, but how much is that encouraging people to settle in high risk areas with insufficient precautions?

[WalterBright]

The usual cycle for business in a free market is it appears young and fresh, lacking any parasites. It grows rapidly, displacing existing mature businesses. Then, it accumulates bureaucracy and parasites, becoming less and less efficient, strangled by bloat and inability to adapt, and slides into bankruptcy, replaced by the next generation of new businesses. The remains of the business are then reallocated to the next generation of businesses.

(This is quite unlike the common view that businesses inevitably grow to take over the world.)

I.e. business is much like a living organism.

Problems set in when the government bails out failing businesses.

Even worse are government "businesses". They are not allowed to fail, and the inefficiencies, parasites, corruption, grow and grow. When can you remember a government agency being abolished? Eventually, the government will collapse.

[yuliyp]

The problem with this is principal-agent problems. The owners of the business don't want it to fail. The people working there want to make money. They generally live their life and enjoy what money they make before the chickens come home to roost. It can be hard for the owners to realize the business is fragile before that fragility becomes apparent. In the mean time the people running the business made a bunch of money, potentially jumped to other jobs or retired or died.

And the owners could have sold when the business was propped up by unknown fragility.

Human lives are too short for these kinds of feedback loops to be all that effective.

[fireflash38]

One of the primary reasons people bail out companies are the knock-on effects. People losing jobs, etc. If society itself is robust enough to cover for people in those situations, we could let companies fail far more.

[RandomLensman]

Socialized healthcare seems to kind of work in many developed economies - where does it struggle and by what metrics regarding the health outcomes?

[Terr_]

That reminds me of a study on "lazy" ants as a reserve/replacement labor force. [0]

Maximizing efficiency in the short-term is not the same as maximizing survival in the long term.

[0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170908205356.h...

[rglullis]

> We must (and will be forced to) backtrack on performance in order to become robust.

This is something that Nassim Taleb and the people working on https://realworldrisk.com/ have been saying for decades already.

[jfim]

We've seen this during the COVID pandemic supply chain disruptions as well, where just in time supply chain management doesn't work as expected when operating in an abnormal environment.

[soulofmischief]

I'd always thought this conclusion was just a given.

Highly optimized systems take full advantage of their environment and rely on a high degree of predictability in order to avoid redundant operations.

These systems minimize the free energy in the system, and so very little free energy is available to counteract new forces introduced to the environment which act on the system.

You'll find parallels in countless domains, since the very basis for learning and stabilization of a system revolves around becoming more or less sensitive to a given stimulus. Examples could be attention, supply chain economics, institutions, etc.

[jimkleiber]

I was gonna come here to say that, especially how there was a shortage on toilet paper. I remember reading it was becuase factories were so efficient that when people started using the toilet at home instead of the office, it was hard to switch the factories from making commercial to residential toilet paper. I think someone even made the pun of paper-thin margins.

[LorenPechtel]

It's not just Covid. Look at the medical world. Generic products compete on price and there is little profit margin--not enough to warrant overprovisioning against problems. And meeting FDA requirements for new activities means new players can't just jump in the game. (And we sometimes see this done maliciously--control all active production of something and shove the price through the roof.) One factory has a problem and there can be huge problems downstream as a result.

The only solution I see is for the FDA to include supply reliability in it's determination of whether a system is acceptable.

[bmsan]

Unedited bullet points on a related topic (same prefixes are linear, different prefixes connect to the others, but I haven't decided where yet):

>capital concentration increases

>expectations for what capital owners can do with money increases

>expectations exceed available capital

>investment returns must increase (race to the top)

>cooperation among capital owners must increase to get better returns

>capital owning group begins to self-select and become less diverse, if this wasn't already caused by the background/personality required to accrue capital

>investment theory converges on a handful of "winning" ventures

>because this is where capital is flowing, workers are forced to divert to these ventures

>competition increases, hyperspecialization increases

>expertise in and sophistication of other areas begins to decline, causing quality decline, garnering less investment; feedback loop

-----

*debt cannibalizes future productivity

-----

)diversity in capital ownership and management increases likelihood of diversity in investment venture target

)increased competition, increased likelihood that ventures will cover needs, decreased likelihood of overweighting in one area/overproduction

)solution: capital redistribution. Perhaps globally

[naasking]

> Contrary to common perception evolution does not optimise for high performance but high robustness.

It does both, eg. if the environment is stable then fitness is correlated with efficiency, if the environment is unstable then it's robustness.

[JeremyNT]

The "slack" is important in an unstable environment because it allows for reallocation of resources without causing a system to fail.

It's tempting to minimize waste, but excess capacity is required to adapt if things are evolving quickly.

[nradov]

To a first approximation, humans have never lived in a world of abundant resources. That has mostly only applied to a minority of affluent people in developed countries. But resource abundance continues to improve on average worldwide.

[bbor]

  His main thesis is that very high performance (which he defines as efficacy towards a known goal plus efficiency) and very high robustness (the ability to withstand large fluctuations in the system) are physically incompatible.

…what about humans? We’re far more efficacious than any other animal, and far more capable of behavioral adaptation.

Plus, isn’t “physically impossible” a computer science argument, not a biological one? Unless we’re using the OG “physis”==“nature”, I guess

[__MatrixMan__]

I don't know that the poly-crisis is bit this does feel timely.

I know I'd tolerate a digital experience of far lower fidelity (fewer pixels, for instance, or even giving up GUIs altogether) if I could get it in a way that doesn't break every time some far away person farts near a cloud console: A trade of performance for robustness.

[3abiton]

The acceleration of knowledge is producing so much content, real gems are passing by unnoticed. Thanks for pitching in!

[bumby]

There are also a lot of engineering examples where the goal is to optimize for reliability. I think the most common domain is marine platforms where it is prohibitively expensive to induct and repair (you have to send a team out by helicopter, for example).

[nradov]

And yet most large merchant ships are designed with a single engine, propeller, and rudder to optimize for cost instead of reliability. We have seen some spectacular failures of that approach recently, although it probably still makes sense in aggregate.

A major mechanical casualty beyond what the crew can repair usually means a tow to a shipyard. Flying more engineers in by helicopter would seldom help, and often isn't feasible.

[maxerickson]

Giving priority to performance may have made sense in a world of abundant resources, but we are now facing a very different period where instability is the norm.

Why do you think this?