Phil Henshaw wrote: > Growth taken to it's absolute limit always leads to an absolutely > impenetrable wall of > complexity, at which point turbulence or it's equivalents interrupt the > whole process. I don't think we want to do that. > To control a system a regulator must be able to absorb and respond to at least as much information as the regulated entity can produce. To reduce forms of company-internal entropy, large companies tend to spin-off successful and unsuccessful business units. To reduce forms of external entropy, we also see big companies buy smaller companies simply to nip potential competition in the bud. The need for control is built-in and forces companies away from overly-complicated decision making. The need for control by government is also present, and one form it takes are antitrust laws.
Given these forces, there is a push away from the absolute limit. And provided there is room for the participants and the raw materials that makes them go, it's not clear to me why this kind of system couldn't expand, and indefinitely. It is a `small' matter of technology. By genetically engineering more energy efficient food or people, spreading to other planets, etc. the problems of sustainability could be addressed. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
