I read somewhere that the reason for juvenile T-rexes taking over the "mid-sized predator" niche is because they were essentially different animals (in terms of body build) from adult T-rexes. The adult is basically huge and powerful but not all that fast, while the juvenile is near as tall and long but much more lightly built and fast, making it suited for taking down smaller prey. Modern day predators don't have such a marked difference during their teenage years as far as I know, so maybe that's a key reason too.
Oh intriguing, this is an area I plan on reading up more on. We don't have much megafauna anymore to rightfully compare, which kind of also talks to the same point, though we're talking of mammals and not oviparous beasts.
So, what I'm hearing is "Legible, widespread changes are good for avoiding overly optimized systems?" I suppose that on some level, that begs the question: Are overly optimized systems actually bad? But even assuming they are, this lends itself to suggesting that regular (or even frequent) failures of various established systems is actually good for society, something I am dubious about at best. I suspect that what we really want is stuff that shakes up systems we don't like, while leaving the ones that function well alone... and I'm not sure there's a way to manage that. That falls into a magical selection criteria for Black Swans which I don't think anyone can actually filter for.
It's my experience that "Shaking things up" leads to a lot of unintended consequences. And since we're talking about socioeconomics here, shaking things up is both difficult to intentionally manage (how many "disruptive" technologies fail to take off?) and often leads to very strange outcomes (trying to disrupt Uber in California led to lots of truckers having problems, or would if anyone was enforcing the laws). I guess my main critique is that your proposal doesn't seem terrible actionable, except potentially by the most concentrated loci of power, which have no incentive to do so.
Which isn't to say that we should stop looking, just that this advice/insight doesn't seem particular useful because it lacks actionable steps. (e.g. you have correctly identified a problem, but not any way to fix it)
That's fair, I'm trepidatious here for sure. It's unclear how to create sustainable ways of solving this barring larger disruptions. The idea for smaller disruptions is one such, and indeed the costs might outweigh until things get dire. Are we there? Unclear.
That is a conversation I have on a regular basis: disruptions are costly and a new equilibrium could easily be worse than the current status quo. At what point do we move for disrupting the status quo?
I don't have the answers, and I think it's good to point out how the problem is formed/exists, but pointing out problems is (imo) less than half the battle. It's certainly a very important part (you have a lot of trouble fighting a battle when you don't know there is one), but having a strategy to tackle the battle is just as, if not more, important.
So comment length answer is: My suspicion here is that the risk of regular small disruptions (similar to evolutionary ideas) is what might make us less vulnerable to bigger revolutionary changes. I'm also unsure how worried we should be about the new equilibrium being worse if we assume we can change it again if need be. This might not be optimal of course, likely unimplementable etc, but its an area we need a thousand ideas on.
Which is fair. (I'm also sticking to comment length replies) I could perhaps add a blog post level reply to my (rapidly growing) backlog of blog posts to write, in which I ascribe the risks I see for minor and major disruptions. It's certainly an arena that seems underdiscussed to me.
Somewhere else I bet you can find this effect is learning and cognition. People who do not learn very well or have fallen out of the habit of taking in new concepts can experience psychological discomfort from indeterminacy: where they have to tolerate an aporia without ascribing binary judgment.
I read somewhere that the reason for juvenile T-rexes taking over the "mid-sized predator" niche is because they were essentially different animals (in terms of body build) from adult T-rexes. The adult is basically huge and powerful but not all that fast, while the juvenile is near as tall and long but much more lightly built and fast, making it suited for taking down smaller prey. Modern day predators don't have such a marked difference during their teenage years as far as I know, so maybe that's a key reason too.
Oh intriguing, this is an area I plan on reading up more on. We don't have much megafauna anymore to rightfully compare, which kind of also talks to the same point, though we're talking of mammals and not oviparous beasts.
whoops
Dang substack started giving errors! Hopefully fixed now.
So, what I'm hearing is "Legible, widespread changes are good for avoiding overly optimized systems?" I suppose that on some level, that begs the question: Are overly optimized systems actually bad? But even assuming they are, this lends itself to suggesting that regular (or even frequent) failures of various established systems is actually good for society, something I am dubious about at best. I suspect that what we really want is stuff that shakes up systems we don't like, while leaving the ones that function well alone... and I'm not sure there's a way to manage that. That falls into a magical selection criteria for Black Swans which I don't think anyone can actually filter for.
Failures, when unplanned, can be of course quite bad, but the analogy of brush fires comes to mind, controlled burns to keep the whole thing safe.
It's my experience that "Shaking things up" leads to a lot of unintended consequences. And since we're talking about socioeconomics here, shaking things up is both difficult to intentionally manage (how many "disruptive" technologies fail to take off?) and often leads to very strange outcomes (trying to disrupt Uber in California led to lots of truckers having problems, or would if anyone was enforcing the laws). I guess my main critique is that your proposal doesn't seem terrible actionable, except potentially by the most concentrated loci of power, which have no incentive to do so.
Which isn't to say that we should stop looking, just that this advice/insight doesn't seem particular useful because it lacks actionable steps. (e.g. you have correctly identified a problem, but not any way to fix it)
That's fair, I'm trepidatious here for sure. It's unclear how to create sustainable ways of solving this barring larger disruptions. The idea for smaller disruptions is one such, and indeed the costs might outweigh until things get dire. Are we there? Unclear.
That is a conversation I have on a regular basis: disruptions are costly and a new equilibrium could easily be worse than the current status quo. At what point do we move for disrupting the status quo?
I don't have the answers, and I think it's good to point out how the problem is formed/exists, but pointing out problems is (imo) less than half the battle. It's certainly a very important part (you have a lot of trouble fighting a battle when you don't know there is one), but having a strategy to tackle the battle is just as, if not more, important.
So comment length answer is: My suspicion here is that the risk of regular small disruptions (similar to evolutionary ideas) is what might make us less vulnerable to bigger revolutionary changes. I'm also unsure how worried we should be about the new equilibrium being worse if we assume we can change it again if need be. This might not be optimal of course, likely unimplementable etc, but its an area we need a thousand ideas on.
Which is fair. (I'm also sticking to comment length replies) I could perhaps add a blog post level reply to my (rapidly growing) backlog of blog posts to write, in which I ascribe the risks I see for minor and major disruptions. It's certainly an arena that seems underdiscussed to me.
I wonder if this has applications for economic equality.
I had a section on it actually and took it out because didn't want it to get too politicised. But gist is yes. Matthew effect is very strong there.
yeah stasis sucks for the middle class
Somewhere else I bet you can find this effect is learning and cognition. People who do not learn very well or have fallen out of the habit of taking in new concepts can experience psychological discomfort from indeterminacy: where they have to tolerate an aporia without ascribing binary judgment.