Comment by jmcqk6 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmcqk6 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> In absolute terms, our ancestors lived much much simpler lives and somehow managed to survive.

The quality of life was radically different, and they didn't live as long.

The complexity we see today exists for a reason, or really, a multitude of reasons. Would it be nice if things weren't as complex? Definitely, but do we have any reason to believe that you can have a world-wide distribution network of goods without this complexity? I would be very interested to hear any argument that this is possible, but I don't think it exists.

It is certainly possible to simplify some things in isolation, but the complexity we see is the product of billions of humans interacting with different governing and power structures, cultures, monetary systems, value systems, and more. So any simplification would demand a simplification of those systems. How realistic is that? How desirable is that?

Of course I wasn't suggesting that we should all give up and live in caves or something. It's not a binary choice. I refuse to believe that the way our world, society, and lives currently work is the best it could possibly be, because it seriously sucks. There's got to be a way to improve and simplify the system incrementally.

Also, I dispute the idea that simpler societies have lower absolute quality of life in every way. Having lived part of my life with an isolated tribal society, there are definitely pros and cons. (A close knit community is one huge pro that I really really miss.) Instead of a blind "our complex systems are better just because they are" I think we should step back and take actual stock of the costs and rewards and really ask ourselves, for each individual thing, whether it's worth it.

>Also, I dispute the idea that simpler societies have lower absolute quality of life in every way.

I didn't argue this. I only argued that our ancestors didn't live as long on average as we did.

Nor did I argue that the way things currently are is the best it could possibly be.

I think there is a way for us to improve incrementally, and in some cases that means simplification. But if that simplification does not respect the root causes for the initial complexity, the resulting system will be just as flawed as the current system. That is my point. Complexity is a symptom of the underlying system, and to try to address complexity on it's own without the underlying causes for that complexity will just lead to more pain in the future.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com