dillekant

I think there's definitely an element of "the people in charge know what to do", or that it's a transient problem, not one which locks us into effort for centuries.

The forces at play are far greater than you realize in scope and scale

I know it's a turn of phrase but you don't know me. I realise the scope and scale of how the world works, thanks.

Your pitching

The future you want

You're assuming a lot given what I've said. It's not an "in effect" thing either. You talk about actual systems in a way which invokes Gandalf magic when they work like Penn and Teller magic. You assume the article and any defense of it is naive, but you're missing the simple reality that sometimes you can simply remove huge amounts of complexity and get a better result.

The internet, for example, is not magic. There were several competing communication protocols, from circuit switched systems to fax to pagers. The internet is able to do all of those jobs, and it is a simpler system than the ones which existed in the past. It moved some complexity around, and therefore removed a bunch of complexity which was unnecessary.

This increase in simplicity is also called the second industrial revolution.

Simplification is always regressive and backwards.

Perhaps you prefer the term decomplecting? Complexity is an overloaded term, but you literally follow up "simplification as a regressive thing" with a bunch of simplification which is effective. Since we are sharing reading lists, perhaps a bit of Dr Fatima and Think that Through on Youtube might help you. It's clear you do not understand the article nor my points.

The world without complexity was only able to feed around 2 billion humans

Bold claim. Why do you think complexity itself can improve efficiency? I can easily tank efficiency by adding complexity. Complexity also necessarily destroys resilience. Every time we've tried adding complexity, all of those societies disappear, from ancient Egypt to Rome to the Incans.

Often it's a bit difficult to make an abstract point out of examples. You seem to be countering those examples with today's zeitgeist, the exact thing the article is looking to counter.

The person decided this was the normal they wanted and where they chose to live.

This would be true if all else were equal, but it isn't. Society built roads. It had to tear down housing to build the roads. The house prices went up because corporations bought up the housing stock and are using it to manipulate rents. None of that was the "choice" of the farmer. One cannot just opt out. "oh no thanks. I'll just take efficient public transport and we can just rip up the road network. Just give me one of the houses we build through more dense development."

Things are going to increase in complexity unless civilization collapses

Why? Many folks today are talking about making society resilient over efficient, with respect to COVID and supply chains. This is a direct ask for reducing complexity. The 15 minute city is an ask to reduce complexity. Complex societies fail.

Ultimately, the issue is cultural.

The issue is hegemony. Every company claiming to benefit you are building a fiefdom and you are the bricks. You can work around it but you have to beat the products and services you buy into submission. This is true of phones, computers, cars, TVs, subscriptions, AI, and increasingly how it asks more and more of us. People say "the things we own end up owning us" but no one says that about a fridge, or a washing machine.

If there was a word for "genius" but for being a good person instead of smart, she would be that.

mmmm Tomacco...

Overall the issue is that they're not a "like" technology for ICE cars. The transition won't happen without regulation. In Norway the vast majority of new car sales are EVs. China too has basically moved straight to EV infrastructure rather than ICE. It can be done but the government has got to do the job. In countries where they are unwilling to, this isn't going to work.

The olive oil is an example.

I'd like to fix climate change instead?

Honestly I think walking in with a friendly way to explain climate science to a layperson is a bad strategy with politicians. They should come with full technical details and use precise scientific terms. Expect politicians to learn that shit if they want to argue.

Seen this in olive oil prices. It's already happening.

Idiots don't realise that hurricanes are controlled from Australia, from pine gap.