Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I can't really wrap my head around the notion of "addressing systemic problems on a systemic level" in the first place? How is it possible to act singularly with respect to the macro-equilibrium of a system that is by definition the product of intersecting micro-level behaviors?

The notion of acting systemically - rather than merely observing the emergent patterns that the system reflects - seems to be almost a kind of creationist mentality: you need to posit some sort of demiurge that is external to the system, and can therefore treat the system as a singular entity that can be manipulated as an engineer would manipulate the overall parameters of a machine he was working on. But there doesn't appear to exist any such demiurge in real life; human individuals and insitutions are limited to shifting their own particular micro-level behaviors. So how is it even meaningful to speak of acting directly against a complex system's macro-level equilibrium?

The big fallacy of modern political ideologies is to equate the particular insitutions of politics with the emergent equilibrium of society at large. The political state is just another micro-level input into the overall pattern; casting it into the role of a demiurge, and charging it with tweaking the parameters of the macro-level social system generally always leads to failures in the form of unattained goals and unintended consequences.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: