I agree with you. Complexity is good only up to a point. Over a certain fairly low level, complexity begins to be complicated and counterproductive. Our society, for example, is way too complex and fragile. We're way too specialized. Our whole system is based on just-in-time. Today each of us knows how to do basically one thing: write books, fix cars, teach school, crunch numbers, do surgery, whatever it is, and that's all we know how to do, which we exchange for this symbolic thing called money which we then exchange for our necessities that are produced by this very complex system. Our limited skills make us absolutely dependent on the system working as a whole. If something goes wrong in that system, our umbilical cord to our necessities is damaged or even broken. However, that farmer in 1940's Idaho can survive quite nicely because his umbilical cord is much less fragile. Ironically, the level of complexity that brings happiness is in terms of U.S. dollars is about $13,000 (three zeros). Above that, complexity begins to be counterproductive. Andy ________________________________ From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:29 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens Arguably on John Brown >>complexity is the opposite of randomness No it isn’t. Complexity need not be complicated and may include certain random factors. Complexity in the sense I am using it is the opposite of “isolated and independent.” Per Bak’s “self-organized criticality” or “sand pile” model of complex adaptive systems is a good example. Check it out. Examples: Complex system going critical = guy forgets camera at airport, goes back inside to get it, jumps through security gate, setting off general alarm that closes the airport, which is an airline hub, so that airport closing causes flight cancellations all over the East Coast. Non-complex system going critical = a farmer in 1940s Idaho forgets his camera and has to go back to his house to get it. He does. End of story.