Why CONTROL is bad and CHAOS is good

     Do you remember the old "Get Smart" TV show in which 2 agencies, KAOS and CONTROL,

battled it out in 007 like fashion only with Mel Brooks style humor?   I loved that show and all its crazy antics and gags.  Today ,it seems, we have the same agencies at work in our country today only they are not fighting each other with shoe-phones and pen-lazers.  Instead they are fighting each other in the public vs private sector.

    On the one side we have CONTROL (government) and on the other side we have KAOS (private sector).   But unlike the TV show, it's KAOS (in my opinion) that are the good guys and CONTROL that is that bad guys.   Our government has done a good job of indoctrinating us that chaos is bad for our society and that order and control are more palatable and sustainable.   While some manner of regulation is good (to keep the trains running on time),  long-range planning and development are not the public-sectors best qualities.  Whenever the  idea of giving over an area of operation from the government to a private-sector entity, many naysayers will most likely jump and down like a bunch of frogs declaring, "There will be CHAOS if we let that happen! We need the government to have CONTROL of this/that area!"

   But in the long run, chaos is actually better than control.   Take for example, our earth's web-of-life. While there is no over-arching control mechanism (if you believe in evolution) it seems to manage itself quite well.  Sure, millions of species have gone extinct over its billions of years, but things have still progressed.   Chaos allows for nature to develop a myriad of solutions geared to survive/thrive in the most inhospitable places on the planet as each creature is solving a very simple equation:

     Those acquainted with math will know that their are 2 ways to maximize this function.  The first is of course to extend your life span, but the other is to make the energy-used as SMALL as possible.  Of course the 2 factors are also interdependent in many ways.  I can expand my life-span by going to the gym and exercising, but expending too much energy at one time can also end my life if I am not careful.  So also, creation knows that by living longer it provides them more opportunities to create more of their kind and by limiting their energy they can ensure that they provide themselves stored energy for times when food supplies are low.

    Take for example,  the Spadefoot Toad that lives in the Arizona
Desert (yes there are frogs there).  These toads bury themselves in the ground and go into hibernation waiting for the first good rain to happen.  When it does, they are re-activated and come out to mate before the water dries up.  They have adapted their lives to their environment to solve the equation the way no other toad could.

This is what I call:  goal-based-chaos.

    The problem with control-based-systems, is that like a chessboard with an infinite-by-infinite board space you cannot possibly consider all the possibilities and therefore you
cannot play out all possible actions and reactions.  Therefore those in charge must limit their choices to but a handful of moves and only look ahead to 1 or 2 moves.  This short-sighted and limited choice player is doomed to lose against its opponent: the universe.  Imagine yourself playing chess on 100-dimensional chessboard with against 99 players who are not playing against each other, but instead are playing against YOU.  Not only are they playing against you, they have another advantage as well in that hey will out live you too!    What probability do you think you have in winning that game?  Answer: ZERO!   But that is exactly the game you play when trying to control the universe.   Your better option would be to relinquish control and adopt a chaotic-system approach in which it's not just YOU a single person, but instead 6 BILLION (and counting) of you playing at the same time, each for its own advantage but combined have better odds of winning (or at least lasting longer in the game).

     Take for example the issue of education.  We hear many politicians cry that we need to "educate our children for the jobs of the future!".   When they say this they are implying high-tech-computer-driven jobs of course.   They push for computers in every classroom, computer-literacy classes, web-driven-education and the like.  They mandate educational programs like "Common Core" to standardize education for the masses and prepare them for jobs of the future.    Too often, these same politicians view education like a automobile-assembly-line in which employers
at the end of the line receive their "finished product" (your child) ready to work in their corporate kingdom of cubicles.  They act as if they were given crystal ball in which they have stared into the future or something of that matter and can predict what kinds of "workers" our world will need.   But the truth be told, they have no such crystal-ball.  They, like the rest of us, are merely extrapolating what is happening around them today and trying desperately to see the next move on the chessboard. By "standardizing" the education process they are limiting the outcomes in what our children may become.

What will the jobs be in 20 years?   I don't know ... and neither do our politicians.  

      To understand this better, consider the following.  Our planet recently (last summer) came 9 days

away from being struck by a solar-blast that would have sent us back to the early 1800's by wiping our our complete electrical grid and high-tech instruments (satellites, computers,... etc) for a minimum of 5 to 10 years!  (this is not a conspiracy theory as this was reported on all the major news outlets).  This also is not something that has never happened before.  Back in 1859 a solar flare burned out our entire telegraph system.  They did not know it at the time but now we do know that was the cause.    If that had happened today, what would have been the jobs of  the future?   Answer: probably farming (by hand).

     But it won't take a catastrophe either to do us in. Instead, it could be technology itself hitting a dead-end that may change our course.  For example: what happens when Moore's Law comes to an end.    Moore's Law (more of a prediction than a law really) says "The number of transistors on a chip will double every two years".   But no one says that this prediction can go on "forever" since transistors would eventually hit a point where they are only a few atoms in size and at that point their ability to do the job of a "electrical switch" becomes near impossible without it being unreliable. 

 This "law" has been in effect since 1968 since Gordon Moore (founder of Intel) first said it and it is solely responsible for the technological advancement of the last 50 years.  But like all good things, it too must come to an end, as making the transistors smaller and smaller (now 14 billionths of an inch wide) will eventually become too costly and reach its physical limits.    

     What impact will that have in 20 years to jobs?   We don't know.  We may need more programmers to make as much use out of our computer speed/capacity as we will no longer be able to put MORE processors and logic on our chips.   With silicon resources being limited,  putting logic on the chips will become too difficult.  It could be that layout engineers (a 2 year degree) may become more valuable than engineers with 4 year degrees.   Who knows?   What if we train a bunch of people for jobs that are no longer required or needed?   What then?  

      Just like the assembly-line, one of the biggest issues facing manufacturers is how long it takes to shift your production line.   If a product takes a month from beginning to end on the assembly line, changes in customer needs or desires cause mayhem on the production line since countless product already on the conveyor-belt will have to be scrapped when it falls off the end because there is no customer there to receive it.   For products like cars that is fine, but our children are not cars which can be flung aside.

How to win at multi-board Chess

   Back to our illustration of playing a 100-level board game of chess where the other 199 players are out to defeat you.  There are ways to improve your odds of winning the game.  One way would be to

employ 99 extra helpers to watch the other boards and inform you if they are putting themselves in position to take your king and alert you in the advent that is about to happen.  While this method multiplies the number of "eyes" in the game and improves your defense, it does not improve your ability to win the game (offense).  Second it still requires more data to be streamed to a single decision maker who must sift through all the information he is being given to make an "informed" decision.   In this scenario, often the decision maker will segregate his informers into "trusted" and "untrusted" and put more weight on the "trusted" informers.

    Another solution would be to add 99 more chessboards (for a total of 199 boards) and 198 more

players who are on your side (or I should say your TEAMS side) and give them a set of goals to achieve so they may play autonomously from you.

Rule #1: Your king is more important than their king and they     should do everything they can to protect it.  

Rule #2: They should play their board to win against their opponent

Rule #3: If they lose their board (ie their king) they need to stay and  work with the other players to teach them what they did wrong and how your opponent beat you.

   With these sets of goals/rules, you have a goal-based-chaotic system that increases YOUR chances to win without you being the main decision maker.  Each person would be looking out for their own benefit and yours at the same time.

     Our own system of government can also be viewed as a goal-based-chaotic system as well.  Our founders set up a small basic set of rules to follow by supplying us a Constitution and allowing our states to be relatively self-governing.   While those on the "central planning side" of the aisle feel safer with all decisions emanating from a small group of "great thinkers", our system works better because it allows us tailor our laws to meet that groups needs rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. It is also more efficient as it allows less time to be wasted on issues that do not apply to them. For example, states on the coasts can spend time dealing with issues like off-shore-drilling or deep sea fishing rights whereas states in the Midwest can focus their concerns on farming or tornado-disaster-preparation.   In fact, all the states can manage whatever issue is the most concerning for them all at the same time rather than wait their turn to meet with the great-thinkers of the central committee. 

     In conclusion, no one person (or political party) knows what the future holds.   To put all of your eggs in one basket makes as much sense like a single person playing a high-stakes-chess against the universe.  Therefore, we are better off allowing freedom/chaos to reign and make the decisions rather than a small group of  so-called "know-it-all's" do our planning for us who can't see beyond the next election (let alone the next century).  In the end, you are better off to admit you know nothing of the future and plan your own life around being a person who has many abilities that can adapt to whatever the universe throws you tomorrow or the next day.

LET CHAOS REIGN!