This makes an important point, but the writing rubs me the wrong way. Might be that rot has not much to do with thermodynamics, so invoking thermodynamics strikes me as pretentious.
The issue is a classic one of centralisation - centralised power structures don't have any special resistance to corruption. The corruption is amplified so the results are more catastrophic.
I'm not sure what the theory of people advocating centralisation is on how this will be resisted. Possibly they believe because the results are worse, more people will try to stop them happening. I haven't seen evidence that works.
> I'm not sure what the theory of people advocating centralisation is on how this will be resisted.
Whenever I see political discussion about centralization vs diversification when you look into details it's usually actually about "diversification and centralization both, but on what level".
For example people who want "Europe of nations" with less EU integration and more national independence are usually also supporting strongly centralized nation-states and weak or non-existent regional autonomy inside them. And people who support strong EU integration and international organizations overseeing national governments usually also support far-reaching diversification on regional level inside each country.
So in both models you have things that are set in stone and centralized, and things that are left to change freely, it's just on different levels, and what people label centralization vs diversification is mostly about political marketing.
Complexity explains a lot of it. Complexity is feedback-based dealing with its consequences (i.e., understanding complex things and working with complex rather than simple things) gradually consumes more and more resources until the business becomes untenable. Pushing back against complexity is what an architect does.
>Yes, thermodynamics says that all structures will eventually decay down to a small set consistent with max entropy. But what about long before then?
Thermodynamics says that all structures will eventually evolve towards a massive set containing all situations in which the structure has broken down. And the reason that it evolves toward that state is because it is massive, there are simply so many ways for it to break down.
I belong to APCU, the Association of Personal Computer Users... the group was formed to help people adjust to using IBM compatible person computers, now desktops are on their way out, everyone knows how to use computers as part of literacy, and all our members are aging out of "Outside".
Many companies, organizations, etc. were founded to address an issue that no longer exists, and unless they find a new worthwhile cause, they will eventually be subverted, or fade away.
The issue is a classic one of centralisation - centralised power structures don't have any special resistance to corruption. The corruption is amplified so the results are more catastrophic.
I'm not sure what the theory of people advocating centralisation is on how this will be resisted. Possibly they believe because the results are worse, more people will try to stop them happening. I haven't seen evidence that works.