> As the primary net effect of software is to facilitate bureaucratic complexity it is therefor essential that software projects fail
I love this conceptualization of what software is for. But I have the complete opposite moral interpretation.
Unstated is the presumption that bureaucratic complexity is bad. I think increasing it is the goal of society, and ethics constantly demand us to increase it.
For example, it’s easy for banks to simply reject loan applicants who were convicted of felonies. There’s no easy upside: given existing loan approval and repayment processes there’s no clear way to give those loans profitably.
There is a huge social cost to that group lacking access to credit though. It increases crime and violence.
And there is probably a long term financial cost too: some felons will reliably make their payments. And still more COULD reliably make payments with the right support.
So how does a bank separate out those groups and provide that support?
Increase bureaucratic complexity!
I am not necessarily in favor of locating that complexity in a state government. As an anarchist I would want to locate it as close to the affected community as possible....
But to me the dream of software is nearly infinite bureaucratic complexity that affords all of us greater freedom, and health.
> So how does a bank separate out those groups and provide that support?
Isn't it a bureaucracy that provided the information about felons in the first place? Not saying that interest in information is invalid, I am just doubtful about the solution.
Interesting take. Another good reason for increasing bureaucratic complexity, especially in power structures, is so that it will serve as a tarpit for megalomaniacs. The EU is probably one of the best examples of this.
To quote a relevant passage: "Anarchism is a process whereby authority and domination is being replaced with non-hierarchical, horizontal structures, with voluntary associations between human beings."
If bureaucratic complexity is the complexity of the structures that organize our society, its existence is entirely consistent with an anarchist society. The structures would no longer be hierarchal, but anarchism makes no claim that organization (or the complexity associated with it) shouldn't exist.
From my understanding, Anarchists look at an power structure and ask how does it legitimize it's existence. If it was put in place by the people and not some unaccountable body, then it is ok to have it, otherwise it needs to be dismantled and or replaced. (This is a very, very simplified look at a very narrow aspect of anarchism of course.)
For example a lot of decisions in Anarchist communities will be driven by arriving at consensus of all concerned by the decision, instead of a "mob rule of the majority" like in Democratic voting process.
The way you arrive at the decision is a bureaucratic process if you will, that the community has agreed upon.
I love this conceptualization of what software is for. But I have the complete opposite moral interpretation.
Unstated is the presumption that bureaucratic complexity is bad. I think increasing it is the goal of society, and ethics constantly demand us to increase it.
For example, it’s easy for banks to simply reject loan applicants who were convicted of felonies. There’s no easy upside: given existing loan approval and repayment processes there’s no clear way to give those loans profitably.
There is a huge social cost to that group lacking access to credit though. It increases crime and violence.
And there is probably a long term financial cost too: some felons will reliably make their payments. And still more COULD reliably make payments with the right support.
So how does a bank separate out those groups and provide that support?
Increase bureaucratic complexity!
I am not necessarily in favor of locating that complexity in a state government. As an anarchist I would want to locate it as close to the affected community as possible....
But to me the dream of software is nearly infinite bureaucratic complexity that affords all of us greater freedom, and health.