Struggling somewhat to discern your argument Tom, for, as you put it, “An abundance of noise is defining the true signal.” Or is it “defying?”
It seems you hold the natural world up as an example of simplicity, but is this a kind of essentialism? Contemporary technical, financial, political, social etc systems will only become increasingly complex. It’s what systems do as they develop. Their internal complexity allows them to address increasing possibilities, to communicate and act upon greater inputs, and so on. There is no simplifying these kinds of systems. There is only, possibly, changing the game. But we’ve seen how that works out (deconstructing the deep state = critique lacking any vision of positive and productive alternatives).
I’m curious to see what the carbon valley is about (thought we went through that with the industrial age?). While I like to simplify myself, I think as a movement it can resemble just another form of commodity fetishism. What is it about simplification that is so compelling? Surely more than that it’s a reaction to complexity. (And why the unreflected assumption that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, after which simplification is an answer to innovation?) Why so many complicated sentences, if the idea is so simple?
