I read somewhere that the reason for juvenile T-rexes taking over the "mid-sized predator" niche is because they were essentially different animals (in terms of body build) from adult T-rexes. The adult is basically huge and powerful but not all that fast, while the juvenile is near as tall and long but much more lightly built and fast, making it suited for taking down smaller prey. Modern day predators don't have such a marked difference during their teenage years as far as I know, so maybe that's a key reason too.
So, what I'm hearing is "Legible, widespread changes are good for avoiding overly optimized systems?" I suppose that on some level, that begs the question: Are overly optimized systems actually bad? But even assuming they are, this lends itself to suggesting that regular (or even frequent) failures of various established systems is actually good for society, something I am dubious about at best. I suspect that what we really want is stuff that shakes up systems we don't like, while leaving the ones that function well alone... and I'm not sure there's a way to manage that. That falls into a magical selection criteria for Black Swans which I don't think anyone can actually filter for.
Somewhere else I bet you can find this effect is learning and cognition. People who do not learn very well or have fallen out of the habit of taking in new concepts can experience psychological discomfort from indeterminacy: where they have to tolerate an aporia without ascribing binary judgment.
I read somewhere that the reason for juvenile T-rexes taking over the "mid-sized predator" niche is because they were essentially different animals (in terms of body build) from adult T-rexes. The adult is basically huge and powerful but not all that fast, while the juvenile is near as tall and long but much more lightly built and fast, making it suited for taking down smaller prey. Modern day predators don't have such a marked difference during their teenage years as far as I know, so maybe that's a key reason too.
So, what I'm hearing is "Legible, widespread changes are good for avoiding overly optimized systems?" I suppose that on some level, that begs the question: Are overly optimized systems actually bad? But even assuming they are, this lends itself to suggesting that regular (or even frequent) failures of various established systems is actually good for society, something I am dubious about at best. I suspect that what we really want is stuff that shakes up systems we don't like, while leaving the ones that function well alone... and I'm not sure there's a way to manage that. That falls into a magical selection criteria for Black Swans which I don't think anyone can actually filter for.
I wonder if this has applications for economic equality.
Somewhere else I bet you can find this effect is learning and cognition. People who do not learn very well or have fallen out of the habit of taking in new concepts can experience psychological discomfort from indeterminacy: where they have to tolerate an aporia without ascribing binary judgment.