The amusing contrast and fond alignment between nature's & human work
Tags: opinion, complexity, architecture, rant
Published: 2022-02-02 16:17:42

**Disclaimer:** When I started writing this I did not intend for it to end suggesting a [Singularity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity), but some readers might find some of it in this 🤷

This post, rather than opinion, is a minuscule meditation.

![Image description](https://dev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/articles/lr51xg22bptshtxvvmka.jpg)

There's a certain amusing contrast between nature's and humankind's work.

When looking at them; they seem to flow in opposite directions.

The behavior of natural systems’ outer layers are simpler, or rather, more predictable than their inner layers. For example: A tree growing can be the outer layer of the photosynthesis process. Other examples of natural systems are any other living species.

Artificial systems on the other hand, start with basic & predictable principles which build complexity until they’re tangible. For example: Globally distributed computing can be the outer layer of binary state traveling over a network. Other examples or artificial systems are scissors and spoken language.

Nature's details are **more complex** than the phenomena it creates. Artifact details are **simpler** than the phenomena it creates. This contrast becomes amusing when realizing us humans are just _yet another_ "predictable" outcome from nature's complexity: 

It's as if nature's complexity is funneled through us, living beings, and we funnel our accumulated simplicity through artificial creations into complexity.

"Outer layer" in this context means the appreciable or evident side effect of a not-so-evident cause.

> It's as if nature's complexity is funneled through us, living beings, and we funnel our accumulated simplicity through artificial creations into complexity. - [Tweet this](https://ctt.ac/XS13I) 

Although amusing, fixing to this thinking is also rather naive; because 1.- The thesis holds only for simple machines, and:

2.- Further study of nature itself can also lead to simpler concepts. **Note:** I don't understand science the way a scientist does, but I know that, for what it's worth, it's possible to eventually arrive at simpler components such as elementary particles (i.e. _bits_ of matter).

When thinking about it this way, it's possible to go from amusement to excitement and wonder:

Extrapolating the complexity of photosynthesis to the complexity of global compute opens the door to think about the emergence of something _beyond compute_. This nature/artifact comparison suggests the prospect of the emergence of simpler-looking yet more powerful (or rather, meaningful) phenomena. Much like going from photosynthesis to beautiful growing trees.

One can argue we already witnessed this with the advent of e-commerce, social networking and businesses technological transformation; but even now big commerce and social aggregators continue to find a way to reinvent their products. Internet is about the perpetual enmeshing and automation of processes which lead to optimization and novel phenomena.

> This nature/artifact comparison suggests the prospect of the emergence of simpler-looking yet more powerful (or rather, meaningful) phenomena. - [Tweet this](https://ctt.ac/aecd2)

It goes without saying that this phenomena is yet to be discovered (or even emerge) and we take part in influencing and manifesting it into reality.

Anyways, perhaps I'm mixing things up, but can't help and appreciate the perspective; I hope it is to your entertainment as well.

'til next time

**Published:** 2022-02-02