The Law of the Conservation of Problems (vanity)

June 3, 2004 | gitmo

[gitmo]

The Law of the Conservation of Problems

We have all used a number of laws describing the nature of the Universe, the nature of Man, and the nature of Society to make sense out of what we experience in everyday life. The Law of Unintended Consequences describes how any given decision can create results that were not in the original plans, even if the decision produced the desired results. The Law of Diminishing Returns describes how actions can produce lessened returns over time. The model I am proposing can explain a lot about the complexity and stress of modern life.

The Law of the Conservation of Problems is simple. Any solution to a problem will create at least as many problems as it solves. It will usually produce many more problems than it solves.

Some examples will make the concept clear. Thomas Edison invented a device that would produce clean, clear light. It required less effort to illuminate than candles or gas lanterns, and was less likely to produce fires. However, the introduction of the light bulb introduced a large number of new problems. Light bulb factories had to be produced, and distribution networks formed. Electric lines had to be run to locations that would use the new light. And electrical generators had to be built to supply the power for the new lights. People had to be educated about the dangers of this invisible power in their homes. Electricians had to be trained, building standards had to be updated, and society had to figure out how to deal with the number of night-owls now in their midst. The streets were suddenly lined with new eyesores: power poles and electric lines were strung all over the place. Trees had to be trimmed to keep them from falling on the fragile lines. Etcetera, etcetera.

You can try this exercise for the Salk vaccine, the War on Terror, or the microcomputer. It is obvious that the law holds. Every solution generates more new problems than it solves.

If The Law of the Conservation of Problems proves true, why then do we bother to solve problems? Doesn't the law dictate that we will make things worse? The answer is simple: "No". A successful solution will generate problems whose aggregate magnitudes are less than the magnitude of the original problem. In the case of the Salk vaccine, it is obvious that the problems of painful shots, of guaranteeing the quality of the vaccines, of tracking the vaccination records of American children, of manufacturing and distributing the vaccine, and of the occasional reactions to the vaccine are much less magnitude than the polio epidimic. The Salk vaccine was a resounding success.

Likewise, the introduction of the automobile created a large number of new problems, including the fact that sparking teenagers could quickly get far from mom and dad. But the magnitude of those problems is decidedly less than the problems of dealing with horses (and smelling their exaust).

But the Law of the Conservation of Problems also predicts another issue. As mankind develops and solves more and more problems, society will become increasingly complex. We all occasionally pine for the simpler times of the past, until we look at the problems linked to those times. The days of our grandfathers seems simple, relaxed, easy compared to our own. But then we think about visiting the outhouse in the middle of a winter night, we think about the terror of polio, rabies and small pox. We think about chopping wood EVERY DAY to heat the house. We have traded problems for complexity.

The multitudes of new problems created by past solutions creates an increasingly complex society. This leads to increasing stress. But life is easier.

[gitmo]

Hopefully an amusing break from the ordinary.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Maybe the creation of problems follows the same rules as fractals in chaos theory?