Optimization

Maximum efficiency is not just impossible, but destructive.

The concept of full optimization often emerges as a goal across domains, from business operations to personal development. However, this quest for the ultimate state of optimization not only proves to be an impossibility. Even worse, it tends to damage or even kill systems. The natural world, with its evolutionary processes, offers clues into why total optimization is a misguided aspiration.

Good Enough for Nature

Evolution, the fundamental process that shapes life, operates not on principles of perfection but on the concept of "good enough." Natural systems, through evolutionary mechanisms, do not strive for flawless optimization. Instead, they adapt and evolve in ways that are sufficient for survival and reproduction.

The result is often a mix of efficiency, redundancy, and what might be termed 'junk' in their genetic makeup. This 'junk'—noncoding DNA once considered useless—plays a crucial role in the resilience and adaptability of organisms. It's a reservoir of potential, a source of genetic variability that can be crucial for survival under changing environmental conditions.

This lack of full optimization in natural systems is not a flaw but a feature. It allows for flexibility and adaptability, qualities essential for survival in an ever-changing world. In contrast, systems that are fully optimized are often fragile. They are tailored to specific conditions and lack the buffer to absorb shocks or adapt to new circumstances. When conditions change, as they inevitably do, these optimized systems can fail spectacularly.

Human Optimization

In business, the pursuit of full optimization can lead to similar vulnerabilities. Over-optimized supply chains, for instance, can become highly susceptible to disruptions. In the quest to eliminate every inefficiency, companies may remove the very redundancies that provide a cushion against unforeseen events.

Global disruptions in stock markets, international trade, and other large-scale complex systems have highlighted the perils of over-optimization. Businesses with more flexible, less 'optimized' operations often fared better in adapting to new challenges, underscoring the value of resilience over maximum efficiency. Those organizations that optimize down to the bare minimum often find themselves in dangerous territory when the world goes sideways, as they don't have the adaptive resources to respond.

Obsession with optimization in personal development—every minute accounted for, every activity maximized for productivity—can lead to burnout and a lack of creativity. The most innovative and fulfilling human endeavors often arise from spaces that are not fully optimized, from time spent not in pursuit of productivity but in exploration, relaxation, and play. These 'inefficiencies' are vital for creativity, mental health, and sustained productivity over the long term.

Full optimization as an idea assumes a level of predictability and control that simply does not exist in complex systems. Whether in ecological, economic, or social systems, the interplay of countless variables creates a landscape of uncertainty and flux. In such environments, the ability to adapt and evolve is more valuable than the ability to perform optimally under a narrow set of conditions.

While optimization is undoubtedly a useful goal in certain contexts, the pursuit of full optimization is both impractical and undesirable. Natural systems, through their evolutionary lifecycles, demonstrate the value of redundancy, flexibility, and the 'good enough' principle.

Leaving room for adaptability, creativity, and resilience is not just a concession to the limits of optimization; it's a strategic and holistic approach to winning in a world defined by complexity and change.