Stafford Beer’s cybernetics tells us that in these cases, while people’s opinions are important, the facts of the organisational outcomes are what we need to work with. In his most pithy formulation of the principle, he expands the black box principle to a rather more uncomfortable statement.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

And this story repeats itself through the history of management science; almost every classic of the literature seems to have described a way of adapting systems to a more complicated world, and then to have become obsolete itself. If you look past the slogans and think about what things like ‘management by objectives’, ‘focus on core competences’ and so on actually mean, they are all different ways of advising executives to restructure their businesses so that they don’t generate complexity faster than it can be managed.

There’s one sense in which the recording engineers’ maxim is more applicable, though. These are problems of human organisation, and the overwhelming majority of environmental variety of created by humans. The knowledge that something is an organisational problem means that the source of its complexity is the human beings in the organisation. That, in turn, means that the human beings in the organisation have sufficient variety and capability to match the complexity of the problem; the problem can’t be bigger than them, because their own misdirected efforts created it. Only problems that aren’t cybernetic can genuinely be insoluble.*

*One implication of this proposition is that it gives us a rigorous deduction of what would constitute environmental Armageddon — it’s the singularity point at which the problem of climate change ceases to be soluble purely by changing human behaviour and organisation.

A maximising system involves defining an objective function, and throwing away all the other information. Sooner or later, the environment is going to change, and something which isn’t in the information set any more is going to lead the system into destruction.

Consequently,

Every decision-making system set up as a maximiser needs to have a higher-

Level system watching over it.

If every maximising system has to have a higher-level system governing it (to make sure it doesn’t go bonkers), then that logically implies that the top level of any decision-making system that’s meant to operate autonomously can’t be a maximiser. And so, the governing philosophy of the overall economic system can’t be based on the constrained optimisation methodology that’s currently dominant in the subject of economics. Otherwise there’s a risk that the system will go bonkers, and that it will start pushing maximising objectives, oblivious to the danger that it’s on course for making human life impossible. Like it actually has done.