Making solutions impossible by using better tools

One of the points made by Chowderhead in his recent outstanding post is that as computer processors and memory become cheaper and faster, the value of elegant and efficient programming is decreased. Programmers use lots of inefficient loops and subroutines because they can – the computers are so good, they can run even big sloppy code and do it very quickly and precisely. His point caught my eye, because I think this phenomenon is happening today in lots and lots of areas of modern life.

Rather than thinking of processing speed, think of money. Imagine a problem. Imagine how you would go about fixing that problem. Then, imagine how you would fix that problem if you had unlimited money. Fixing it with unlimited money would cost more, of course. Why not? Just like a programmer writing code for a really fast computer. Who cares, right? But my point is that the fix with unlimited money will probably not be better than the fix with a tight budget. In fact, it’s likely to be worse, in much the same way as unlimited processing power leading to sloppy programming.

In my field, many believe that they can match the quality of care provided by a brilliant physician, simply with a nurse practitioner and a CT machine. And it’s true to certain degree – even if the NP lacks experience and talent, if she has enough high-tech diagnostic tools available, she can pick up pneumonias, etc that she might have missed otherwise. But there are problems with this approach.

Following guidelines and protocols, and doing lots & lots of tests, can lead to lots of wild goose chases that a more experienced and intuitive physician could probably have avoided. Plus, his patients won’t all be glowing in the dark from all the X-rays, CTs, and Lord knows what else every time they get sick. His intuition takes years to accumulate, but is cheaper than doing MRIs on everybody with a cough. And he will naturally be better at taking into account individual differences, rather than treating patients as epidemiologic groups. He can avoid a lot of mistakes and unnecessary tests & drugs simply by using his head. And his experience and his knowledge base and his judgement.

But imagine you work for Medicare. And imagine you want to improve America’s healthcare. You have admirable goals, but the only tool you have at your disposal is great big towering piles of money. That’s the only tool you have.

More money is unlikely to lead to better medical care, just as faster processors are unlikely to lead to better programming.

Now consider one last thing: In absolutely everything the government does – from the military, to healthcare, to schools, to managing pandemics, to foreign policy, to social programs, to absolutely everything else – the government is attempting to fix a problem, and the only tool at its disposal is great big towering piles of money. That’s the only tool they have.

The failures of government programs are not due to malice or incompetence. The failures of government programs are simply inevitable.

All government can do is throw more money at the problem. Which means the problem can’t be fixed. At least, it can’t be fixed well. There is no other way.

Lots of people, from Milton Friedman to Winston Churchill to Joe Rogan, have touched on this concept. But none said it better than Chowderhead.

Better computers make programmers worse. More government money makes society worse.

There is no other way.