Why efficiency is the basis of synergy
In the definition I propose of a synergetic design, 7 criteria are retained: efficiency, accessibility, transparency, predictability, simplicity, reversibility and contentment.
These criteria have been named in this way in order to make it easy for the greatest number of people to understand the axioms on which my work and the notion of synergetic design is based.
However, in theory I could have just talked about efficiency, because when you push this idea as far as possible, the other criteria appear by themselves. Here is why:
From accessibility to efficiency
In order for any solution to get from state A to state B in the most efficient way, the implementation of the solution must first be efficient. Basing this solution on scarce resources implies that it will be a solution that is not very reproducible, and therefore needs to spend time on designing a process with extremely limited use.
If it is a technically reproducible but very expensive solution, it will not be reproducible by many people and will remain limited in its application and therefore, again, the effort spent in designing it will have led to it being applied only in a limited and occasional way.
If the solution is easy to realize and inexpensive, but is based on locked patents, it will not automatically be ineffective, but it will run the risk of not being functional in the future. For example, if the patent owner restricts the use of the patent, the proposed solution would become unusable.
Keeping a solution accessible by design is therefore the most effective approach.
From transparency to efficiency
A solution that we don't know all the ins and outs of may be effective on the surface, but we can't determine if it can't be made even more effective.
Nor is it completely fixable, because its design limits the interventions needed to make it work and optimize it. There is therefore a significant risk of loss of efficiency, or even outright waste.
It can also involve unknown elements that serve unsynergetic purposes, such as collecting billions of data via smartphone applications full of trackers, which then leads to energy waste and political uses potentially opposed to synergetic design.
Transparency of a solution is therefore the best way to maximize its effectiveness.
From predictability to efficiency
A solution with non-predictable outcomes risks producing non-synergetic effects, either because its design allows third parties to take advantage of the solution to push non-synergetic activities without the users' knowledge, or because the design of the solution itself produces unsynergetic events (that could be called chaotic).
There is a probability that unexpected events will turn out to be more synergetic than expected, but this means that there is room for improvement in the solution. Consequently, this solution should be improved and the unexpected phenomena finally explained and made predictable.
This predictability, like the other criteria, is for the largest number of people. A solution that is totally predictable but only by a small portion of the people involved in its creation and use restricts its possibilities of improvement, adaptation and favors its monopolization and consequently the disappearance of the other criteria (transparency, accessibility, etc.).
The predictability of a solution is therefore the best way to guarantee its effectiveness.
From simplicity to efficiency
A complex solution tends to limit its use and its improvement by the greatest number of people. It is therefore detrimental to its optimization and adaptation.
A solution so complex that only a small portion of people could really understand it (like a computer) favors its technical monopolization and, in addition limits its own improvement and adaptation, increases the risk of seeing the other criteria disappear, especially predictability, since it would require skills that are difficult or even impossible to acquire for some people with limited intellectual capacity (again, being relevant and being intelligent are two different things).
Moreover, simplifying a system without reducing its function demonstrates a capacity for refinement that is always the sign of a search for efficiency above all, since it reduces to the essential what is necessary to obtain the desired result.
Striving for simplicity is therefore a way to favor efficiency.
From reversibility to efficiency
A non-reversible solution would condemn its components to a single use and would therefore be as wasteful as possible in many cases.
Reversibility also allows us to return to the starting point if we find that the new state we have reached is neither satisfactory nor efficient. This is similar to administering a drug that turns out to have negative side effects. If the body is able to eliminate it so that new, more appropriate care can be given, this means that the drug has a form of reversibility. However, when a vaccine administered causes permanent negative effects, this implies that its reversibility is low or even zero and we suffer from the induced diseases for all our lives without hope of being fully cured.
From a certain duration, everything is reversible in nature. However, the time needed for this reversibility and the way it will take place can generate non-synergetic phenomena and thus largely reduce the effectiveness of the solution used. In the case of vaccines, this can even mean the death of the patient, which is one of the clearest expressions of the non-synergetic nature of a "solution", which in fact is actually not a solution at all but a mistake (if we stick to the context of health, not the business or the political ones, that could lead to a different conclusion).
The reversibility of a solution also means the possibility to reuse its components, including for other solutions. This means that the intrinsic value of one of these components is not limited to its use in a given state, but could contribute to a broader, more sustainable and more versatile efficiency.
A reversible solution therefore guarantees greater efficiency than a non-reversible solution.
(The notion of durability is not a criterion in itself, as there are very effective solutions that are ephemeral, such as mulching one's garden to grow vegetables. However, the reversibility of a solution must be predictable (predictability criterion) because a reversibility that occurs unexpectedly can demonstrate the inefficiency of a solution.)
From contentment to efficiency
This last criterion is the only one that can really challenge the notion of efficiency. But we will see that this is not the case if we keep the view global.
First, let's agree on what contentment is. Because it seems very subjective.
The sources of contentment are indeed very diverse but I consider that an observable effect of contentment in particular can be systematized.
People who experience contentment in contact with elements of the world such as a job, a spirituality, a work of art or more simply an everyday object all show this same sign: the inner confidence that what they are doing is right, no matter whether it is something apparently insignificant or, on the contrary, apparently very significant.
This inner confidence can be conscious or not and, ultimately, it is up to each person to conclude on that matter. It would be rather presumptuous in my opinion to consider that we could identify this confidence without mistake, even if we can observe it to a certain extent.
It can also be a blurred zone where we are not really certain that we are doing is right, and it is ok. It only means that we are not able to tell how much content we are about it.
But I clearly distinguish it from other behaviors that tend to show forms of compulsion, addiction, diversion or palliation. Most of the time, when we take the time to dig a bit, even the people involved admit that they are not happy with it and show a serious lack of confidence when it comes to keep going with that kind of habits. Conversely, people that are genuinely content with something express a strong confidence when it comes to keep it as it is.
However, the design of an element that gives us authentic contentment doesn’t seem necessarily efficient. What about a painting for example? Can we say that it is or is not effective? Can the very notion of efficiency be applied to everything?
Yes. In fact, what prevents most people from doing so is the narrow view of what synergy means.
Designs that are considered effective are always so in the narrow context of the use of that design: a screwdriver, a car, a toaster. But this is a fundamental mistake. For a true synergetic design will seek to satisfy all criteria in a wider context than just the object itself.
For example, a toaster can only be considered synergetic in the context to which it belongs. Like: are the characteristics of the energy it requires compatible with the ways in which this energy is produced where it will be used? Are the screws that hold its components together interchangeable with the ones of other tools in its environment? Could I take apart my kettle to replace the resistance of my toaster?
How well does the design of this toaster fit into my world in an efficient, accessible, transparent, predictable, simple, reversible and satisfying way?
So, let’s get back to our painting.
It may possess in itself the efficiency to evoke a feeling that is precious to me, amongst other things maybe that I could ignore. I could feel this efficiency, not in a mathematical way, but I could attest that this painting is more efficient in bringing me contentment than another one.
Is this painting a waste of time and material? What about the person who did it? It is hard to tell but we can assume that, if he did it, it brought him something valuable for him one way or another.
And this is the beauty of contentment, you can’t totally predict it for everyone as we are not all the same. Therefore, it opens synergetic design to the diversity of needs and tastes.
Maybe you could think that it breaks the notion of efficiency. If many communities around the world need different kinds of design, it will reduce for example the global reversibility of it, since it could lead to different types of components, that could not be interchangeable with each other (like the differences that exist between some English tools and the rest of Europe).
It is indeed, mathematically speaking, an obstacle to efficiency through standardization but it is not a defect, because exclusive standardization is not desirable.
Nature is not united, it is diverse. The diversity of opinions and tastes favors creativity, competition, questioning and therefore opens the door to improvements. We may not industrialize the world in a unique way, but that is not a disadvantage since by doing so, we leave room for innovation and contentment. This does not mean that they will come by themself, it simply means that we allow them to be.
Nothing is more limitating than a one-track thinking.
Moreover, and this is a fundamental point: when we push beings in a direction that deep down they do not want (i.e. when a solution does not bring genuine contentment), it strikes back, sooner or later. And it is a natural fact. Actions have consequences.
Thus, if we force technical efficiency on the world to the detriment of cultural yearnings and simply tastes and desires, we sow the seeds of a backlash that will allow events whose real energy balance will ultimately be high. In other words, forcing synergetic design is not synergetic. And I volontarily make here a paradox but we will see further that it is actually a matter of context.
This is why contentment and efficiency are in fact very closely linked and that favoring one generally leads to favoring the other.
Ok, now: what about a search for contentment that would contradict the other criteria mentioned? How, for example, can a need for confidentiality be reconciled with the criterion of transparency? Or a desire for the unexpected with the criterion of predictability?
Let's take the example of a community that develops a defensive weapon that gives a tactical advantage and whose operation is unknown to its enemies. It is better for this community not to disclose its plans, of course. But wouldn't this contradict the criterion of transparency?
In fact, this is where the limits of synergetic design must be set. The context in which we create things is essential. And, just as there may be creations that we would like to make for anyone on Earth, there may be inventions that we wish to reserve for our own community. This is the way it is, and I would even say that it is natural.
That is why the evaluation of the synergy of the design needs to be done according to the community for which this design is intended. It can be oneself, a family, a village, a country, the world but also a religion, a fanclub, a brotherhood, etc.
Transparency, simplicity, accessibility and other criteria will therefore be measured in terms of the context to which they relate.
Is it then possible that what pleases one community displeases another? Of course, and that is some of the basic dynamics of human history. And there is nothing we can do about it.
It is also possible that what seems to be a not very synergetic solution in a broad view, could actually be in the narrow context in which this solution has been developed (like an emergency for instance or a small community).
The fact is, if we do not set any context, we could create events where our synergetic solutions could make us face very unsynergetic ones, like if we share weapon plans with another community that decides to use it to destroy us.
This is why context is essential, to decide exactly where the efficiency of our design should go and why the synergetic quality of a design should only be considered against a context.
To summarize
Every criterion can be expressed through the lens of efficiency
Efficiency, when understood in the extensive way, leads to synergetic design
The context of a design is the prerequisite to evaluate its real synergy
This means that correctly defining the context of the design we intent to create is the first step to make it as synergetic as possible.