On creation vs. persistence:
Things that _come into being_ are very often the result of a single person or champioon, even in joint or collaborative projects, but also solo.
Things that _remain in existence_ are the result of adoption by some group, cause, organisation, or culture. Even vigorously championed creations can fade entirely once their initial creators have passed.
It's less about the starting up than the not-shutting-down.
Much of the inertia and irrationality around large institutions is, I think actually this _persistence machinery_ in action. The parts which seem so often wasteful or inefficient seem to be the same parts which ensure that the mission persists.
Related: when designing systems, *especially* social or political ones, keep in mind what WILL happen when control falls to adversaries who wish either to corrupt or dismantal it. Build in resilience, support, and integrity.
Institutions with robust mechanisms for acception and rejection effectively have a digestive system -- some things get filtered out, the rest becomes part of the group or connected to it.
Sadly, rejection mechanisms are seldom used in most governments I see; the futile scrabbling by the elites to the last thread of the emperor's robe. Usually The Government Was Right In The End is the party line until there's no party left.
Most organizations make me despair for humanity. 😔
@sydneyfalk Since I've been reading about Spinoza of late, he's an example.
Philosopher, excommunicated from his religious and cultural community, _itself_ a diaspora of a diaspora culture. Questioned almost all sacred cows of his time. No family. Died at age 44.
And yet his major work was passed on, after his death, to a publisher, and established him as among the greatest philosophers of all time. Not _quite_ household-name status, but pretty close.
Generalistic and moderated instance.