Fighting people is harder than overcoming nature: why large organisations fail

I saw the Russian movie Salyut 7 movie in which a team of 2 Russians cosmonauts try to fix orbital station with same name.
Problems in cosmos are man made, we went where we are not suppose to be, with our faulty technology.
In the movie fighting communist bureaucrats was harder than to sent 2 people in space.
Alexis de Toquevile said in 1812 work "About democracy in America" that USA will overcome Russia because in USA you fight mostly with nature, while in Russia you fight against people.
Overcoming nature is easy, nature is honest, measurable, it doesn't have a position to protect, it doesn't blame on you, it is punishing you fairly if you make stupid mistakes.If an organisation is hierarchical complex, more time and effort you dedicate to politics, and more you trade off safety and technical craftsmanship for political gains to forward the project.
Kennedy had to make some facilittes in Houston TX to "bribe" Texas senators to support his space program.
Another example where political compromise had affected safety is Challenger who was launched regardless of engineering warnings because of political pressure.
Another one is Boeing 737 Max, in which management didn't ensured the safety of the plane for desire to make profits.
We can discuss the morality of  these decisions where people caved in to the pressure, despite the fact that they didn't risk deportation in Siberia.
It seems that regardless of the political system (dictatorship in URSS,democracy in USA) the organisations too big to fail make serious blunders.
The reasons is two fold:
First: they are powerful organisations and their management wasn't challenged enough. Prussian army during Bismarck was a new army and had to fight stronger opponents. The German army during WW1 was respected army and failed.
Bankers till 2008 were not challenged seriously by a crisis.
Second: concentration of power. Economies of scale and military power concentrate power in hands of few people that are unchallenged. So a bad decision is transmitted to lower level and the company crashes with terrible force.
Solution? Make things smaller an multiples as in this article.
The democracies are more robust than absolute monarchies because the leadership is shared, and limited.
The death of the king plunged the country in a civil war, the death's of Lincoln,McKinley and Kennedy didn't affect very much the american democracy.

Natural cybersecurity

The scandal of cybersecurity with Huawei made me think more about it.
The power of IT business is that if you find a solution you scale it fast.
But the weakness is that you have an error you scale it fast.
Life is scaling fast without cyber security problems, because the existence of death.
Think at a organic virus as a cyber attack. Virus enters in a host use its resources to replicate then moves to the next host,but the most greedy viruses kill their host and don't replicate.
So the epidemic dies off. The death of the host select also more "benign" viruses.
It seems that today plague,leprosy or syphilis they are less dangerous as their medieval ancestors.
What if we could implement the cell death in our chips?
Let's say that we can implement a monitor (internal or external)  that shut down devices if they are behaving strangely and reroutes the flow of information toward other devices.
The acts will have local limited impact.
But the danger is an autoimmune reaction in which protection measures could block the network.
Maybe an random reaction will limit  the capacity of an attacker to use the protection against the network.
For sure you will need hardware redundancy and this will increase costs.
But you can have also a software redundancy by using 3 different kernels using different data sources and making an arbitrage between result of the kernels.
If all the actors will adhere to security standard protocol, the 5G development will be more secure.

About identity

I just a watched a Joe Rogan podcast with Eddie Izzard, a comedian that I like for his smart jokes.
For my surprise I found out that he oscillates between being a man and a woman.
I heard about people who felt that they were a woman in male body or vice versa, but never about a person that changes its gender monthly.
That made think about identity.
I think that till 18-25 years our identity is determined by our environment.
Your gender, to what climate you were born, in which continent, in which culture, in which family you live mark your development forever.
So if you want to know who you are you should look around you and understand.
Only after you take decisions and you modify your environment, which in turn affects you, you start to have an identity that is somewhat independent of your environment.
This might explain why people rationalise their motives. Their actions make part of their identity, and since people in general love themselves and consider that they are good, this means that their actions are good or at least had good intentions.
So no wonder criminals blame the victims for their acts.
The oldest example for this is the ransacking of Troy and killing of population who was explained by Homer by the kidnapping of Helen by Paris.
Also by removing the rights to act  of a person you can prevent it from developing an independent identity and the person can be the prisoner of the group.
This can be seen in how the women were treated in world wide till second world war and how the women are still treated in some Muslim countries.Also it is evident in communist countries were private initiative was stifled and decisions were took by some bureaucrats.
Maybe the lack of options to develop an independent identity explains the Stockholm syndrome, where hostages identify with their captors, or the Nazi doctors who could  kill children because during work hours they identify themselfs as SS.
But lets return to the case of Eddie Izzard. He tells that he was harassed because he was dressed as a woman.
This makes me wonder which is the threshold were you should accept  the opinion of others and change your identity.
If you believe that you are good singer despite evidence, then you will continue to ruin your life by pursuing a career that is dead end and you will alienate you friends who don't want to hear your screams.
On the other side if you are a good singer, and everyone is bullying you, you might ruin your life because you limited yourself.
I don't have a god answer, but the best way is to try and see if it is working.
By trying I know for sure that I am not a good musician. :)