Prosperity and the ULIC: Energy"

nisraely
16 minutes ago
11 min read

Activity is visible. Prosperity is not.”

In the spring of 1989, a few months after completing four years of military service and returning to the kibbutz orchards where I had grown up and loved, an extension services advisor from Israel's Ministry of Agriculture came for a field visit.

I had recently taken responsibility for crop protection in the orchards and was eager to do the job well. Yet despite following the recommended protocols, pest outbreaks persisted. The orchards were sprayed regularly, at least once a week, yet the pests kept returning. The activity was visible, the effort substantial, and the interventions followed accepted practice, yet the results remained disappointing, and I could not explain why. During our tour of the orchards, I expressed my frustration and asked what more could be done. His answer was immediate: "What one spray doesn't solve, two sprays will. If not two, then three." I still remember the confidence with which he said it. At the time, the answer seemed entirely reasonable; if one application helped, two might help more, and if two proved insufficient, perhaps three would be necessary. The logic seemed straightforward, and I had little reason to question either the recommendation or the assumption behind it.

At the time, I understood the advisor's response as a recommendation on pest control. Only years later did I begin to see the broader pattern embedded within it; the recommendation itself concerned agriculture, but the underlying logic recurred across many other domains. Whenever outcomes disappoint, the instinctive response is often to increase effort, invest additional resources, apply greater pressure, and continue doing more of the same. The circumstances change, yet the underlying assumption remains remarkably consistent: if a certain amount of effort produces some improvement, then more effort should produce more improvement.

Try Harder

The appeal of this logic is easy to understand because it often seems true in many situations: additional effort often improves results. A neglected field may become productive through better management; a struggling student may improve through more disciplined study; and a business may recover when greater attention is given to customers and operations. Everyday experience provides countless examples in which increased effort produces meaningful gains. Over time, these observations reinforce a simple and persuasive conclusion: when results disappoint, increasing effort is often the most reasonable response.

This helps explain why effort holds a central place in human thought. Unlike many forces that shape outcomes, effort is visible. It can be measured, encouraged, rewarded, and increased, and it appears largely under our control. Effort also carries a moral dimension: across cultures, hard work is associated with responsibility, commitment, perseverance, and virtue, while failure is often attributed to insufficient effort and laziness. Increasing effort is therefore viewed not only as a practical response to problems but also, frequently, as the right one.

Looking back on that conversation in the orchard, I can understand why the advisor responded as he did. If spraying reduced pest populations, increasing the frequency of spraying seemed a rational response. The recommendation followed naturally from the assumption that greater effort should produce better outcomes.

Yet over time, I observed that this logic struggled to explain why similar increases in effort do not always produce similar effects. They may not yield identical outcomes, but we would expect them to move systems in the same general direction. In practice, however, the pattern often differs; some farmers improve their results through greater effort, while others become trapped in cycles of increasing work and declining returns. Some organizations thrive under pressure, while others become dysfunctional. Some relationships grow stronger with additional investment, while others deteriorate despite extraordinary commitment from the people involved. The same increase in effort can therefore produce very different outcomes. This does not mean that effort is unimportant. Rather, it suggests that effort alone may not be sufficient to explain why similar interventions generate such different results.

The question that began for me in an orchard therefore extends far beyond agriculture. If effort alone cannot explain why similar interventions yield such different outcomes, then something important remains unaccounted for. Why does additional effort sometimes solve a problem while at other times merely intensify it? Why do similar increases in effort produce dramatically different results? The answers cannot be found by examining effort alone.

The question, then, is not whether effort matters, because it clearly does; the question is what effort actually does when entering a system. At its most fundamental level, effort introduces energy, so the next step in the inquiry is to understand the role of energy.

Energy

The question that arose from that conversation in the orchard stayed with me for many years. As I gained experience in agriculture, I repeatedly encountered the same puzzle; two orchards could receive similar irrigation, fertilization, and crop protection treatments yet produce very different results. The interventions were often comparable, but the outcomes were not. If effort alone determined results, such differences should have been far less common than they appeared to be.

The answer became clearer when I shifted my attention from the interventions themselves to what was receiving them. Water enters soil, fertilizer enters a plant, and crop protection measures enter an orchard. The intervention may be identical, yet the response depends on the condition of the system receiving it. An orchard with healthy soil, balanced biological activity, and strong resilience responds differently than one already under stress. The intervention does not change, but the condition of the system receiving it does. What initially appeared to be a difference in effort was often a difference in how that effort was absorbed, processed, and ultimately expressed.

The same principle extends far beyond agriculture; effort never enters an empty space. It always enters an existing network of relationships, constraints, strengths, weaknesses, and accumulated conditions. For this reason, the effort itself cannot fully determine what happens next. The response depends on the conditions under which that effort is introduced and on how those conditions shape what the effort ultimately produces.

From this perspective, the recommendation I received in the orchard takes on a different meaning. The question was never whether additional spraying required additional effort, because it clearly did. The more important question was whether that effort addressed the source of the problem or merely intensified an existing pattern. Once attention shifts from the intervention itself to the conditions under which it is applied, the effectiveness of the effort becomes inseparable from the condition of the system into which it is introduced.

I have repeatedly encountered the same pattern in international agriculture. Experts from developed countries often struggle to understand why recommendations that produce strong results at home yield far smaller improvements in developing countries. The technologies, recommendations, and effort may be similar, yet the outcomes are often very different. When results disappoint, the explanation is often attributed to the farmers themselves, who are assumed to be less motivated, less disciplined, or less willing to adopt improved practices. The explanation, however, may lie elsewhere. The same effort is applied under very different conditions, and those conditions profoundly influence the outcomes it can ultimately produce.

This observation points to a different way of understanding energy. Energy does not automatically improve conditions, nor does it automatically make them worse. Its role appears both simpler and more limited than often assumed: when additional energy enters a system, it increases activity, accelerates processes, and intensifies whatever dynamics are already present. The outcome therefore depends not only on the quantity of energy introduced but also on the conditions through which that energy is expressed. Energy, therefore, appears to function less as a remedy than as an amplifier. The same increase in energy may strengthen a healthy pattern, intensify a harmful one, or simply accelerate a process already underway. Energy matters profoundly, yet its effects cannot be understood independently of the conditions into which it is introduced.

The Cost of Compensation

Once energy is understood as an amplifier rather than a remedy, a second question naturally arises: if additional effort cannot reliably correct underlying problems, why do so many systems continue to function despite persistent weaknesses? Part of the answer lies in the remarkable human capacity for compensation. People often use their own energy to subsidize tensions, inefficiencies, and failures that originate elsewhere. As a result, systems often appear healthier than they are, not because underlying problems have been resolved, but because someone is continuously investing effort to keep them from becoming visible.

Agriculture provides many examples. A farmer may compensate for reduced income per hectare by cultivating more hectares; overcome declining soil health by applying more fertilizer; compensate for deteriorating water retention through additional irrigation; and address unaddressed ecological imbalances by increasing the number of pesticide applications. In each case, the intervention may produce short-term improvements, allowing production to continue even as the underlying condition gradually weakens.

The same pattern extends far beyond agriculture. Many readers have experienced it firsthand: the manager who becomes the communication channel because internal communication no longer functions effectively; the parent who becomes the emotional stabilizer because family tensions remain unresolved; the employee who becomes the quality-control process because reliable results depend on personal vigilance rather than on embedded routines; and the farmer who compensates for weak infrastructure by absorbing responsibilities that should never have reached the farm gate. These responses are often admirable. They reflect responsibility, commitment, loyalty, and perseverance. Many organizations, families, communities, and societies continue to function only because individuals are willing to supply the energy required to compensate for weaknesses elsewhere. The issue is not that compensation is wrong. In many situations, it is necessary.

The difficulty arises when compensation is mistaken for a solution. Because compensation reduces visible symptoms, it can create the impression that underlying problems have been resolved. Activity continues and apparent stability is maintained, yet that stability is increasingly financed by human energy, and over time dependence develops. When energy is used primarily to compensate for weaknesses elsewhere, less remains available for learning, innovation, adaptation, and growth; effort is gradually redirected from development toward maintenance. The system survives, but it becomes increasingly dependent on continued subsidy.

Looking back, I can now see that many of the crop protection practices common when I entered agriculture operated in precisely this way, which explains why I had to spray every hectare of apples 40 to 60 times per season. Additional spraying often suppressed immediate symptoms; crops were protected, and harvests continued. Yet the interventions frequently compensated for deeper ecological dynamics rather than resolving them. Activity increased, but the underlying pattern remained largely unchanged.

Compensation can sustain a system for months, years, and sometimes decades. The question is not whether it works; it often does. The more important question is how long increasing amounts of energy can continue compensating for conditions that remain fundamentally unchanged. If those conditions are not improving, the system gradually becomes more dependent on continued subsidy while producing progressively smaller gains. Compensation may delay the consequences of underlying weaknesses, but it cannot eliminate them. Sooner or later, the limits of that subsidy become impossible to ignore.

Limits

Compensation can persist for surprisingly long periods because people often supply capabilities the system itself lacks. They absorb tensions, resolve conflicts, bridge gaps, correct errors, and provide energy wherever it is needed. As a result, systems often perform far better than their underlying condition would otherwise allow. For a time, the results can be remarkable.

This adaptability is one of humanity's greatest strengths; dedicated individuals often accomplish what organizations and institutions struggle to do on their own. A committed manager may hold a struggling organization together, a skilled farmer may maintain productivity under difficult conditions, and a determined employee may prevent recurring problems from disrupting daily operations. Human effort often provides the flexibility, creativity, and resilience that allow activity to continue despite persistent weaknesses.

Yet every subsidy has a limit. In agriculture, those limits often become apparent before they are fully understood. Additional interventions may continue to suppress symptoms for years, yet each new application typically yields smaller improvements than the last. What initially appears to be a technical problem gradually reveals itself as information about the orchard's condition. The diminishing response is not merely a failure of the intervention; it is a signal. It suggests that increasing amounts of energy are being applied to conditions that remain fundamentally unchanged.

The same principle applies more broadly. Energy used to compensate for weaknesses must come from somewhere. It is drawn from the same finite reserves that support attention, learning, recovery, creativity, emotional regulation, and human relationships. Every hour spent sustaining an unhealthy pattern is an hour unavailable for other purposes. Every unit of energy used to compensate for persistent weaknesses is energy that cannot be invested in improvement, adaptation, or growth. The cost of compensation therefore extends beyond the effort itself. As more energy is redirected toward maintaining existing conditions, fewer resources remain to develop new capabilities or strengthen the underlying system.

For this reason, dependence often remains hidden for long periods. As compensation becomes part of normal operations, the effort required to sustain the system is gradually taken for granted: a manager who once solved every problem finds that each additional effort yields less improvement than before; a family member who continually absorbs tension discovers that maintaining stability becomes increasingly difficult; employees devote more attention to preventing problems than to creating value; and farmers discover that each additional intervention yields progressively smaller returns.

Importantly, this does not happen because people become less capable; often, the opposite is true. Highly capable individuals are often the most effective compensators and therefore the most likely to conceal underlying weaknesses for extended periods. Their competence allows systems to perform better than their underlying conditions would otherwise allow, only delaying the moment when limitations become visible. When the signals finally emerge, they often appear suddenly, even though the underlying dependence has been developing for years.

The appearance of limits should therefore not be interpreted primarily as a failure of effort; more often, it signals that energy is being asked to perform work that belongs elsewhere. What appears as resistance, exhaustion, stagnation, or declining returns may in fact indicate that the underlying system itself needs attention.

This observation returns us to the central question of the chapter. Energy can suppress symptoms, compensate for weaknesses, delay the consequences of deeper problems, and sustain activity long after underlying conditions have begun to deteriorate. Yet the appearance of limits reveals the boundary of what energy alone can accomplish. The question is no longer whether energy matters, but whether it can explain why similar increases in effort sometimes produce very different outcomes. Understanding that boundary requires examining not only what energy makes possible but also where its explanatory power ends.

The Boundary of Energy

Looking back on the advice I received during that tour of the orchards, I can now see both its strengths and its limitations. The advisor was not wrong about effort. More spraying meant more effort, and more effort often produces more activity. What remained unanswered was whether that activity addressed the source of the problem or merely intensified an existing pattern.

Additional interventions could suppress symptoms, delay consequences, compensate for underlying weaknesses, and sustain production for extended periods. Yet none of these outcomes guaranteed that the orchard itself was becoming healthier.

The same observation extends far beyond agriculture: an orchard may undergo more interventions without becoming healthier; an organization may become busier without becoming more effective; and a society may mobilize more resources without becoming more prosperous. In each case, activity increases, yet the condition of the underlying system may remain unchanged or even deteriorate.

The distinction is subtle but important: activity and prosperity are not the same phenomenon. One describes what a system is doing, while the other reflects the system's condition. Energy can create activity without creating prosperity.

This is the boundary of energy; it explains movement, acceleration, and the capacity to act, and it helps explain why activity occurs and why systems can respond to opportunities, threats, and challenges. What it cannot explain is why similar increases in activity sometimes produce improvement while at other times they generate dependency, friction, stagnation, or waste. If energy explains activity, then something else must explain why that activity produces such different outcomes.

Prosperity cannot be explained by effort or energy alone, just as it cannot be explained solely by wealth, capability, or complexity. All of these matter, yet none fully explains why similar resources, capabilities, and efforts can yield such different outcomes. The question therefore remains open. If prosperity emerges neither from what a system possesses nor from the energy applied to it, then something essential is still missing from the explanation. Energy can create activity, but something must also shape how that activity is organized, preserved, and transformed over time.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=

“Production depends on technology. Sustained prosperity depends on capabilities.”

* I strive to\stay true to the facts and the reality they reveal. If you find an error or see a need for clarification, your insights are welcome.

Press to subscribe

See you soon,

Nimrod