I agree, it fits the framework, you would need something to coordinate the 2 conflicting strategies.
Reading your post I realized that you don’t need a specific technology to be extremely disruptive, the rate of change of the system could be very fast without any specific highly-disruptive instance:
If you want to solve a problem in an open world, your main challenge is accounting for of its ever changing nature.
It’s obvious that a faster changing environment makes more difficult to adapt. The question is: for real human societies are there any tipping points for the speed of change?
This is a quote from a post in Maven (I posted there mainly to test the vibes of the site):
One extreme interpretation would be that the speed of progress has accelerated so much that not only we are unable to catch-up (develop mental models about what has happened before “the next thing” happens), but the more time it passes, the more we lag in our mental models.
EDIT: Related twitt from John Robb (nitter link) from 2 days ago:
McLuhan: to keep up with the pace of change, we became pattern-matchers.
McLuhan Speaks: Pattern Recognition | The Marshall McLuhan Speaks Special Collection
Robb: When social media arrived, we forcibly packetized our media into bite-sized narratives to catalyze pattern matching.
Now we know that packetized media fuels networked tribalism.
Packetized Media: [partially paywalled post] Packetized Media - by John Robb - Global Guerrillas