Complexity/diversity is exactly the same measure of a system as entropy.
Helmholtz called the different microstates of a system its "complexions."
Complexity/diversity is good for the biosphere, but it is hell for the
exploiter of resources. The exploiter desires simplicity and complexity
frustrates attempts at exploitation. That is why entropy is thought to be
"bad" by physical scientists, because the entropy law poses limits on the
exploitation of nature. Entropy is neither bad nor good, it just
facilitates dispersion of resources. This is good for a cell that relies on
diffusion of nutrients, but it is bad for capitalists who want to accumulate
capital. For the capitalist, entropy must appear as a communist conspiracy.
Apply the entropy equation to the distribution of wealth and you will
understand what I am saying.
> I'm not sure entropy comes into it. Entropy itself is a resource to
> refrigerator builders, is it not? Nor does a resource have to be
> an active mind is a resource, people are "resourceful".
> A forest is a resource if viewed from the biodiversity perspective (ie it
> is a stock of
> lifeforms), but not from the carpenters pov (it is useless until turned
> artefact). A Resource seems to exist at one end of a relationship between
> 'user' and 'used', and that is very largely a matter of perception.
> But who or what uses whom or what?