[blensor]

I'll try to make a parallel that in my opinion explains the thought behind the OPs argument.

In the early days people usually lived close to water bodies (rivers, lakes, etc.) because the closer you lived to the water the better your society thrived (water being essential for live, agriculture, transportation, etc). But there is a limit where if you go too far (i.e. into the water) the benefits evaporate possibly reversing the benefits (building houses into the water adds complexity, flooding, etc).

So there is probably a (global?) optimum that is neither too complex nor too simplistic