"Reverse Adaptation" is maybe close -- see Langdon Winner's book "Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a Theme in Political Thought (1978)".
A (partial) summary of the term reverse adaptation is here by someone else:
https://anarcho-primitive.blogspot.com/2012/08/reverse-adapt...
"Technology structures our lives in ways that accommodate its own operative requirements. Langdon Winner called this reverse adaptation. Technologies start out serving specific human ends or addressing a highly circumscribed set of problems. But once they come into being, they shape human thought and activity in ways that conform to the structure and organization of the technology itself. The technological solution becomes a way of reframing the original problem, and features of the original problem that do not correspond to the technological solution are ignored or redefined."
But that summary doesn't quite capture everything Langdon Winner talked about -- since he does go into how most institutions become self-perpetuating (or try to).
To me, it is also an evolutionary issue -- that we tend to only come across institutions with some sort of equivalent of a survival drive and the means to carry out that drive. I rambled further on that theme in this post:
https://www.dougengelbart.org/colloquium/forum/discussion/01...
"Evolution can be made to work in positive ways, by selective breeding, the same way we got so many breeds of dogs and cats. How can we intentionally breed "nice" corporations that are symbiotic with the humans that inhabit them? To what extent is this happening already as talented individuals leave various dysfunctional, misguided, or rogue corporations (or act as "whistle blowers")? I don't say here the individual directs the corporation against its short term interest. I say that individuals affect the selective survival rates of corporations with various goals (and thus corporate evolution) by where they choose to work, what they do there, and how they interact with groups that monitor corporations. To that extent, individuals have some limited control over corporations even when they are not shareholders. Someday, thousands of years from now, corporations may finally have been bred to take the long term view and play an "infinite game". "
The late Prof. James R. Beniger (lucky to have had him as a professor in college) had an interesting book that explores an example in the area of self-perpetuating professional networks:
"Trafficking in Drug Users"
https://www.amazon.com/Trafficking-Drug-Users-Professional-S...
"Examines the way in which the complex network of organizations and professions required for the control of social deviance coordinated their activities to solve the "drug problem" of the 1960s. Beniger demonstrates that incentives used to encourage law enforcement officials to control deviance actually fostered a desire to perpetuate drug abuse in return for various rewards."
A (partial) summary of the term reverse adaptation is here by someone else: https://anarcho-primitive.blogspot.com/2012/08/reverse-adapt... "Technology structures our lives in ways that accommodate its own operative requirements. Langdon Winner called this reverse adaptation. Technologies start out serving specific human ends or addressing a highly circumscribed set of problems. But once they come into being, they shape human thought and activity in ways that conform to the structure and organization of the technology itself. The technological solution becomes a way of reframing the original problem, and features of the original problem that do not correspond to the technological solution are ignored or redefined."
But that summary doesn't quite capture everything Langdon Winner talked about -- since he does go into how most institutions become self-perpetuating (or try to).
To me, it is also an evolutionary issue -- that we tend to only come across institutions with some sort of equivalent of a survival drive and the means to carry out that drive. I rambled further on that theme in this post: https://www.dougengelbart.org/colloquium/forum/discussion/01... "Evolution can be made to work in positive ways, by selective breeding, the same way we got so many breeds of dogs and cats. How can we intentionally breed "nice" corporations that are symbiotic with the humans that inhabit them? To what extent is this happening already as talented individuals leave various dysfunctional, misguided, or rogue corporations (or act as "whistle blowers")? I don't say here the individual directs the corporation against its short term interest. I say that individuals affect the selective survival rates of corporations with various goals (and thus corporate evolution) by where they choose to work, what they do there, and how they interact with groups that monitor corporations. To that extent, individuals have some limited control over corporations even when they are not shareholders. Someday, thousands of years from now, corporations may finally have been bred to take the long term view and play an "infinite game". "
The late Prof. James R. Beniger (lucky to have had him as a professor in college) had an interesting book that explores an example in the area of self-perpetuating professional networks: "Trafficking in Drug Users" https://www.amazon.com/Trafficking-Drug-Users-Professional-S... "Examines the way in which the complex network of organizations and professions required for the control of social deviance coordinated their activities to solve the "drug problem" of the 1960s. Beniger demonstrates that incentives used to encourage law enforcement officials to control deviance actually fostered a desire to perpetuate drug abuse in return for various rewards."