The guy is just huffing copium because he missed the point, it seems. It seems his process is to pick a system, pick one thing it does, observe that doesn't seem to be the main purpose and then declare the principle dead.

Let's focus on one of the examples he gives:

> [POSIWID implies that] The purpose of the New York bus system is to emit four billion pounds of carbon dioxide [and this is obviously absurd]

But that's not what the bus system does, is it? That's only one thing it does and it's the least purposeful thing it does, as if you chose that one on purpose.

I'd sooner think the purpose of the NYC bus system is to move money from government coffers to oil barons, or to placate left-wing protestors, or to satisfy a sustainability checklist item, or to increase the employment rate in NYC than to think the CO2 is the point.