This is probably a weird question, but I had an interesting thought about Kubernetes and I’m curious whether anyone involved in its design has ever looked at it this way.
What if Kubernetes can be viewed as an evolutionary system where production itself provides the fitness function?
For example:
-
fitness pressure: real-world production conditions — load, DDoS, OOM, hardware failures, network failures, dependency failures, etc.
-
individuals: disposable service instances / pods
-
variation: introduced by humans through new releases, configuration changes, resource modifications, deployments, architecture changes, etc.
-
selection pressure: what actually happens when those variations encounter production reality
-
controller: observes the resulting state and reconciles it toward the desired state
-
resilience: the system continues functioning even though individual members of the population can be killed and replaced
The distinction I’m interested in is that I don’t think the Kubernetes controller is the “fitness function.”
Reality is the fitness function.
The controller is the mechanism that responds to the consequences of that fitness function by reconciling the system back toward its desired state.
That made me think of an interesting division:
Evolutionary computation seems to foreground variation + fitness + selection.
Kubernetes seems to foreground disposability + environmental pressure + reconciliation + resilience.
And biological evolution contains aspects of both.
So my question is simply:
Did anyone involved in designing Kubernetes ever consciously think about the system in anything resembling this evolutionary framing?
Or is this just an amusing analogy I’ve stumbled into? 