"they are broken, yet accomplishing the goal."

Are they really either of those two things? Natural systems have no "goal", they just are. If they change, they change. If they stay the same, they stay the same. Because there is no goal, there is no "broken". It is only we who assign some sort of meaning to them and characterize them as "working", either because they meet our needs, or just because we are inherently impressed by complex systems.

I’ve read recently about natural systems in the book Antifragile. It’s interesting how those systems can become better.