The way I have thought about software's necessary complexity for a long time is by considering what software IS. Software, no matter what it does or how it is written, boils down to instructions and data that operate on transistor gates in a computers processor and memory. We must write code which orchestrates the flipping of millions or billions of switches, millions or billions of times a second, in exact perfect synchronicity. The machines these run on, if transistors are considered a 'part' are the most complex machines in terms of part count ever created by humanity, packing up to around a billion parts into about a square inch of space. Also, our software isn't the only thing running. It must coexist with an unknowable number of other pieces of software flipping the gates in unknowable ways. Also, we do not interact with the gates directly. We do so at a level which is many layers of abstraction removed from them, like building a car the size of North America from the moon with chopsticks long enough to reach. Oh, and if we, at that level of gates, get one thing out of sync or make a single mistake, it can effectively instantly cascade into taking the entire system down.
So, yes, software is complex. And it will always remain complex. It is doing monstrously complex things under the hood, all abstractions are leaky, and we are definitely past the point at which one person can even reasonably understand the entire stack from transistors all the way up through OS, compiler, language, etc. We must accept this fact of complexity and formulate ways to deal with it, to contain it and reduce it when we can, but it will always be with us.