Evolution as a Free Market of Genes

[LukeK]

If Evolution is essentially a Free Market of Genes…

If Humans are essentially a Genetic Monopoly…

 

This begs the question, can "Monopolies" arise out of Free Markets? Are there Initiations of Force that helped establish and maintain our Human Monopoly (Extermination of Competing Species, Modern Medicine)?

 

Now If, in Economics, Monopolies formed through violation of the NAP have not lasted very long…Governments included.

 

This begs the question, is it inevitable that competing Genetic Market Forces will eventually diminish our Market Share? In reality, the larger our presence on this earth, the more likely it is that mutations in Viruses, Bacteria, Crab People will target Human Genetics. Is modern medicine simply building beaver dams against accelerating flood waters, i.e doomed to fail on a large scale?

[ThomasDoubts]

    That's an interesting way to frame things.  I have no doubt that humanity has become more fragile than at any moment in time, in terms of risk profile.  We've gone to great lengths to mitigate harm, but this doesn't come without consequences or second order effects.  Just as the antibiotic cures the illness, it's overdependence creates fragility, exemplified by the virus' increasing resistance and accelerating rate of mutation.  I don't claim to be an expert on the science of GMO's, but this would be claimed as another example of marginal increases in effieciency breeding systemic risk. 

     From an evolutionary standpoint, diversity of risk and volatility are essential; never should humanity overoptimize effeciency at the expense of a catostrophic systemic risk, even if it's a 12 sigma event (murphy's law).  Just as many of the greatest discoveries occur as the result of error, so should outlook be regarding human survival.  I guess I'm just saying in a fancy way, never have all your eggs in one basket.  Humanity has a great deal of genetic diversity in many respects, but our genetics haven't yet been diversified into subspecies with unique survival traits that may or may not be advantagous.  So long as threats are introduced gradually, I'm confident we would adapt, but scenarios certainly exist in minute probabilities that could theoretically cause us great harm or perhaps cause our extinction. 

[Wesley]

I do not what you understand by "Human Genetic Monopoly".

 

There are many organic species.

 

Humans have a pretty large genetic diversity.

 

I may be missing something obvious, but I hope you could explain this to me.

 

 

Also, I am not completely sure that I would call evolution the free market of genetics, though I have less of a problem with that statement. Maybe I will ask my question about that after you answer the former. Everything may make sense afterwards.

[wdiaz03]

If Evolution is essentially a Free Market of Genes…

If Humans are essentially a Genetic Monopoly…

 

This begs the question, can "Monopolies" arise out of Free Markets? Are there Initiations of Force that helped establish and maintain our Human Monopoly (Extermination of Competing Species, Modern Medicine)?

 

Now If, in Economics, Monopolies formed through violation of the NAP have not lasted very long…Governments included.

 

This begs the question, is it inevitable that competing Genetic Market Forces will eventually diminish our Market Share? In reality, the larger our presence on this earth, the more likely it is that mutations in Viruses, Bacteria, Crab People will target Human Genetics. Is modern medicine simply building beaver dams against accelerating flood waters, i.e doomed to fail on a large scale?

 

Is evolution a free market of genes? do you mean within a specific species?, where the genes have to cooperate to survive,

If not, it seems that for most of evolution most species compete in a zero sum game, not a free market.

 

How are humans a monopoly? What do they supply that is unique and they only supply? Most genes humans have are shared with many other species. Chimps share 98% so as far as those genes go, they would care less whether chimps or humans survive.

 

Can you explain a little more what you mean?

 

Monopolies can arise in free markets, but this natural monopolies just show that that company can meet the particular need of the market better than anyone else.

 

So, If you meant:

Is evolution a free market of species? It doesn't seem so.

Are humans a monopoly at making humans? This seems valid, Since the human blueprint is a unique way of assembling a  group of genes. But then every other species is a monopoly as well...

[LukeK]

So in Evolution, the functional base is a 'Gene Mutation'. Most Mutations fail quickly as they provide no new benefit to the individual organism, but every so often the mutation is beneficial in reproduction, gathering of food etc... These beneficial mutations are almost predictable over long timespans. I would not say this is exactly a zero sum game, as genes are generally favored if they are successful in harvesting new energy sources, or havesting energy more efficiently. There are also many examples where two species form relationships to their mutual benefits.

 

Now in my interpretation of an Economic Free Market, the functional base is a 'New Idea'. Most New Ideas are quickly abandoned after brief thought and discussion; some grow into a new business and later fail; but some New Ideas are proven profitable and are continually improved upon. Ideas that harvest new fuels, improve efficiency, and provide mutual benefit scenarios grow and stay profitable.

 

I maybe hastily use the term Monopoly for Humans. I actually do not have a good working definition of Monopoly, but I suppose I mean we have the ability and first-right claim to the resources of the planet, relative to other species; and our abilities to collect those resources far exceed that of our nearest competition. Though maybe labeling this a Monopoly is only confusing the subject.

 

To clarify some of the rest of my dense series of questions...

Please ignore/forgive for the moment any appearance of claiming moral violations, not my intention, but it does appear to me that we have Initiated Force against our Genetic Competition. Theories are abound that early man exterminated similar humaniod species intentionally and systematically, we cut genetic divides through forests in the form of roads(Hooray Government Environmentalism!), we clear forests and turn up soil to grow food in our sole interest, we kill in order to eat, and so on. These initiations of force are what help maintain our resource dominance (Monopoly?).

 

And FalsariusRex, as you point out, our use of Antibiotics is a form of premptive use of force. I'll note that it has only taken a couple hundred years for bacterial mutations to begin defeating our First and Second level Antibiotics. This trend shows strong potential for eventaully passing our best antibiotical defenses. Though I digress...

 

Now if I've established the case that it is the Initiation of Force that helps maintain our Dominance/Monopoly. And if Monopolies, Governments, or any economic entity that relies on the Initiation of Force for its dominance is bound to experience a market correction or failure...What makes the Human Race exempt from this Economic Law?

[wdiaz03]

Thanks for the clarifications

 

So in Evolution, the functional base is a 'Gene Mutation'. Most Mutations fail quickly as they provide no new benefit to the individual organism, but every so often the mutation is beneficial in reproduction, gathering of food etc... These beneficial mutations are almost predictable over long timespans. I would not say this is exactly a zero sum game, as genes are generally favored if they are successful in harvesting new energy sources, or havesting energy more efficiently. There are also many examples where two species form relationships to their mutual benefits.

 

 

Compared to the amount of cooperation, nature is mostly a zero sum game. If a Zebra eats an apple that apple is not available to anyone else. Most consumption occurs at the expense of everyone else. There is little trade in nature. Modern humans have to mostly trade to consume, meaning they have to grow the economic pie before consuming a slice.

 

Now in my interpretation of an Economic Free Market, the functional base is a 'New Idea'. Most New Ideas are quickly abandoned after brief thought and discussion; some grow into a new business and later fail; but some New Ideas are proven profitable and are continually improved upon. Ideas that harvest new fuels, improve efficiency, and provide mutual benefit scenarios grow and stay profitable. 

 

This is the idea of memes (ideas) and how they spread like genes.

 

I maybe hastily use the term Monopoly for Humans. I actually do not have a good working definition of Monopoly, but I suppose I mean we have the ability and first-right claim to the resources of the planet, relative to other species; and our abilities to collect those resources far exceed that of our nearest competition. Though maybe labeling this a Monopoly is only confusing the subject.

 

To clarify some of the rest of my dense series of questions...

Please ignore/forgive for the moment any appearance of claiming moral violations, not my intention, but it does appear to me that we have Initiated Force against our Genetic Competition. Theories are abound that early man exterminated similar humaniod species intentionally and systematically, we cut genetic divides through forests in the form of roads(Hooray Government Environmentalism!), we clear forests and turn up soil to grow food in our sole interest, we kill in order to eat, and so on. These initiations of force are what help maintain our resource dominance (Monopoly?).

..

Now if I've established the case that it is the Initiation of Force that helps maintain our Dominance/Monopoly. And if Monopolies, Governments, or any economic entity that relies on the Initiation of Force for its dominance is bound to experience a market correction or failure...What makes the Human Race exempt from this Economic Law?

 

I think you might be mixing concepts a bit here. Humans are behaving no different that any other species. Crocodiles eat anything that crosses their path and have survived millions of years. Good design, no need to change anything as far as genes I guess.

 

I'm not aware of this economic law...but I think humans can greatly benefit in the way they organize themselves. Like an ant farm, If the human ant farm is to be successful without having to sacrifice individuals then they most adhere to the NAP. But plenty of organisms like ants organize themselves with little regard to the individual and they have survived for millions of years.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Unleash the Science Nazi.

 

It might be worthwhile to reconsider using evolutionary metaphors to describe human action.

 

The first error comes from applying evolution to humans or any other species. Humans are not evolving; not in the scientific sense. Nor are any other organisms. Evolution is the process where a new species comes into being, not when a species goes through changes; in its diet, its behavior, its immune system, etc. This mistake is most likely due to applying "cultural" evolution as if it were biological evolution.

 

The second error comes from the fact that human action is purposeful, evolution is not. One could have all the details correct, but if there exists an implication of direction to evolution, the argument is built on a bed of sand in a hurricane. This is an easy mistake to make, as hindsight can make it seem as though there was a plan to adapt.

 

For anyone interested in gaining a sharper perspective on evolution, I recommend Full House, by Stephen J. Gould.

 

"Gould points out that many people wrongly believe that the process of evolution has a preferred direction—a tendency to make organisms more complex and more sophisticated as time goes by. Those who believe in evolution's drive towards progress often demonstrate it with a series of organisms that appeared in different eons, with increasing complexity, e.g., "bacteria, fern, dinosaurs, dog, man". Gould explains how these increasingly complex organisms are just one hand of the complexity distribution, and why looking only at them misses the entire picture—the "full house". He explains that by any measure, the most common organisms have always been, and still are, the bacteria. The complexity distribution is bounded at one side (a living organism cannot be much simpler than bacteria), so an unbiased random walk by evolution, sometimes going in the complexity direction and sometimes going towards simplicity (without having an intrinsic preference to either), will create a distribution with a small, but longer and longer tail at the high complexity end."

(From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_House:_The_Spread_of_Excellence_from_Plato_to_Darwin)

[LovePrevails]

I have made this argument from the other direction, when statists ask me how do I know that systems in anarchy self-optimize -

It works by the laws of nature, by the same process as evolution - natural selection - the model which is best suited to the environment prevails.

 

the DRO that offerst the best service wins in the long run