If the premise of this article is true, then we would oppose medicine. We would oppose plastic surgery. We would oppose debt. We would oppose the police. We would oppose marriage and commitment to one individual.
All those things are contrary to evolution, yet, they are social institutions that have evolved to protect and further our species.
If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species that is important -- not an individual organism. We are fighting for the very existence of intelligence in the universe. We are fighting to preserve the most unique thing we know that exists -- life itself.
This word "over-regulation" and these arguments about government intervention are all bogus. It is because the government backed off what many called "over-regulation" that we are in the very mess we are in!
If you accept evolution then you must also accept that some individuals within a population are going to attempt to ensure their survival over the survival of our species. Some individuals do not understand that they exist in a fabric composed of threads between every living organism. They believe their individual success is of the prime importance -- but this is not what evolution teaches.
Darwin's theories of evolution are made in a world devoid of free will. We can choose how to proceed as a group. We can come together as a planet and make our planet better for all. We do not need to compete with each other to the deteriment of our opponent. We need to compete toward common goals: Survival for all, good health, longevity, eternal intelligence in the universe.
"This word "over-regulation" and these arguments about government intervention are all bogus. It is because the government backed off what many called "over-regulation" that we are in the very mess we are in!"
This may be what some website with an agenda told you, but unfortunately reality is a little more complicated than that. This crisis has a number of causes and the economists who have been studying it from the beginning still don't fully understand it. True, the repeal of certain regulations was an important factor. But another important cause was excessive encouragement by the government for homeownership. This sort of "over-regulation" was certainly disastrous.
The point this article is trying to make is that the notion of "spontaneous order" is fundamental to both the theory of evolution and the free market. One would be hard pressed to design from scratch a working flamingo, and one would similarly be hard pressed to design from scratch a working economy. Both are extremely complicated systems and one cannot make a change to a single part without watching the consequences ripple out to affect seemingly distant parts of the system.
In the case of biology we can perform experiments so that we can isolate the specific effects of a particular action. This is what makes medicine work. A pharmaceutical company does not make the right drug on its first go--it tries thousands of chemicals before getting anything that works. Unfortunately, we cannot do this in the economy--it won't fit in a test tube. If Congress changes a certain regulation, the effects of this change will be felt in distant parts of the economy in ways that no one could have predicted. But because we can never have a "control economy," we will never be able to figure out what those effects were, exactly. In effect, we're hoping that we can come up with the right drug on the first go. This is nothing more than the Law of Unintended Consequences. Perhaps there exist certain regulations that would make the economy run more efficiently--but until we can apply the scientific method to the economy, we will never be able to definitively determine what they are.
"The point this article is trying to make is that the notion of "spontaneous order" is fundamental to both the theory of evolution and the free market. One would be hard pressed to design from scratch a working flamingo, and one would similarly be hard pressed to design from scratch a working economy."
But what good is a flamingo? If you're trying to solve human problems, spontaneous order from some sort of survival-of-the-fittest system is not good enough. Things that are useful to humans require conscious design. Spontaneous order gave us wood, but it took a human engineer to design the wheel. Evolution by natural selection never could have designed such a tool spontaneously.
Sure, the economy is a lot more complicated than that, and the precautionary principle is sound advice. All the same, there's every reason to believe that humans are capable of designing something better, as long we're not reckless about it.
"If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species that is important -- not an individual organism. We are fighting for the very existence of intelligence in the universe. We are fighting to preserve the most unique thing we know that exists -- life itself."
That sounds terribly naive to me. According to the gene-centric view of evolution, that is completely wrong.
I like to watch documentaries about simians because they're the animals closest to humans. They live in society, share tasks, and generally do a lot of things humans do. Some male simians even pay for sex! It happens that the alpha male gets to impregnate most females of the group, and most males are left with nothing. These males obviously don't like being reproductive losers and rebel against the status quo. They will try to kill the alpha male and fight among themselves to see who the new alpha male will be. They will kill the former alpha male's babies so that they can impregnate the females and let these take care of their offspring, not someone else's offspring. They don't care a fig about the species, they care about fulfilling their biological role, which is to procreate with the best females of the pack.
Humans are not monkeys, but most of us aren't that different in terms of behavior. Given that there are limited resources such as food and fertile females, caring about the species makes little sense to most animals. Maybe it makes some sense to humans, but I personally think that's baloney. We have evolved beyong the basic primate level, but not as much as some people think.
We are more than our genes. Let's not be reductionists here.
So yes, we have brains which can make some of us do things like die for others or even die for ideas. That's quite something for your uncaring individuals.
And I think your view of gene-centric evolution sounds terribly naïve: It has been explained a lot of times that the "selfish gene" has nothing to do with making us selfish ^^ Quite the contrary: it can make individuals do very altruistic things for their siblings (potentially carriers of the same gene).
And finally, in my opinion even if genes are fixed like hardware, their seems still to be some freedom left to software, memes...
Of course we are more than our genes. We can rise above our primitiveness, hopefully. I didn't mean to defend the gene-centric theory of evolution because I am not an expert on it. And yes, I have read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" too, so I am acquainted with the theory that altruism and collaboration can stem from the so-called selfish gene.
Enough of theories. Let us look at facts. There are limited resources, and we will fight for them. Like I said, I don't believe that we fight for what's good for the species. We fight for ourselves, our families and communities. We are still rather tribal.
Of course, this presumes one accepts a gene-centered view of evolution. The fact that we know of multiple species whose behaviors change faster than their genotype (not just humans -- see, e.g., apes which use tools and develop new learned behaviors) seems to suggest that there's more we should be considering (and no, that doesn't mean "take a copy of The Selfish Gene and replace 'gene' with 'meme' everywhere").
Comments
You can accept evolution -- and then conquer it.
If the premise of this article is true, then we would oppose medicine. We would oppose plastic surgery. We would oppose debt. We would oppose the police. We would oppose marriage and commitment to one individual.
All those things are contrary to evolution, yet, they are social institutions that have evolved to protect and further our species.
If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species that is important -- not an individual organism. We are fighting for the very existence of intelligence in the universe. We are fighting to preserve the most unique thing we know that exists -- life itself.
This word "over-regulation" and these arguments about government intervention are all bogus. It is because the government backed off what many called "over-regulation" that we are in the very mess we are in!
If you accept evolution then you must also accept that some individuals within a population are going to attempt to ensure their survival over the survival of our species. Some individuals do not understand that they exist in a fabric composed of threads between every living organism. They believe their individual success is of the prime importance -- but this is not what evolution teaches.
Darwin's theories of evolution are made in a world devoid of free will. We can choose how to proceed as a group. We can come together as a planet and make our planet better for all. We do not need to compete with each other to the deteriment of our opponent. We need to compete toward common goals: Survival for all, good health, longevity, eternal intelligence in the universe.
"This word "over-regulation" and these arguments about government intervention are all bogus. It is because the government backed off what many called "over-regulation" that we are in the very mess we are in!"
This may be what some website with an agenda told you, but unfortunately reality is a little more complicated than that. This crisis has a number of causes and the economists who have been studying it from the beginning still don't fully understand it. True, the repeal of certain regulations was an important factor. But another important cause was excessive encouragement by the government for homeownership. This sort of "over-regulation" was certainly disastrous.
The point this article is trying to make is that the notion of "spontaneous order" is fundamental to both the theory of evolution and the free market. One would be hard pressed to design from scratch a working flamingo, and one would similarly be hard pressed to design from scratch a working economy. Both are extremely complicated systems and one cannot make a change to a single part without watching the consequences ripple out to affect seemingly distant parts of the system.
In the case of biology we can perform experiments so that we can isolate the specific effects of a particular action. This is what makes medicine work. A pharmaceutical company does not make the right drug on its first go--it tries thousands of chemicals before getting anything that works. Unfortunately, we cannot do this in the economy--it won't fit in a test tube. If Congress changes a certain regulation, the effects of this change will be felt in distant parts of the economy in ways that no one could have predicted. But because we can never have a "control economy," we will never be able to figure out what those effects were, exactly. In effect, we're hoping that we can come up with the right drug on the first go. This is nothing more than the Law of Unintended Consequences. Perhaps there exist certain regulations that would make the economy run more efficiently--but until we can apply the scientific method to the economy, we will never be able to definitively determine what they are.
"The point this article is trying to make is that the notion of "spontaneous order" is fundamental to both the theory of evolution and the free market. One would be hard pressed to design from scratch a working flamingo, and one would similarly be hard pressed to design from scratch a working economy."
But what good is a flamingo? If you're trying to solve human problems, spontaneous order from some sort of survival-of-the-fittest system is not good enough. Things that are useful to humans require conscious design. Spontaneous order gave us wood, but it took a human engineer to design the wheel. Evolution by natural selection never could have designed such a tool spontaneously.
Sure, the economy is a lot more complicated than that, and the precautionary principle is sound advice. All the same, there's every reason to believe that humans are capable of designing something better, as long we're not reckless about it.
Why worry about eternal intelligence in the universe?
"If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species that is important -- not an individual organism. We are fighting for the very existence of intelligence in the universe. We are fighting to preserve the most unique thing we know that exists -- life itself."
That sounds terribly naive to me. According to the gene-centric view of evolution, that is completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
I like to watch documentaries about simians because they're the animals closest to humans. They live in society, share tasks, and generally do a lot of things humans do. Some male simians even pay for sex! It happens that the alpha male gets to impregnate most females of the group, and most males are left with nothing. These males obviously don't like being reproductive losers and rebel against the status quo. They will try to kill the alpha male and fight among themselves to see who the new alpha male will be. They will kill the former alpha male's babies so that they can impregnate the females and let these take care of their offspring, not someone else's offspring. They don't care a fig about the species, they care about fulfilling their biological role, which is to procreate with the best females of the pack.
Humans are not monkeys, but most of us aren't that different in terms of behavior. Given that there are limited resources such as food and fertile females, caring about the species makes little sense to most animals. Maybe it makes some sense to humans, but I personally think that's baloney. We have evolved beyong the basic primate level, but not as much as some people think.
We are more than our genes. Let's not be reductionists here. So yes, we have brains which can make some of us do things like die for others or even die for ideas. That's quite something for your uncaring individuals.
And I think your view of gene-centric evolution sounds terribly naïve: It has been explained a lot of times that the "selfish gene" has nothing to do with making us selfish ^^ Quite the contrary: it can make individuals do very altruistic things for their siblings (potentially carriers of the same gene).
And finally, in my opinion even if genes are fixed like hardware, their seems still to be some freedom left to software, memes...
Of course we are more than our genes. We can rise above our primitiveness, hopefully. I didn't mean to defend the gene-centric theory of evolution because I am not an expert on it. And yes, I have read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" too, so I am acquainted with the theory that altruism and collaboration can stem from the so-called selfish gene.
Enough of theories. Let us look at facts. There are limited resources, and we will fight for them. Like I said, I don't believe that we fight for what's good for the species. We fight for ourselves, our families and communities. We are still rather tribal.
Of course, this presumes one accepts a gene-centered view of evolution. The fact that we know of multiple species whose behaviors change faster than their genotype (not just humans -- see, e.g., apes which use tools and develop new learned behaviors) seems to suggest that there's more we should be considering (and no, that doesn't mean "take a copy of The Selfish Gene and replace 'gene' with 'meme' everywhere").