4 ms·

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and will ride your coattails for a moment by pointing out that if economics is darwinian, then a possible way out of

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and will ride your coattails for a moment by pointing out that if economics is darwinian, then a possible way out of this situation might be human planning. It doesn't have to be central, it can be a way of living that amplifies the changes you'd like to see in the world. So for example, say a person acquires a certain amount of wealth and wants to make his or her home solar to stop feeding investment in the fossil fuel industry. He or she should consider installing double the number of photovoltaics necessary and give back to the grid to lessen someone else's burden. Now apply that philosophy of cooperation to our daily lives and I think that we can achieve a fairly rapid change in the status quo, and that we are seeing it happening all around us.

lkrubner 11y ago
"if economics is darwinian" How can economics be Darwinian? The outcome of economic interactions is not a zero sum, whereas a lion who kills and eats an antelope is engaged in a zero-sum interaction. The antelope gets nothing out of it. As a point of contrast, if you buy a car from Toyota, you have not harmed Toyota, nor has Toyota harmed you (hopefully). It is theoretically possible, when humans engage in trade, for both parties to end up better off. But in nature, in the competition for finite resources, one often sees exchanges in which all species end up worse off. There are many documented cases where predators have been too successful, and killed off all their prey, and then gone extinct themselves -- a negative sum scenario that has no obvious comparison to economic exchanges among humans.
- mindslight 11y ago
  > a lion who kills and eats an antelope is engaged in a zero-sum interaction When we apply economic thinking, this interaction is actually not zero sum - antelopes in general benefit from the signal that they need to be faster.
  - marshray 11y ago
    But they only need to be faster to avoid being eaten by lions, so this seems to be begging the question.
  - jholman 11y ago
    I agree that predation is not zero sum. The antelope loses its life. The lion gains nourishment for a week. Clearly the total number of utils in the system has decreased.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  The outcome of economic interactions is not a zero sum If that were true nobody would ever feel ripped off. People irrationally engage in inefficient transactions all the time. For example, people who smoke cigarettes are more likely to be (and admit that they are) acting irrationally than truly deriving so much social or chemical utility from puffing on cigarettes that it exceeds the risk-weighted disutility of lung cancer, emphysema and so on.
  - golergka 11y ago
    The fact that someone got ripped off in an interaction doesn't say this interaction was a zero sum. It only says that said interaction was unequal. Generating value out of nothing and ripping people off are not necessarily incombinable things.
    - Retric 11y ago
      Weath is never created from nothing. Nature is zero sum, economies are not valued in those terms because people prefer houses to trees etc. But, be careful: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2569 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2569
      - golergka 11y ago
        > Weath is never created from nothing. You can make this statement being true by moving your definition of "nothing" from economics to lay-people common sense, but then we'd be outside of a territory where we can obtain any actually reasonable observations. > Nature is zero sum What is "nature"? Observable universe from now to heat death of the universe? Yes. Earth in near hundred years? No. > Robbery is also an economic transaction, and it can be positive sum if for example you don't notice. What? How does the outcome of a transaction change depending on whether it's observed or not? Does it involve quantum particles of trees falling in the middle of desolate forests? > That does not mean it's a good thing. My comment didn't state anything about good or bad: these are very stupid terms and using them can't bring anything but loud voices and hurt feelings into a conversation.
- bobthechef 11y ago
  Since when is "Darwinian" synonymous with "zero sum"? Even social Darwinism, a corruption of Darwinism, isn't zero sum.
- yxhuvud 11y ago
  The only way Darwinism can be considered zero sum is from a energy perspective - there is no beating the laws of entropy. That perspective is not very useful in the context though, as the darwinian perspective fueled the growth from singular cells living off energy from geotermal vents in the sea to photosynthesis to plants and animals living above ground. This has greatly expanded the amount of resources in the ecosystems and the abilities to use accessible resources.

lkrubner 11y ago

"if economics is darwinian" How can economics be Darwinian? The outcome of economic interactions is not a zero sum, whereas a lion who kills and eats an antelope is engaged in a zero-sum interaction. The antelope gets nothing out of it. As a point of contrast, if you buy a car from Toyota, you have not harmed Toyota, nor has Toyota harmed you (hopefully). It is theoretically possible, when humans engage in trade, for both parties to end up better off. But in nature, in the competition for finite resources, one often sees exchanges in which all species end up worse off. There are many documented cases where predators have been too successful, and killed off all their prey, and then gone extinct themselves -- a negative sum scenario that has no obvious comparison to economic exchanges among humans.

mindslight 11y ago
> a lion who kills and eats an antelope is engaged in a zero-sum interaction When we apply economic thinking, this interaction is actually not zero sum - antelopes in general benefit from the signal that they need to be faster.
- marshray 11y ago
  But they only need to be faster to avoid being eaten by lions, so this seems to be begging the question.
- jholman 11y ago
  I agree that predation is not zero sum. The antelope loses its life. The lion gains nourishment for a week. Clearly the total number of utils in the system has decreased.
anigbrowl 11y ago
The outcome of economic interactions is not a zero sum If that were true nobody would ever feel ripped off. People irrationally engage in inefficient transactions all the time. For example, people who smoke cigarettes are more likely to be (and admit that they are) acting irrationally than truly deriving so much social or chemical utility from puffing on cigarettes that it exceeds the risk-weighted disutility of lung cancer, emphysema and so on.
- golergka 11y ago
  The fact that someone got ripped off in an interaction doesn't say this interaction was a zero sum. It only says that said interaction was unequal. Generating value out of nothing and ripping people off are not necessarily incombinable things.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Weath is never created from nothing. Nature is zero sum, economies are not valued in those terms because people prefer houses to trees etc. But, be careful: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2569 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2569
    - golergka 11y ago
      > Weath is never created from nothing. You can make this statement being true by moving your definition of "nothing" from economics to lay-people common sense, but then we'd be outside of a territory where we can obtain any actually reasonable observations. > Nature is zero sum What is "nature"? Observable universe from now to heat death of the universe? Yes. Earth in near hundred years? No. > Robbery is also an economic transaction, and it can be positive sum if for example you don't notice. What? How does the outcome of a transaction change depending on whether it's observed or not? Does it involve quantum particles of trees falling in the middle of desolate forests? > That does not mean it's a good thing. My comment didn't state anything about good or bad: these are very stupid terms and using them can't bring anything but loud voices and hurt feelings into a conversation.
bobthechef 11y ago
Since when is "Darwinian" synonymous with "zero sum"? Even social Darwinism, a corruption of Darwinism, isn't zero sum.
yxhuvud 11y ago
The only way Darwinism can be considered zero sum is from a energy perspective - there is no beating the laws of entropy. That perspective is not very useful in the context though, as the darwinian perspective fueled the growth from singular cells living off energy from geotermal vents in the sea to photosynthesis to plants and animals living above ground. This has greatly expanded the amount of resources in the ecosystems and the abilities to use accessible resources.