4 ms·

IMO, The comparison between Nature and Billionaires/wealth is just mind-bogglingly inane. For starters, the evolution and convergence of the species distributi

IMO, The comparison between Nature and Billionaires/wealth is just mind-bogglingly inane. For starters, the evolution and convergence of the species distributions within an eco-system is a multi-generational game versus a single-generation (or at least single-digit) game for wealth accumulation in most societies. Secondly, the strategy used within the games are almost completely different (in the case of wealth distribution there is a high degree of choice/variability by individual actors) while in the case of species dominance there is only pseudo-random variability based on genetic code. The variability also does not change within the course of a single generation. A more fair comparison might be to compare the amount of territory controlled by the average pack of lions versus the most dominant pack of lions. In this case, the games are at least somewhat similar. I would actually be really interested to see this type of analysis, and I think it could be done very well, for many different species.

flyinglizard 9y ago
Lions don’t have technological means to control more land (which tend to yield nonlinear benefits), nor would I guess that lions expand their territory just for the thrill (like humans do after meeting their physical needs).
YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
>> A more fair comparison might be to compare the amount of territory controlled by the average pack of lions versus the most dominant pack of lions. The article addresses this and notes there is no great difference in this respect: Although the surprising similarity between inequality of species abundances and wealth may have the same roots on an abstract level, this does not imply that wealth inequality is “natural.” Indeed, in nature, the amount of resources held by individuals (e.g., territory size) is typically quite equal within a species.

flyinglizard 9y ago

Lions don’t have technological means to control more land (which tend to yield nonlinear benefits), nor would I guess that lions expand their territory just for the thrill (like humans do after meeting their physical needs).

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

>> A more fair comparison might be to compare the amount of territory controlled by the average pack of lions versus the most dominant pack of lions. The article addresses this and notes there is no great difference in this respect: Although the surprising similarity between inequality of species abundances and wealth may have the same roots on an abstract level, this does not imply that wealth inequality is “natural.” Indeed, in nature, the amount of resources held by individuals (e.g., territory size) is typically quite equal within a species.