> I'm sorry to say that pretty much all the biological examples and analogies you give are either wrong or at best controversial and not widely accepted. Many

> I'm sorry to say that pretty much all the biological examples and analogies you give are either wrong or at best controversial and not widely accepted. Many in today's foreign policy circles agree with Haidt's analogies -- see Foreign Policy's "Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2012" (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/2012globalthinkers?wp_login_redirect=0# http://www.foreignpolicy.com/2012globalthinkers?wp_login_red...). Controversial or not, if policy makers hold the idea, it may be sufficient to justify/sell the strategy. And since when has universal buy-in been prerequisite to a course of action? > Bacteria do not group to form mitochondria; "The Evolution of the Cell" (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/organelles/ http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/organelle...) "Cells within cells: An extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence" (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/endosymbiosis.pdf http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/endosymbiosis.pdf) Mitochondrion Origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin) Endosymbiotic Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory) > mitochondria do not group to form cells. Eukaroyte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eukaryote) vs. Prokaryote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokaryote) > Mitochondra don't even cooperate "willingly" with their host cells, but rather the host cell must incentivize them by withholding essential nutrients from the "slackers" until they shape up. Haidt uses the term "freeloaders" instead of "slackers", but incentivizing the freeloaders to "shape up" is exactly the point of the analogy. > I'm not familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work, so I can't comment directly on that All of his writings and talks touch on it, but here's a good overview: "Jonathan Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the ecstasy of self-transcendence" (http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_to_self_transcendence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_humanity_s_stairway_...) Papers & Citatations (http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VafYYacAAAAJ&hl=en http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=VafYYacAAAAJ&hl=en) Google Tech Talk: "Hive Psychology and the Moral Life of Organizations" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2APK3tlPL_0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2APK3tlPL_0) > The concepts of entropy and order don't really apply in a social system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entropy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(disambiguation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(disambiguation) > In many industries the only stable equilibrium is a monopoly [2], which is arguably the least entropic "market state" possible. The "optimal" market according to capitalism is perfect competition among a large number of small independent firms, which is arguably the maximum-entropy state. So it seems that increased entropy should be a good thing. It's about balance. Unrestrained corporate growth in its current form is unsustainable to the biosphere. We have limited natural resources. What's good for one group may be detrimental to the whole. > The word "prism" has a mathematical meaning and a physical meaning, and I think it's pretty clear that when the NSA called their spying program PRISM, they were invoking the physical meaning of a tool. I don't know how you can argue anything the NSA does is "pretty clear." Look up doctrinal meaning vs literal meaning, or double entendre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_entendre).