Monday, May 31, 2010
Evolution, Free Markets and Tribal Behavior
Michael Shermer talks about some interesting stuff at Google. One interesting point he raises is one that should be a commonplace observation, but doesn't seem to be obvious to a lot of people. He makes the point that free markets and evolution are both similar phenomena, bottom-up non-directed self-organizing optimization that produces strikingly ingenious solutions that resemble 'designed' ones. Why then are "conservatives" (in American terms) predisposed to the Free Market, but less accepting of evolution, and "liberals" vice versa?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So far as liberals are concerned I'm sure many are fully paid up members of the free market. They just want to moderate some of its more extreme effects.
I suppose "conservatives", either are or believe themselves to be top dog - the market place allows them to succeed. Evolution allows for that success to be undermined.
One is natural and beyond our control, the other we can control.
Liberals don't see any justification in replicating the dog eat dog scheme of things as seen in evolution, and would rather have the markets regulated so as to point the eventual outcome towards some sort of an equitable situation.
Obviously, I speak for liberals, the logic of (US) "conservatism" eludes me. Tea anyone?
@Barry
You're right, but the point Shermer is making is that when liberals talk of regulating the market (rightly), they display an inadequate understanding of how markets work, and hence end up with the wrong kinds of controls.
@Anonymous
The point is about how very effective structures can evolve bottom up through the process of selection in a competitive environment than by design. That's how we got the human eye, not through design. That's also how we got the modern economy - not through central planning.
Much as both sides would protest, they display an inadequate appreciation of these facts, which boil down to the same phenomenon.
I'm sure you think I'm being unfair on you and you understand markets well enough and are only calling for regulating their excesses. Similarly, a dyed-in-the-wool US conservative would be thinking that they understood evolution well enough and only want a scientific discussion of its limitations as a concept and how it couldn't have resulted in life as we know it.
A more detailed blog post is called for.
And the above comment was me trying to paraphrase Shermer - my opinion isn't necessarily the same. That's reserved for later
Mad Hatter, it's always the case that free marketeers will say those who wish to regulate don't understand the way markets operate: until the free marketeers call for someone to save them from themselves.
The trouble is you're always fixing yesterday's problem by which time the markets have moved on.
Of course, we know that markets players can be anti-competitive anti- consumer and down right dishonest. I think those who wish to regulate those market behaviours out of existence should at least try; and be commended for their efforts.
Recent experience of letting the markets self regulate ( in ecological/evolutionary jargon "bottom-up non-directed self-organizing optimization") isn't that re-assuring.
@Barry
If you see market failures, and you rail against what you *think* the weaknesses of the market are. You'll end up regulating the strengths of the market away rather than the weaknesses. However, if you do understand where the weaknesses and strengths are, you will be able to regulate them better.
So, here're a few questions to help clarify my understanding of your position:
a) do you or do you not believe that markets can produce bottom-up optimized structures? Yes or no?
b) what, if any, are the limitations on claim a) above?
c)What exactly is the relevance of "recent experience" aka the global financial meltdown on the limitations of that claim?
d) Why did the financial industry melt down, and not the global packaged yoghurt industry, for example?
Post a Comment