You can accept evolution -- and then conquer it.<p>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 <i>marriage</i> and commitment to <i>one</i> individual.<p>All those things are contrary to evolution, yet, they are social institutions that have <i>evolved</i> to protect and further <i>our species</i>.<p>If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is <i>the species</i> 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.<p>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!<p>If you accept <i>evolution</i> then you must also accept that some individuals within a population are going to attempt to ensure <i>their</i> survival over the survival of <i>our species</i>. Some <i>individuals</i> 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.<p>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 piece is so horribly fundamentally naive, that it's not worth even considering.<p>You want to use the evolutionary example? Fine, look at livestock or plant husbandry. We breed and select for animals which serve our needs. Cows that have more meat, which produce more milk. Ones which are more docile. Plants that produce more yield, which are less susceptible to poisoning us, or making us sick as vectors for diseases.<p>We control a great deal of evolution, because it makes us safer, and healthier.<p>============================<p>This is easily put another way.<p>There is an Economic fitness landscape, just the same way that there is an Evolutionary fitness landscape.<p>Just the way that we control the incentives, and conditions for how reproduction takes place in our livestock, we also control the incentives and conditions for economic growth and (re)production.<p>We <i>must</i> ensure there are sane incentives for how corporations and individuals behave in the economy. We <i>must</i> observe and shape the landscape that we live in or we risk becoming victims of evolutionary, or economic pitfalls, both seen and unseen.
I don't follow the argument. It seems to claim that because there ISN'T a God involved in evolution, there OUGHT NOT be a God figure involved in the economy. Regardless of how anyone feels about each individual statement, I fail to see the logic that connects them.
The author is confusing accepting biological evolution as a fact with <i>belief</i> in natural selection as an all-powerful optimizing agent. As most biologists understand (since Gould & Lewontin's 1979 "Critique of the Adaptationist Program", anyway), evolution makes mistakes and leads to nonoptimal outcomes. There is every reason to believe that conscious human design can construct better systems than some sort of anarchical survival-of-the-fittest scheme.<p>In fact, saying so is blisteringly obvious. Virtually every human accomplishment has required conscious design. Evolution by natural selection could never have designed a wheel -- but we did. It may be tempting to employ biological principles to everything, but it's a mistake.
While the argument presented in this article is obviously nonsense, it is definitely not obvious that regulation is desirable. Have any of you touting regulation to 'correctly align incentives' considered how much regulation has existed already?<p>From the GSE's (Fannie and Freddie), the SEC, the mere existence of a central bank, to scores and scores of other existing government interventions in the economy, what we've seen in the past few decades cannot really be called free-market capitalism.<p>The current crisis clearly indicates that something is broken. That we have too much regulation is as plausible an explanation as that we have too little. And yet, very few people seem to even acknowledge this fact.
So regulation interferes with the natural process of business evolving so they can consume more resources and grow larger and more powerful. It also protects the "weaker" (smaller businesses and actual people) by giving them unnatural advantages that allow them to survive and avoid being obliterated by the stronger "more fit" organizations.
Vaccines interfere with the natural process of viruses evolving into more powerful organisms and giving their competition (us) an unnatural advantage that allow us to survive and avoid being obliterated by the stronger viruses.
I don't think I've ever met anyone with a consistent perspective on everything (me included). People will accept contradictory premises, especially across different fields, all the time.
That assumes the purpose of regulation is to limit competition between corporations and prevent them from failing. The true purpose of most regulation is to protect consumers and small time investors from the worst side effects of a competitive market.
"If you accept evolution, you must oppose over-regulation of the economy "
...
How about this: "If you accept evolution, you must oppose putting to jail murderers."
Memo: Evolution is an explanation of fact and contains no moral (or religious, for that matter) position. Accepting evolution as an explanation of what happened does not require that one subscribe to so-called "Darwinist" social and economic ideologies.<p>^OP didn't get it.