

If you accept evolution, you must oppose over-regulation of the economy - noaharc
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/200905/if-you-accept-evolution-you-must-oppose-over-regulation-the-economy

======
pj
You can accept evolution -- and then conquer it.

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 _marriage_ and commitment to _one_ individual.

All those things are contrary to evolution, yet, they are social institutions
that have _evolved_ to protect and further _our species_.

If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is _the species_ 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.

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!

If you accept _evolution_ then you must also accept that some individuals
within a population are going to attempt to ensure _their_ survival over the
survival of _our species_. Some _individuals_ 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.

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.

~~~
TriinT
_"If you accept evolution, then you accept that it is the species 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."_

That sounds terribly naive to me. According to the gene-centric view of
evolution, that is completely wrong.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution>

I like to watch documentaries about simians because they're the animals
closest to humans. They live in society, share tasks, and generally do a lot
of things humans do. Some male simians even pay for sex! It happens that the
alpha male gets to impregnate most females of the group, and most males are
left with nothing. These males obviously don't like being reproductive losers
and rebel against the _status quo_. They will try to kill the alpha male and
fight among themselves to see who the new alpha male will be. They will kill
the former alpha male's babies so that they can impregnate the females and let
these take care of their offspring, not someone else's offspring. They don't
care a fig about the species, they care about fulfilling their biological
role, which is to procreate with the best females of the pack.

Humans are not monkeys, but most of us aren't that different in terms of
behavior. Given that there are limited resources such as food and fertile
females, caring about the species makes little sense to most animals. Maybe it
makes some sense to humans, but I personally think that's baloney. We have
evolved beyong the basic primate level, but not as much as some people think.

~~~
plesn
We are more than our genes. Let's not be reductionists here. So yes, we have
brains which can make some of us do things like die for others or even die for
ideas. That's quite something for your uncaring individuals.

And I think your view of gene-centric evolution sounds terribly naïve: It has
been explained a lot of times that the "selfish gene" has nothing to do with
making us selfish ^^ Quite the contrary: it can make individuals do very
altruistic things for their siblings (potentially carriers of the same gene).

And finally, in my opinion even if genes are fixed like hardware, their seems
still to be some freedom left to software, memes...

~~~
TriinT
Of course we are more than our genes. We can rise above our primitiveness,
hopefully. I didn't mean to defend the gene-centric theory of evolution
because I am not an expert on it. And yes, I have read Dawkins' "The Selfish
Gene" too, so I am acquainted with the theory that altruism and collaboration
can stem from the so-called selfish gene.

Enough of theories. Let us look at facts. There are limited resources, and we
will fight for them. Like I said, I don't believe that we fight for what's
good for the species. We fight for ourselves, our families and communities. We
are still rather tribal.

------
knowtheory
This piece is so horribly fundamentally naive, that it's not worth even
considering.

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.

We control a great deal of evolution, because it makes us safer, and
healthier.

============================

This is easily put another way.

There is an Economic fitness landscape, just the same way that there is an
Evolutionary fitness landscape.

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.

We _must_ ensure there are sane incentives for how corporations and
individuals behave in the economy. We _must_ observe and shape the landscape
that we live in or we risk becoming victims of evolutionary, or economic
pitfalls, both seen and unseen.

~~~
knowtheory
An addendum:

Regulation is a tool to change the landscape and the conditions in which
businesses and individuals operate.

You can regulate in a way that benefits certain types of business, i.e.
breaking up a monopoly helps smaller businesses. Making the phone companies
lease their lines to smaller competitors is a GOOD thing for competition and
diversity.

The notion that regulation only ever stifles the economy, in that sense, is
simply incorrect.

That is not to say that there aren't regulations that have a
stifling/dampening effect, nor that there shouldn't be. Sometimes you do want
to raise the bar across the board. We need banks to be sufficiently
capitalized in order to be able to pay their customers back.

That may be stifling for banks, but it's in OUR best interest.

~~~
huangm
All of this also assumes that government can do its job well.

That breaking up a monopoly (and how do you define one, anyway?) is good is
not obvious (economies of scale, etc). But even taking this as given, that
sometimes monopolies are bad, it is far from clear whether allowing government
to intervene will be better.

You have to weigh the costs and benefits. Anti-trust law is extremely
subjective. It's existence incentivizes companies to use it against each other
to gain a competitive edge rather than real value-added approaches. Anti-trust
law creates uncertainty that can deter innovation (should we develop this
technology if we can't fully profit off of it?)

Government institutions are like all other institutions - they want to
survive. And to survive, they need to grow. Mission creep is inevitable. So
even if you have identified a narrow area in which government intervention can
help, it is not obvious that we should allow government to intervene.

~~~
plesn
I know people on HN are very liberal, but this is extremely cynic about
institutions. I mean: I know we are not living in wonderland and this is close
to true. Here in France I even have the impression that key institutions have
mostly been overtaken by private interests. But in theory we are supposed to
try to get closer to something called democracy, where those institutions
should reflect our common goals and hopes by some collective decision-making
process (the difficult part!). Even if it is extremely tough at the scale of
countries, and even if we are far from it, I though we were at least trying...

------
alex_c
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.

------
hydralisk
The author is confusing accepting biological evolution as a fact with _belief_
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.

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.

------
huangm
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?

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.

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.

------
smhinsey
Does anyone actually advocate over-regulation?

~~~
tokenadult
I listen to Robert Reich radio commentaries, and he seems to advocate over-
regulation.

~~~
anigbrowl
Surely the level of regulation he advocates seems excessive to you, no? (I
have no particular opinion RR's actual recommendations).

------
muddylemon
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.

------
vitaminj
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.

------
albertsun
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.

------
barry-cotter
Is does not imply ought.

------
ardit33
"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."

~~~
cellis
Civilized society is perfectly fine with opposing jail for murderers, for
several definitions of "murder".

------
pohl
...may I breed dogs or plant hybrid tomatoes in my garden?

------
unbannable
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.

^OP didn't get it.

