That's just evolutionary theory applied to groups. Bacteria that allocate resources to existential risks (e.g. antibiotics) operate at a disadvantage to bacteria that do not, except in environments with frequent encounters with antibiotics.
Definitely. Another place the mathematics translates pretty cleanly to is financial leverage.
If you take a loan to expand your business and pull forward profits, or even rent property instead of buying it, you take tail risk but in normal times tend to outcompete.
I think it's an ironclad argument for regulation (and maybe government intervention) in insurance markets, and a good argument in many others -- Even though I'm generally in favour of some leverage.
The right answer may not always be the risk compensated answer. The social gains to be had from ignoring the risk could be worthwhile in the broader picture, even if some groups fail.
Yes, precisely (my background is biophysics). Selection pressure leads to rapid population shifts when one has a favorable mutation. However, you can look at eukaryotes and see that absolute efficiency isn't the metric by which they are being evaluated.
