Economics and Evolution: A scientific approach to economics

Posted by dbhalling 8 years, 5 months ago to Economics
14 comments | Share | Flag

It is often said the economics is a social science. A real science of economics would be based in the nature and biology of humans.

If humans did not invent, then the study of economics would just be the study of human evolution.
SOURCE URL: http://www.thesavvystreet.com/inventing-at-the-intersection-of-biology-and-economics/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by freedomforall 8 years, 5 months ago
    "My faith in the future rests squarely on the belief that man, if he doesn't first destroy himself, will find new answers in the universe, new technologies, new disciplines, which will contribute to a vastly different and better world in the twenty-first century. Recalling what has happened in my short lifetime in the fields of communication and transportation and the life sciences, I marvel at the pessimists who tell us that we have reached the end of our productive capacity, who project a future of primarily dividing up what we now have and making do with less. To my mind the single essential element on which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom."
    Barry Goldwater
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 5 months ago
      Agreed but I will add my faith in nature. The planet and it's systems have built in balance correction usually cyclic. Everything delivered to where needed when needed. Nino and Nina in the South Pacific operate the temperature regulator of the world.

      Man's shortcomings, in the area of food, is not production but distribution. Man has the ability to think and reason as opposed to the rest of the animal kingdom operating on instinct in the main. But it has to be used. Overseas food deliveries in the face of constant complaints of starving children? What is that? reality or politics? What happened to food banks? Or is that too.... a story. Follow through on those foreign shipments. Routinely we delivered on the ships and saw the same bags of rice or other grains in the local market a bit later - for sale. No one party to blame. Happens on both their watches but then there really is only on party. In any case...mother nature hand in hand with man's abilities could, should, would but it isn't. I'd hardly blame nature. It's on autopilot mode of survival.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 5 months ago
    dbh has been away from the Gulch for a while, perhaps working on this SavvyStreet paper. Good research has led to good conclusions.
    I particularly like the idea that the steady state is not possible for living entities. So much for the political concept of 'sustainability' with which we are bombarded.

    In my younger days I read many of the Utopia proposals, I realized that human nature (good or bad) is not like that and these Utopias cannot work. dbh puts it another way in demonstrating the role of evolution. That is, suppose one animal evolves to match the environment, other animals will evolve and change to upset the balance. On top of that there is brain/mind/thought/invention (exclusively human attributes?). This modifies the importance of species adaptation by evolution to that of a species consciously changing aspects of its environment.

    Competition, friendly and otherwise, is not just between species but also between cultures.
    This gives an impetus to the question of how to maintain and enhance the edge, dbh tells us it is not just intellectual freedom but that property rights are essential.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      Thanks. I actually have an article entitled Sustainability isn't Sustainable http://hallingblog.com/2010/11/07/sus.... Most of the economics profession has ignored Malthus and the modern environmentalists positions based thereon. I understand their sentiment, but I think it is a mistake. Their positions are I think scientifically sound in a technologically stagnant economy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 8 years, 5 months ago
        'Sustainability Isn’t Sustainable' as referenced.
        This dates to 2010, before my arrival in the Gulch so that's my excuse for not seeing it before. As well as enlightening, Dale's article provides some entertainment in the comments. The discussion on peak oil made no mention of large scale shale extraction technology which was just coming in at that time. Whether the word peak ever meant anything for oil, the concept is now a non-issue.

        Also worth mentioning in the context of sustainability and renewals is the saga, or rather farce, of the DRAX power station. This is one of the largest in the UK, it was built over a large resource of good quality coal. But now that coal is defined as evil, the power station has been converted to use wood. Trees are chopped in Virginia, then shipped across the Atlantic to be burnt in a power station.
        Truth is stranger than fiction.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
          Wood that is hilarious if you don't think about it too much - then it is insane.

          Note that methane starts being produced within a month or sooner of biomass being covered up. We should not be calling that a fossil fuel.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 8 years, 5 months ago
    Interesting article DB.

    Question: What does the widespread use of birth control in the western world do for the rate of invention?

    Does it remove an impetus for innovation because the individual income is not under as much downward pressure?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 8 years, 5 months ago
      The historical evidence is that property rights for inventions dominates the rate of invention and the connection to population is much more minor. So I think birth rates are unlikely to have a major effect.

      I have often said that in a free society it is amazing how inventive (heroic actually) people are and how non-inventive (evil actually) people are in a non-free society..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by broskjold22 8 years, 5 months ago
    Agreed, as much as I love technology, I also take this article with a grain of salt. Most technological civilizations function as such because these civilizations invested in technological pursuits and had the freedoms with which to make scientific inquiries. If economic development is possible only to the degree that laissez-faire policies are enacted, then we are left explaining how evolution developed into philosophic principles... But it took scientific-philosophic principles (Aristotle) to be able to discover evolution. A mutant genius is a mutant in her intelligence and all mutants mutate from some prior state (the same argument Aristotle gives about a river), but it does not mean that she will make the intellectual achievement Rand did... I think I'm begging the question...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 8 years, 5 months ago
      I think the difference is at some point property rights, which begin to trump evolutionary development-or spur it in different directions. Db certainly is not arguing a Eugenics angle.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo