Thanks. I have been struggling on how to get this idea across. I think that when we see links between different area's of science it expands our understanding of both. For instance, when we understood that electricity and magnetism were related and both were related to light it greatly expanded our understanding.

I think when we can see links between different branches of science, it helps us understand both better. A mathematical analogy being that analytic geometry expanded our understanding of both Euclidean geometry and algebra. Or in physics and chemistry when we understood the relation between heat and work it expanded our understanding of physics and physical chemistry.

"...a lot of data to make such a case." That is, the case of increasing IQ and productivity orientations.

Interesting supposition that an economic system chosen by man may have an effect on evolutionary change on man. Would that mean a poorly chosen economic system would have a detrimental effect? For instance, the great welfare state may very well circumvent the natural culling of the heard, so to speak, and foster increased populations of lesser IQ and lesser productivity orientations.

However, to even discuss such a proposition is to tread on thin ice or dangerous ground. I guess it would be far better to approach the subject as you did. That is, presuppose IQ and productivity orientations are always increasing. Like you said, it would take a lot of data to make such a case. Some of this ground was covered back in the 90's after a book called "The Bell Curve" was published.

How many other species actually participate in studying?
Only man can study. That knowledge can be passed on through teaching.
THIS is what naked mankind a unique and advanced creature.

Again, db, assumptions are just that ... and one thing about Dr. Marty Blinn (he could have been a standup comic) was "cut the crap." To his credit and my benefit , he was one of the best at being ruthless when one of us used faulty thinking or reasoning. I had his classes in the late '60s and early '70s and we had a character that dressed like Che, regurgitated all the talking points of a "communist" and he dropped two classes with Marty after being intellectually destroyed.

Going to your point on scientists telling the truth, I'm in an ongoing and frighteningly polite intercourse with two AGW proponents, Google Eric Grimsrud, for one, and they simply will not answer "cut the crap" questions. The other is a professor at the U of Utah. They clearly have an agenda that does not stand up to truth and they obfuscate brilliantly. I have expressed my dismay at the AGW side for the lack of honesty but have made no inroads, yet, with their ideas. Oh, well, intellectual sparing keeps my feeble brain in low gear......... LOL

Ah, I follow you now. It's a Monday and I'm a little slow on the pickup.

I would agree with your conclusion: reason is fundamental and critical to the origin of economics. Nice line of reasoning there. A slightly different "adaptation" (pun intended) of the nature vs nurture argument, but applied to economics. Again, well said.

I see your point now. Stated another way, would economics be reduced to evolution (or adaptation) if human beings didn't reason (implying they couldn't invent trade, etc).
Perhaps a way of thinking about this question is to examine the survival, evolution and adaptation of animals that do not reason (significantly). Bees and ants became economic socialists. Bears and many other species simply compete, or are capitalists. Wolves would be something in the middle?
That is an interesting thought. I think the word "evolution" makes the concept harder, since it implies a structural change to the organism itself, but perhaps that is the eventual result.

Hi Jim, I probably overstated my position on your professors definition. But I do worry about those being hidden assumptions in that definition.

Excellent ribbens. Thank you.

Thoristsu, I think that is a very interesting analogy also. But my point is a bit more literal. If humans did have the ability to reason, then there would be no economics. Economics and evolution are about changing something to increase your survivability. Thus without a rational being economics is just the study of the evolution of that animal. Without reason (inventions) then we would study how the species adapted to acquire scarce resources instead of how they created things to acquire the resources they need.

I know this is not the conventional way of looking at economics.

While I'm not a scientist I look at science like a kid looking in a pre-Christmas store window. Having been a science fiction fan for many years, quantum physics became one of my hobbies and passions. What a Wonderland the universe is, from the micro to the macro. Therefore, when the government(s) subvert science by trying to use it as a propaganda device, I become outraged. True, there's a lot to get outraged about with the current regime, but science is the worst because this bogus use of science in meteorology, medicine and physics can discourage the true progress of real scientists. One more step down the path toward the decline of humanity.

db, I agree that the gloBULL warmists are pushing an agenda but that is a non sequitur regarding economics.

And you are assuming facts not in evidence. "The allocation of scarce resources" is simply a declarative. The only assumption I read into that is that property rights are inviolable and, regardless of the morality and agenda of the owner, the owner decides on the allocation. I also find no assumption that the resources are "fixed" in that statement. The leftist, democraps, socialists, collectivists, progressives are the ones that read spurious assumptions into it because then need (and depend on) a rationale for theft, what they call economic equality. They cannot accept that equality and liberty (property rights) are mutually exclusive and so read fiction into that declarative. They read into it: "But doesn't the owner of the resources have a moral duty to provide for those with fewer resources?" The answer is "no." He has a moral duty to live by his standards and that is all. If he is a nice guy, he allocates accordingly. If he is an SOB, he allocates accordingly with no exogenous force on his decisions.

Love this question too. Being an engineer, but now an executive, I think about businesses (not so much macroeconomics) as dynamic systems.
I like the analogy that changing basic parameters is adaptation (more research or cutting overhead is like eating or exercising), but changing fundamental business features is like evolution (like products to services, outsourcing manufacture, etc). Businesses are born and die everyday; however, infrequently they do change their DNA and rise from the ashes, for example IBM of 1940s vs today.
Suspect the same could be thought of in a macroeconomic analysis. Capitalist, socialist and communist economies competing, being "born", revolutions, etc.
In both cases the basic structure (e.g. as defined in lifeforms by DNA) can be changed. I like the analogy.

Agreed, O. A.! An acquaintance of mine often relates, "the plural of anecdote is not evidence."

Interesting question. I would offer that genetic adaptation is a destructive process: you spawn 100,000 progeny and two of them can tolerate drier conditions...and they survive a drought whilst their other 98,000 siblings die. You need two things for rapid evolution: substantial populations and environmental stress. (There is evidence that human evolution sped up during the Neolithic, for example, due to our increase in population. Good discussion on John Hawks webpage www.johnhawks.net .)

So, with the myriad of economic theories in our current society, it would seem ripe for observation as to whether economics is evolutionary: apply environmental stress and see which theories survive. Hmmm. Probably one that stresses preparedness and individual competence and voluntary interrelations...?

Jan

My point is that without reason then man can only adapt to the environment - meaning without reason there is no economics or economics collapses into the evolution of man.

Excellent! Real objective science; as opposed to so much of what we are exposed to today where a predetermined outcome is pushed with selective evidence. "Consensus" is not conclusive.

Well remembered. Yes, Gregor Mendel was an Austrian monk. Much of his writing was burned posthumously by the succeeding Abbot, so it's hard to know how Mendel attempted to reconcile God and science. However, he always saw the way the world was viewed, and wanted to see how the physical world actually worked.

Both are ways of dealing with the environment and humans store knowledge so it is passed down like genes.

But of course that is not real science.

Jim, Thanks for the input.

However, your professor was wrong. The ethics of science requires telling the truth first and foremost, which means reporting the data accurately. This is why we know global warming prophets are not pushing science they are pushing a religion.

I also disagree with his definition of economics (there are several out there), because it has an inherent socialist premise - that someone is in charge of the allocation. It also includes the premise that resources are fix (zero sum game).

I'm not sure about equating evolution with economics, but of the "sciences", most economics professors will admit that economics relies heavily on value judgments (morality) of individuals taken in aggregate. If you can identify what a particular populace "wants" (i.e. is willing to trade resources for to get) you can be a successful merchant by identifying these opportunities.

I think the thing to consider in evaluating your proposal is something you yourself have already pointed out: that in one case we have animals who are "changed" by their environment, and in the other you have the environment being changed by man - two wholly different methods and outcomes. As such, I would say that you have already answered your own question. ;)

I ran into this a lot in academia. There are very few non-government grants, and grants are how most academic labs keep the lights on. My research involved using bacteria to convert wastewater into electricity and clean water. I was told over and over again that the goal of the grant was not to make more power, but to understand how the bacteria made power. I said, "A good way to figure out how they make power is to try to make more power, and figure out what the bacteria did differently."

I love this question. When people refer to adaptation, they tend to amalgamate two distinct but nuanced phenomena. There is physiological adaptation and evolutionary change.

Physiological adaptation is an adjustment to the environment that occurs within an individuals lifetime. An example of physiological change is weight training: you stress your muscles and they respond by cells getting bigger, increasing the number of mitochondria, etc. This isn't a genetic change - bodybuilders don't have kids that hulk out of the womb.

Evolutionary change is on the genetic level. You're born with the genes you have, and for the moment there's not a lot you can do about this. By luck of the draw, some organisms have a mutation that makes them better able to reproduce - they're more attractive to potential mates, better able to survive the winter and make it to mating season, etc. Those lucky winners get to have more kids, and their kids get to have more kids, so that mutation increases in frequency in the population. Such a mutation might involve more physiological adaptability - someone who can build muscles easily may attract more mates than someone who can't, but ultimately evolution acts on the genetic level.

With that in mind, I view economics as more like physiological adaptation - how people adjust their production to changing intellectual and physical resources. You might be able to correlate economic data to genetic data to make a case for evolution - IQ (which is pretty much entirely genetic) increases generation after generation, people with productivity orientations (along with associated genetic markers) are increasing in frequency within the population, etc. However, it would take a lot of data to make such a case.

And what would those laws be? Are there any constants -- the equivalent energy, momentum?