Too bad real science is becoming subordinated to political goals, using "climate disruption" (to use the name which evolved from global warming to climate change, to this latest name tag) as the most glaring current example. It's difficult to find anyone in the media willing to report actual facts, when distortion and the resulting hysteria is so much more salacious.

My first degree is in Econ and my definition is "The study of the allocation of scarce resources." And one of the few great professors I had, Dr. Marty Blinn, said these magic words: "There is no morality in economics, only immutable laws. Deal with it."

Question: Would it be an accurate statement that the study of the evolution of a species is the study of how that species changes (adapts, evolves, etc) to the environment (dynamic) to survive? In other words organisms change to fit their environment and survive, while humans change the environment to meet their needs.

The reason I ask is that I see an analogy between evolution and economics. If economics is defined as the study of how humans obtain those things needed for their survival. Then if humans were not rational animals and therefor did not invent, then the study of economics would be the same thing as the study of human evolution.

Awesome, may your profession career be more remunerative and more recognized.