Neo-Liberalism

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Our system--the "Western" system, for lack of a better term--which is essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism, depending on who temporarily holds the reigns of governmental power--is precisely such an "occasional tinkering"-type system. There are better examples of it than what we have in the US, of course, but they are all essentially the same system.

The term you are looking for is Social Democracy. Which we really don't have in the US, but certainly, not Democratic Socialism.

The term I used was "essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism" for the "Western system." By that I meant to include all forms (including Social Democracy) that are currently operating in what have traditionally been known as the "West" (i.e, Europe, the Americas, NATO members etc). Perhaps "spectrum" would be more appropriate.

 

[PyramidHead]

Translation seems to be: “if people don’t think like I do it’s because they’re dumb or brainwashed or evil... or some combination”. You seem to be under the impression that your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but simultaneously... isn't that the definition of having a belief and thinking it's true?

 

[poster]

[
Which would be an utter naturalistic fallacy that hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution using the classic equivocation on the (unfortunate) word "fitness".

All fitness means is better at reproducing. It has fuck all to do with anything long or any sort of global maximum, and even less to do with human satisfaction. Evolutionary systems can and do evolve themselves into collapse all the time, all the while getting fitter and fitter.

In terms of genetic evolution, you’re more or less right. But other thing evolve as well. Ideas evolve, societies evolve, our understanding of the world evolves. The equilibrium point of a chemical compound in a changing environment evolves. That which is most stable and effective at “self preservation” in a given environment is “fit”. The concept isn’t limited to genetics. The concept holds for any complex system that isn’t in a static state.

And I’m pretty sure our current social system is capable of evolving itself into collapse!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've learned through the years that when referencing Evolution in these types of discussions it's best to understand the first and foremost and accurate translation is Natural Selection and biological. Using Evolution to describe socialital or personal change or progress can become muddy because there are many aspects of Natural Selection that can be violated by such use.

I appreciate the enthusiasm about Evolution that drives people to want to apply it to other aspects of life and existence, but one must understand that there will often be pushback from those well versed in the core fundamentals of Natural Selection, as there should be in order to protect the integrety of the science.

 

[Elixir]

[
Which would be an utter naturalistic fallacy that hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution using the classic equivocation on the (unfortunate) word "fitness".

All fitness means is better at reproducing. It has fuck all to do with anything long or any sort of global maximum, and even less to do with human satisfaction. Evolutionary systems can and do evolve themselves into collapse all the time, all the while getting fitter and fitter.

In terms of genetic evolution, you’re more or less right. But other thing evolve as well. Ideas evolve, societies evolve, our understanding of the world evolves. The equilibrium point of a chemical compound in a changing environment evolves. That which is most stable and effective at “self preservation” in a given environment is “fit”. The concept isn’t limited to genetics. The concept holds for any complex system that isn’t in a static state.

And I’m pretty sure our current social system is capable of evolving itself into collapse!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've learned through the years that when referencing Evolution in these types of discussions it's best to understand the first and foremost and accurate translation is Natural Selection and biological. Using Evolution to describe socialital or personal change or progress can become muddy because there are many aspects of Natural Selection that can be violated by such use.

I appreciate the enthusiasm about Evolution that drives people to want to apply it to other aspects of life and existence, but one must understand that there will often be pushback from those well versed in the core fundamentals of Natural Selection, as there should be in order to protect the integrety of the science.

Agree that there should be some way to differentiate colloquial and scientific uses of the term. Most geneticists use a definition along the lines of "a change in allele frequencies within a population". I think of it as "what happens to any population of imperfect self-replicators". Either way, it is a far cry from what is meant when someone refers to ideas, what happens to societies or our understanding of the universe.

 

[J842P]

Our system--the "Western" system, for lack of a better term--which is essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism, depending on who temporarily holds the reigns of governmental power--is precisely such an "occasional tinkering"-type system. There are better examples of it than what we have in the US, of course, but they are all essentially the same system.

The term you are looking for is Social Democracy. Which we really don't have in the US, but certainly, not Democratic Socialism.

The term I used was "essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism" for the "Western system." By that I meant to include all forms (including Social Democracy) that are currently operating in what have traditionally been known as the "West" (i.e, Europe, the Americas, NATO members etc). Perhaps "spectrum" would be more appropriate.

Social Democracy is not a subset of Democratic Socialism. This gets confusing because for some reason, in the US, Democratic Socialism is used as a synonym for Social Democracy, but it isn't.

 

[Emily Lake]

Translation seems to be: “if people don’t think like I do it’s because they’re dumb or brainwashed or evil... or some combination”. You seem to be under the impression that your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but simultaneously... isn't that the definition of having a belief and thinking it's true?

I don’t think it’s that clean. I think many would argue that they have provisional beliefs - things that are held to be true until new information comes along. Not everyone takes the position that only they are right. Many people are open to considering another persons perspective, and are okay with changing their minds.

But some people are so convinced of the rightness if their belief, that they can only conceive of a disagreement as being due to a massive flaw or ill intent on the other persons part.

It’s a hallmark of people who mistake their own opinions as fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

[
Which would be an utter naturalistic fallacy that hinges on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution using the classic equivocation on the (unfortunate) word "fitness".

All fitness means is better at reproducing. It has fuck all to do with anything long or any sort of global maximum, and even less to do with human satisfaction. Evolutionary systems can and do evolve themselves into collapse all the time, all the while getting fitter and fitter.

In terms of genetic evolution, you’re more or less right. But other thing evolve as well. Ideas evolve, societies evolve, our understanding of the world evolves. The equilibrium point of a chemical compound in a changing environment evolves. That which is most stable and effective at “self preservation” in a given environment is “fit”. The concept isn’t limited to genetics. The concept holds for any complex system that isn’t in a static state.

And I’m pretty sure our current social system is capable of evolving itself into collapse!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've learned through the years that when referencing Evolution in these types of discussions it's best to understand the first and foremost and accurate translation is Natural Selection and biological. Using Evolution to describe socialital or personal change or progress can become muddy because there are many aspects of Natural Selection that can be violated by such use.

I appreciate the enthusiasm about Evolution that drives people to want to apply it to other aspects of life and existence, but one must understand that there will often be pushback from those well versed in the core fundamentals of Natural Selection, as there should be in order to protect the integrety of the science.

Evolution isn’t limited to natural selection, but also includes sexual selection - both independent (the reason peacocks have ridiculously tails) and guided (the reason terriers are distinct from hounds, and why they have a strong tendency to dig instead of bay).

There’s a reason why I’ve been explicit in saying that I’m NOT talking about genetic evolution. I am applying the mechanism of evolution to other systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

I've learned through the years that when referencing Evolution in these types of discussions it's best to understand the first and foremost and accurate translation is Natural Selection and biological. Using Evolution to describe socialital or personal change or progress can become muddy because there are many aspects of Natural Selection that can be violated by such use.

I appreciate the enthusiasm about Evolution that drives people to want to apply it to other aspects of life and existence, but one must understand that there will often be pushback from those well versed in the core fundamentals of Natural Selection, as there should be in order to protect the integrety of the science.

Agree that there should be some way to differentiate colloquial and scientific uses of the term. Most geneticists use a definition along the lines of "a change in allele frequencies within a population". I think of it as "what happens to any population of imperfect self-replicators". Either way, it is a far cry from what is meant when someone refers to ideas, what happens to societies or our understanding of the universe.

Give me another term that captures the tendency of elements within a dynamic and complex system to fall into relationships that approach a stable equilibrium within that system. Especially when the system itself is non-static and is constantly in a state of flux.... I’ll happily use a more appropriate term, but I don’t know one.

The effect of that mechanism on genes and living things is biological evolution. But the function is the same, whether it’s societies, elemental particles, or compost piles. They are all systems wherein the components of the system respond to the changing conditions in ways that “seek” a more stable configuration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[J842P]

I've learned through the years that when referencing Evolution in these types of discussions it's best to understand the first and foremost and accurate translation is Natural Selection and biological. Using Evolution to describe socialital or personal change or progress can become muddy because there are many aspects of Natural Selection that can be violated by such use.

I appreciate the enthusiasm about Evolution that drives people to want to apply it to other aspects of life and existence, but one must understand that there will often be pushback from those well versed in the core fundamentals of Natural Selection, as there should be in order to protect the integrety of the science.

Evolution isn’t limited to natural selection, but also includes sexual selection - both independent (the reason peacocks have ridiculously tails) and guided (the reason terriers are distinct from hounds, and why they have a strong tendency to dig instead of bay).

There’s a reason why I’ve been explicit in saying that I’m NOT talking about genetic evolution. I am applying the mechanism of evolution to other systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, but then you are making a fallacious appeal for this evolutionary dynamic as some sort of justification for capitalism.

Again, no do in that fight, just in the fight against faulty reasoning.

 

[Elixir]

Give me another term that captures the tendency of elements within a dynamic and complex system to fall into relationships that approach a stable equilibrium within that system.

I don't have the term you are demanding, but I can tell you that in the biological context evolution never gets anywhere a "stable equilibrium" on any geologically significant timescale.

Especially when the system itself is non-static and is constantly in a state of flux.... I’ll happily use a more appropriate term, but I don’t know one.

Well, we're stuck - people understand the colloquial meanings of "evolution" even if they don't understand the biological meaning. Dynamic systems change in all kinds of ways, from responsive to chaotic. But they don't "evolve" unless they are designed to do so, such as with genetic algorithms..

The effect of that mechanism on genes and living things is biological evolution. But the function is the same, whether it’s societies, elemental particles, or compost piles.

No, the function is definitely NOT the same.

They are all systems wherein the components of the system respond to the changing conditions in ways that “seek” a more stable configuration.

The components of evolution (individuals) do not change via evolution. Populations do. And biological evolution couldn't care less about stable configurations - it favors reproductive success, and that's ALL.

My apology for the thread drift - now back to watching the definitions of neo-liberalism "evolve".

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, but then you are making a fallacious appeal for this evolutionary dynamic as some sort of justification for capitalism.

Only to the extent that it would be a fallacious appeal to the same kind of equilibrium-seeking mechanism to “justify” why water expands when it freezes.

It’s not a justification anyway. It’s not a defense. It’s an explanation. A mixed capitalist economy seems to be that which works/worked best within the social structures and environments within which it arose.

That doesn’t mean that it can’t change as conditions change. Nor does it mean that something else might fit current or future conditions better.

But casting capitalism as a failed experiment implies far more intentionality to it than actually existed, and ignores completely the fact that it arose out of a growing merchant class and the development of a currency system of trade that it fit better than its predecessor systems. For lack of a better term, it “evolved” from prior economic systems... and at present, there isn’t a more “fit” system in competition with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't have the term you are demanding, but I can tell you that in the biological context evolution never gets anywhere a "stable equilibrium" on any geologically significant timescale.

I don’t have a term either... and I wouldn’t expect stable equilibrium to be achievable in ANY dynamic system on any significant time scale. I certainly wouldn’t expect any economic system to find any reasonable stability, that environment is a quickly changing one. At best, as I’ve said, the “fittest” system is the one that “most approaches” equilibrium. I didn’t mean to imply that it approached it very closely at all!

Well, we're stuck - people understand the colloquial meanings of "evolution" even if they don't understand the biological meaning. Dynamic systems change in all kinds of ways, from responsive to chaotic. But they don't "evolve" unless they are designed to do so, such as with genetic algorithms..

Back up a moment... do you think that critters were designed?

The components of evolution (individuals) do not change via evolution. Populations do. And biological evolution couldn't care less about stable configurations - it favors reproductive success, and that's ALL.

Your splitting hairs.. or I’m being unclear. Of course the specific individuals don’t change within that context... but the components (the species) do. And reproduction coils certainly be considered an attempt at a stable configuration from the perspective of the genetic material that is carried forward and continues.

My apology for the thread drift - now back to watching the definitions of neo-liberalism "evolve".

[emoji38]. No need to apologize. I take a large part of the responsibility for this particular driftage.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Canard DuJour]

Give me another term that captures the tendency of elements within a dynamic and complex system to fall into relationships that approach a stable equilibrium within that system.

Certainly not neoliberalism. Within about three decades, neoliberalism slowed then crashed the global economy. In the decade since, it has been on life support from central banks pumping in oceans of liquidity, and is now threatening social cohesion in ways we haven't seen since the 1930s.

 

[PyramidHead]

From an excellent book I'm reading, The Reactionary Mind by Corey Robin (p. 133):

The Nobel Prize–winning economist Friedrich Hayek is the leading theoretician of this movement, which is often called neoliberalism but can also be understood as the most genuinely political theory of capitalism the right has managed to produce. The theory does not imagine a shift from government to the individual, as is often claimed by conservatives; nor does it imagine a shift from the state to the market or from society to the atomized individual, as is often claimed by the left. Instead, the theory recasts our understanding of politics and where it might be found. It takes what Nietzsche called grosse Politik—a conception of political life as the embodiment of ancient ideals of aristocratic action, aesthetic notions of artistic creation, and a rarefied vision of the warrior—and locates that vision not in high affairs of state but in the operations and personnel of a capitalist economy. The result is an agonistic romance of the market, where economic activity is understood as exciting rather than efficient, as the expression of aristocratic virtues, aesthetic values, and warlike action rather than a repository of bourgeois conceits.

This describes Trump to a tee, and highlights him as the culmination of these tendencies. The "man of money" who strides in and sets of the chain of events that makes everybody better off looks foolish when someone like Trump plays it up, but it's an extension of the kind of neoliberalism described here, which measures economic freedom by asking about business owners and how lenient state regulations are first, rather than asking about workers and how much access and influence they have in the economy. The upper echelons of finance and politics are thought of as a place where the true visionaries hang out and talk shop, and everybody else is supposed to hang back as spectators because they can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves.

 

[Elixir]

Back up a moment... do you think that critters were designed?

Lol! My bad - poor choice of words. "Design" in the sense that I intended, is simply the inherent tendency of closed systems within this universe to self-organize. It is such that all populations of imperfect self-replicators undergo evolution. That applies not only to biological organisms, but ANY entity that reproduces imperfect copies of itself, such as a computer program using genetic algorithms. I don't see social trends as strictly adhering to that description - but maybe, in certain cases.

Again, the only thing "sought" by the process is reproductive success. I get peeved about the use of the loose colloquial definition of evolution where it is intentionally or through ignorance, conflated with the biological definition - e.g. by creationists.

 

[PyramidHead]

Translation seems to be: “if people don’t think like I do it’s because they’re dumb or brainwashed or evil... or some combination”. You seem to be under the impression that your way of thinking is the only right way of thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah but simultaneously... isn't that the definition of having a belief and thinking it's true?

I don’t think it’s that clean. I think many would argue that they have provisional beliefs - things that are held to be true until new information comes along. Not everyone takes the position that only they are right. Many people are open to considering another persons perspective, and are okay with changing their minds.

But some people are so convinced of the rightness if their belief, that they can only conceive of a disagreement as being due to a massive flaw or ill intent on the other persons part.

It’s a hallmark of people who mistake their own opinions as fact.

It's also a hallmark of having a sincerely held moral position, though. Not all beliefs are as provisional as others, even as they are technically vulnerable to being overthrown. It's just that some categories of belief are held as moral positions by one person and neutral matters of fact by another, depending on their content. So, someone who is vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq, for example, could see it as such a moral outrage that anyone who disagrees would be condemned by that person as lacking compassion. Someone else, who looks at the Iraq war purely as a strategic question about international politics, might agree that it was a bad idea, but would have perhaps a more charitable view of their opponents. Yet, in this case, I would say the person who is morally opposed to the war (and is thus morally disgusted by its supporters) is actually thinking about it in the right way, while the one who is just looking at the political and tactical implications, though less emotionally invested, is missing the more important question. Passionate defense of a position with deep moral consequences is bound to cast those who disagree in a bad light, and I think that's something that comes with the territory of having a conscience, not something to be avoided.

 

[PyramidHead]

RE: the definition of success when asking about successful non-capitalist states

It’s more based on life experience fancy, general health, availability of leisure time, and the hierarchy of needs. Unless you think the heirs they of needs is somehow an exclusively capitalist thing? I mean, I didn’t really think that survival, procreation, and happiness were something limited to capitalism.

It isn't, but that opens the door to counting any society where the majority of people's survival, procreation, and happiness needs were adequately met as successful, which would arguably include the vast majority of pre-capitalist agrarian communities and pre-agrarian tribal communities when you account for technological differences. The original question implies that ONLY capitalist societies are successful, which does not survive scrutiny if you depart from capitalist notions of success and include ones such as Maslow's.

Check your history. Nation-states predate capitalism by a few thousand years.

True, and I shouldn't have phrased it like that. I just mean that the existence of bordered nation-states is beneficial to capitalism.

I’m rolling all of this together, and responding with one term: evolution.

It’s not really any different than genetic evolution. That which dominates at present is that which is best fit for the current environment. That which was supplanted was not as fit. That which supplants this in the future will be better fit for that future environment. At present, a mixed capitalist economy seems to be best fit for providing for the survival and satisfaction of the greatest number of people in the current environment.

If the environment changes, that may not stay true. If something new comes along, it might prove better fit for the current environment or more adaptable to future changes.

As you're no doubt aware, the traits that nature selects as optimal for genetic reproduction are by no means the ones we should be supporting at every turn, and in many cases we are obliged to intentionally suppress our strongest evolutionary impulses for the sake of morality. Economic systems do not emerge from random variations; they come from human ideas about who is worth considering as politically valuable, opinions on racial hierarchy across history, and religious disputes in the last couple of millennia, among other things. Societal changes are directed by human struggles. The only utility of the Darwinian analogy might be: just like evolution only produces satisfactory solutions that are better at replicating genes than nearby competitors, and not optimal ones that are intelligently designed to maximize happiness or minimize suffering, the current stage of so-called "evolution" of systems of production cannot be assumed to be optimal or even desirable for human freedom and satisfaction, solely on the grounds that it preserves its own dominance.

Wait, back up: what us being offered that is new and unique?

Anarchism or anarcho-communism is an alternative to capitalism that not only abolishes private ownership of productive materials, it also abolishes state apparatuses that exert authority over citizens from a position of dominance. To my knowledge, this form of living was the norm for homo sapiens for hundreds of thousands of years until the advent of agriculture, and then it started to be supplanted by market societies run by whoever had control of the grain surpluses. Here and there, it has arisen again after revolutionary overthrow of tsars and following civil wars. In every case, without exception, it has thrived for a short period of time before being violently smashed by a nearby power... never because of anything internal to the society itself. The Paris Commune, revolutionary Spain in 1936, Russia in the months after the October revolution, and other pockets of society have shown the possibility of living in a rational, humane way as a group without oppressive power structures. In several cases, they weren't just destroyed by capitalist nations but also by state-socialist ones; nothing unites capitalists and state-socialists against a common enemy better than a society with neither capital nor a state.

If you read about what has been written about these places, about Catalonia for example, they tend to have been freer societies than most modern democracies are in the present day. Usually, upon declaring themselves finished with being ruled by a king or a conglomerate, they immediately liberated women from the household and decriminalized homosexuality, in a place and era where the rest of the world had yet to consider the status quo problematic in either case. They cooperatively enacted comprehensive public services like day care centers for women who wished to work and clinics for people who needed medicine. These still sometimes cost money in the United States in 2019. Unfortunately, they happened to take root too close to a world war, too close to an imperialist nextdoor or across the sea, or were too hasty in trying to catch up with the technology of more advanced nations. As a result, they were unable to overcome scarcity, defend themselves from military attack, or preserve their freedom while accelerating technological progress.

Today, implementation of libertarian anarchism in the United States would not have these problems, because we are the world's superpower in resources, military might, and science. It would be next to impossible to squash an anarchist takeover that acquired control of America's reins and ruled it democratically from the bottom up as an example to the rest of the world.

Beyond that, just like any other evolutionary adaptation... it’s going to need to gain enough of a foothold that it can actually prove out as better. So far, that hasn’t happened.

You're still hung up on this evolution idea. What is better for human needs is not necessarily what has managed to supplant the competition through conquest and deprivation, just like a genetic trait that compels forcibly raping unwilling female partners might be best at propagating genes but something nobody should endorse.

 

[PyramidHead]

Harry Cleaver when asked about leisure time in neoliberal capitalist societies:

What I have been arguing for some time now, is that we get a totally different vision, a different reading of Marxist theory and a different politics of the overthrow and replacement of capitalism, when we focus in on the substance of the social relationships of capitalism: work. Capitalism is not just a social system which exploits people through work, such that we can think about ending the exploitation and keeping the work, it is a social system which tendentially subordinates all of life to work and by so doing alienates those it forces to work and prevents them from developing their own paths of self-realization. The subordination of life to work means not only are we forced to work long hours--such long hours that we have little energy left over for other activities--but that those other activities tend to be reduced to the mere recreation of life as labor power, i.e., the willingness and ability to work.

For example, for those who are waged during each day of our usual working week (Monday through Friday for many) we not only find most of our waking hours taken up by working directly for capital on the job, but we also find that much of our supposedly "free" time, or "leisure" time is taken up preparing for work, getting to work, getting home from work, recuperating from work, doing what is necessary so that we can go to work the next day, and so on. For those who are not waged, e.g. the unwaged in the home (usually housewives but often children and sometimes men), "leisure" time turns out to be mostly dedicated to house "work", which in turn is not just the crafting and reproduction of domestic life but involves the work of turning children into workers and reproducing workers as workers. In other words, women have children but then they (along with husbands sometimes) must rear them to take orders, to curb their desires and spontaneity and to learn to do as they are told (the same work that teachers undertake in schools). Children, thus, are not left free to discover life on their own but are put to work, the work of turning themselves into workers as well as that of reproducing their parents as such. Similarly, women qua housewives do not merely work for/with their husbands, their work reproduces their husbands as labor power on a daily and weekly basis through feeding them, cleaning their clothes, maintaining their evironment, providing sexual and psychological services that make it possible for them to return to work each day without shooting the boss, or themselves. Parallel analyses can be made of the "free" time on weekends and vacations. In short, what I'm arguing is not merely that capital has extended its mechanisms of domination beyond the factory (as the critical theorists have long argued) but that what those mechanisms involve is the imposition of work, including the imposition of the work of reproducing life as work.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The term I used was "essentially a sliding scale of Democratic Socialism" for the "Western system." By that I meant to include all forms (including Social Democracy) that are currently operating in what have traditionally been known as the "West" (i.e, Europe, the Americas, NATO members etc). Perhaps "spectrum" would be more appropriate.

Social Democracy is not a subset of Democratic Socialism.

Do you not understand what a spectrum (or sliding scale) entails?

 

[Emily Lake]

Lol! My bad - poor choice of words.

No worries, I didn’t assume you actually meant designed. It was partly just making sure, because I’ve been blindsided be ID people before... but also in part because I thought it was funny [emoji38]

"Design" in the sense that I intended, is simply the inherent tendency of closed systems within this universe to self-organize. It is such that all populations of imperfect self-replicators undergo evolution. That applies not only to biological organisms, but ANY entity that reproduces imperfect copies of itself, such as a computer program using genetic algorithms. I don't see social trends as strictly adhering to that description - but maybe, in certain cases.

Again, the only thing "sought" by the process is reproductive success. I get peeved about the use of the loose colloquial definition of evolution where it is intentionally or through ignorance, conflated with the biological definition - e.g. by creationists.

It’s not ignorance or intention, in this case. It’s simply that I don’t have any term that fits as closely... so I make do with what I’ve got.

Humor me, and step out of the strict biological sense for a bit. Ideas “replicate” when they pass from one person to another, don’t they? And the replicate imperfectly. Relationships among elements in a complex system aren’t invented new each time a pair changes, what worked before is the default... and it continues to work until something in the conditions changes. In that sense, the relationship is replicated, but it is also imperfect because the environment, the set of conditions in which the relationship is occurring, is not static.

I know thus is an extremely abstract application of a specific concept. Think of it like extending the concept of “oak” to the concept of “tree” then to “Forest “ and eventually to “ecology”. I’m not claiming to be super brilliant or anything, just trying to frame that I know this is abstract, but it’s rooted in something reasonable.

So consider an oxygen atom at moderate temperatures in a neutrally charged environment. That oxygen atom will pair with the nearest oxygen atom, even if there are hydrogen atoms present. The “relationship” is the pairing. Now, most of the time, this is going to be true... but sometimes there are going to be pockets of other elements closer, and the oxygen will bond with them, even if it’s not as strong a bond... they do what makes them most stable in their current environment. So that relationship “replicates”, and it does so “imperfectly”. Now let’s say that the temperature drops and there’s an electrical charge added. Now it’s less stable for oxygen to pair with oxygen - it’s more stable for oxygen to pair with two hydrogens. The dynamic at play - the relationship that produces the highest degree of organization, the highest degree of order, changes with the environment.

Now shift a bit and think about viruses. They replicate, but they don’t replicate in the same way other organism do when we usually talk about evolution. They hijack cells and make copies of themselves. But they also evolve, don’t they? They change with conditions, and those viruses that are better at replications themselves in a given set of conditions are the ones that persist.

At the end of the day, I do t think genes actually care about reproduction. They care about their material persisting and bring copies for as long as possible. They don’t care about sex, sex us nothing more than the mechanism by which that genetic code persists longer.

A genetic algorithm doesn’t reproduce, it persists the winners to the next iteration. Same thing when it comes to ideas, societies, and any other complex relationship within a dynamic environment. That which is “fit” persists until it is no longer fit.

*All references to things caring, choosing, or other anthropomorphisms are not to be taken literally. There just aren’t any words for it that don’t include those kinds of terms!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk