The comments section of my last blog erupted into a comment war that I should really respond to. OK, it was just Travis (hello Travis!). But I still need to respond. Most of this is things I see as misconceptions about evolution in general. I don't think Travis mentioned all of them, but I think they're all related- and good to know- so I've thrown them in here for the fun of it.
Firstly, I'm sure we've all heard claims that evolution is "just a theory". This has mostly come from the Intelligent Design people, and it's been widely condemned as misleading. The fact is, evolution is "just a theory". That means its a pretty good description of how things work. What it is not is a description of how things should work. Admittedly, saying evolution is the way things should work is mostly the work of Hollywood biologists (who, remarkably, are mostly Lamarkists). But this makes it quite a common misconception, and a bit of a dangerous one. Frankly I have no idea how things should work, but assuming the status quo is best is quite bonkers.
" Beware the voice of the Profit!"? Erm, no actually. To be profitable, you have to make the best use of available resources, to produce something that ultimately makes life easier for people. This is also what a good genetic trait does. It turns out that ultimately, profitability is an extension of the need to survive. So it follows that people who are trying to produce something profitable, are actually aiding survival. Mining companies produce energy and materials for building shelter and transport. The more they produce, for the least effort, the more profitable they become. The thing that makes things difficult is money. Not all things can be easily compared. An hour of a watchmaker's time is not directly comparable to a tonne of iron ore. This is why a universal unit, money was introduced. Money should make things easier, but the fact is although it can measure the value of most useful things, there are still a lot that it can't, things like knowledge, and health. Another problem is that you can't always figure out what the most profitable thing to do is, but that's pretty obvious. It does however, have a very significant consequence, which I'll write about later (except I'll probably forget, its all part of the fun here at Alias Mr Hackenbacker).
Travis also mentioned short term profitability, and apparently he doesn't like it. Here's the thing though. An organism might receive a new trait through genetic mutation that in the long run might make it the king of all creation. The problem is though, that if the trait is not immediately useful, it is not selected. Similarly, if a company isn't profitable (producing something useful) pretty much all the time, it just consumes capital (resources), and fails. So short term profitability is just another extension of one consequence of natural selection.
I hope I've said something useful here. There are several more conclusions I could make, but this is supposed to be a technology blog, not "Hiram explains capitalism", so from now on its shiny things and loud explosions. And probably more bloody evolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thank you for clearing up the horrible misconception about the meaning of "theory". Too many people think "theory" means "that which is unproved", when it really means "plausible explanation or model of observations".
There are, of course, instances when profit can be a bad thing (usually when greed and negligence are involved), but that's probably got nothing to do with evolution or capitalism.
Hi Hackenbacker! *waves*
"Beware the voice of the Profit" was a piss take: Prophet... profit... geddit? No? Personal joke... don't worry :P (it was shamelessly stolen from The Designers Republic)
It isn't uncommon for a company to focus on Short Term. Short term profit taking isn't necessarily a bad thing and i am not exactly against it (it was an observation than anything)... but there are several things that can be flawed with it as a system:
- Heavy reliance on short term leads to an unstable situation. If you are sorely lacking in long term solutions, then all you are doing is hoping that people follow whatever it is that you are putting out and hoping they don't look away. You may not be able to change quick enough to adapt if there is a moderate shift away and so you aren't going to be reliable for long.
- Consider the stock market: A corporation/wealthy individual could bolster a currently worthless/average stock by buying it up. A bit of good/bought advertising later and stocks rise. The company then decides to rely on the stock market for a good portion of income (again, not uncommon). Stocks continue to rise until - BAM - CEO/whatever dumps the stock. Prices drop ridiculously and can cause the devastating effects on the corporation (see the ABC Learning Centres as an example). Short term wise, the CEO/whoever has good profit from this. Everything else relating to the company falls apart. This could have roll on effects... In terms of actual genetics this is similar to seedless fruits, such as commercial bananas. Whether it came about by chance (it happens) or by deliberate manipulation, a seedless fruit basically has no chance of reproduction (growth) by itself. It requires extremely favourable external influences, such as grafting (reliance on the stock market), to proliferate. Should this be taken away, it is devastated and/or destroyed. Furthermore, this reliance on highly favourable external influences reduces diversity by carrying the same genetics over through the generations. One nasty bug/stock market crash and it is all over.
It's a risky business.
I probably have also simplified things and got something wrong there too, but... y'know... this is how things work.
Woo for replies :P
I agree with the "Just a theory" section.
...And... back to technology.
Post a Comment