Heroes: Part II

Sexual reproduction is a curious evolutionary adaptation. It reshuffles the genes of the current generation, guaranteeing that the next generation is similar to, but distinct from, its parents. Why do this? If a particular set of genes has been successful, why not reuse them as they are, rather than risking passing on a worse combination?

The answer is flexibility. The environment (and, indeed, the competitive environment) is not static, so a static genetic mix will not serve for long. The ideal system is one that passes nearly all of the most successful traits to the next generation, with a very small percentage of novelty thrown in. The novel genes are an insurance policy against change.

Societies use this strategy as well.

Conventionalists are society's standard gene load out - the tried and the true. Even Romantic Conventionalists, who oppose the prevailing the culture, are part of the standard genetic material. Because they pull directly against the tide of the society they prevent accelerating groupthink. They anchor the society against drift.

Fundamentalists are the novel genetic material. Their commitment to their ideas, rather than to society itself, means that they are forever moving in a completely independent direction. Sometimes they can be a cancer, like the thinkers who produced eugenics. Sometimes they can provide the adaptation that takes the society in a new evolutionary direction, as did the men who dreamed of a purer democracy, without royalty. Most often they are interesting, but harmless, with no strong effect on anyone but themselves (let me again refer you to Eric Falkenstein's brilliant post on how unusual ideas are one of the penalties of being intelligent).

Sunday Links

California's budget problem results from the uncontrolled growth of government. However, help is on the way! Unfortunately it's coming in the form of a possibly illegal takings (Mother Jones and Cafe Hayek).

You may have already guessed that a rushed and kludgey repair job on the Bay Bridge caused the recent failure. This analysis suggests that guess is correct (Sci-experiments.com).

The University of Utah Genetic Science and Learning Center has created an excellent interactive graphic that helps explain the scale of small things. You'll want to show this one to your kids as you explain to them about germs or molecules (U of U).

The problem with economics is that it hasn't advanced far enough that it can make useful predictions. However, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb would point out, that's OK because there are still plenty of economists who are willing to go out on a limb and suggest untestable hypotheses to explain past events (Amazon.com and Bluematter).

The problem with socialism is that no one knows how much anything costs. Eric Falkenstein uses Amtrack as an example. Funny, but I keep hearing the same thing about health care (Falkenblog).