"there’s no way of defining a well-adapted organism except in retrospect"

Um trecho curioso retirado de "How Life (and Death) Spring From Disorder":

"Adaptation here has a more specific meaning than the usual Darwinian picture of an organism well-equipped for survival. One difficulty with the Darwinian view is that there’s no way of defining a well-adapted organism except in retrospect. The “fittest” are those that turned out to be better at survival and replication, but you can’t predict what fitness entails. Whales and plankton are well-adapted to marine life, but in ways that bear little obvious relation to one another.
.
England’s definition of “adaptation” is closer to Schrödinger’s, and indeed to Maxwell’s: A well-adapted entity can absorb energy efficiently from an unpredictable, fluctuating environment. It is like the person who keeps his footing on a pitching ship while others fall over because she’s better at adjusting to the fluctuations of the deck. Using the concepts and methods of statistical mechanics in a nonequilibrium setting, England and his colleagues argue that these well-adapted systems are the ones that absorb and dissipate the energy of the environment, generating entropy in the process."

A fazer recordar as simulações de Lindgren que aprendi com Beinhocker, as estratégias nunca são eternas e são contextuais. E a fazer recordar os não-fragilistas, aqueles que se preparam para o pior. E a segunda lição da teoria dos jogos:

"Lesson #2: Rational choice, chosing a dominant strategy, can lead to outcomes that suck,"