Evolution is smarter than we are

"As the biochemist Leslie Orgel famously remarked, ‘Evolution is cleverer than you are’, meaning that when an evolutionary process is let loose upon a problem, it will often find solutions that no human designer would have dreamed of. But there is an unhelpful corollary to Orgel’s maxim: if the problem is misstated then evolution is likely to find loopholes few of us could have imagined. In biological evolution, of course, there is no one to misstate the objective. Genes succeed if they are passed down the generations. But with Karl Sims’s virtual evolution, it was Sims who set the criteria for reproductive success and the results were sometimes perverse. There is a revealing moment in the video which displays a creature that evolved to move quickly on land. The creature, a crude slab of a body with two blocks loosely attached, simply rolls around and around in a wide circle, its ‘head’ staying still while its ‘legs’, crossing and uncrossing, mark out the circle’s circumference. The virtual creature looks like one of life’s losers, but it isn’t: it’s a winner, because it is achieving the goal Karl Sims set: move quickly on a flat plane.
...
we discovered that the economy is itself an evolutionary environment in which a huge variety of ingenious profit-seeking strategies emerge through a decentralised process of trial and error. As Leslie Orgel’s rule suggests, what emerges is far more brilliant than any single planner could have dreamed up. But as the dark side of Orgel’s rule predicts, if the rules of the economic game are poorly written, economic evolution will find the loopholes. That is why sensible-seeming environmental rules can produce perverse results: rainforest chopped down to produce palm oil; trucks laden with woodchips braving the congestion of central London; the rise and rise of the SUV. Evolution is smarter than we are, and economic evolution tends to outsmart the rules we erect to guide it."
.
Trechos retirados do capítulo V do livro "Adapt" de Tim Harford

O mecanismo de selecção natural no modelo capitalista.

"At the dawn of the automobile industry, two thousand firms were operating in the United States. Around 1 per cent of them survived. The dot-com bubble spawned and killed countless new businesses. Today, 10 per cent of American companies disappear every year. What is striking about the market system is not how few failures there are, but how ubiquitous failure is even in the most vibrant growth industries. 

.

Why, then, are there so many failures in a system that seems to be so economically successful overall? It is partly the difficulty of the task. Philip Tetlock showed how hard it was for expert political and economic analysts to generate decent forecasts, and there is no reason to believe that it is any easier for marketers or product developers or strategists to predict the future. In 1912, Singer’s managers probably did not forecast the rise of the off-the-peg clothing industry. To make things even more difficult, corporations must compete with each other. To survive and be profitable it is not enough to be good; you must be one of the best. Asking why so many companies go out of business is the same as asking why so few athletes reach Olympic finals. In a market economy, there is usually room for only a few winners in each sector. Not everyone can be one of them. 

.

The difference between market-based economies and centrally planned disasters, such as Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, is not that markets avoid failure. It’s that large-scale failures do not seem to have the same dire consequences for the market as they do for planned economies. (The most obvious exception to this claim is also the most interesting: the financial crisis that began in 2007. ... Failure in market economies, while endemic, seems to go hand in hand with rapid progress.

...

The market has solved the problem of generating material wealth, but its secret has little to do with the profit motive or the superior savvy of the boardroom over the cabinet office. Few company bosses would care to admit it, but the market fumbles its way to success, as successful ideas take off and less successful ones die out."

.

Retirei estes trechos de "Adapt - Why Success Always Starts with Failure" de Tim Harford e gosto de os relacionar com o discurso de todos aqueles que pedem apoios e subsídios... protecção contra o mecanismo de selecção natural no modelo capitalista.