I was wondering what, if any, overlap there is between ecology and economics. Such concepts in ecology as competition, niches, food chains, carry capacity, seems to apply to all animals including humans. Yet we also have free markets making us immune to these forces or do we? In times of disaster do people fight each other for resources in a zero-sum game, do we need some type of predator to help keep our population in balance? Basically what is the relation between the ideas of malthus and the ideas of mises?
Thanks!
Free markets are not zero-sum, and neither is cooperation more generally. Shermer's Mind of the Market is a good enough book on the biological bases of economics, and what's more, he's an Austrian.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I agree with Jon. Economics are about how humans create capital to produce, how the network of exchanges (markets) divide the work, etc. And, for instance, firms compete on being more efficient in using resources to produce stuff, while animals compete on who can get the resources for their kinds... But maybe there are some stuff where you could see some analogies, when you start consider those animals that cooperate even if they don't do it rationally...
Btw, Jon, are you sure that Shermer is an Austrian? Does he say that in his book or something? That would be sweet. ;)
Equality before the law and material equality are not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time. -- F. A. Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty
Yeah, he cites Mises with great approval. He's also an ex-Randian.
Jon Irenicus: Yeah, he cites Mises with great approval. He's also an ex-Randian. -Jon
So, he's a cyborg now? But seriously, I should check Sherman's book out, sounds like good stuff.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Here's one analogy that I like.
In ants, there are subtle cues that they give each other, telling them what to do. Via these clues, ants decide whether to "forage for food", "care for babies", "fight intruders", or whatever.
In humans, money is the way we communicate about what work needs to be done. When the State tampers with money and the market, it prevents people from rationally deciding what work needs to be done.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
fsk: Here's one analogy that I like. In ants, there are subtle cues that they give each other, telling them what to do. Via these clues, ants decide whether to "forage for food", "care for babies", "fight intruders", or whatever. In humans, money is the way we communicate about what work needs to be done. When the State tampers with money and the market, it prevents people from rationally deciding what work needs to be done.
Seconded. Reminds me a little of an article I read on emergent complexity: http://www.anarchistnews.org/?q=node/3796.
Biology is a subclass of complexity science, just like economics. But the comparison does not go further.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
But I was just wondering that if the predictions of a science run contrary to the predictions of another science, yet both have the same subject for their study, what are the truth values for these predictions? Like when animals run low on resources biology would say that the animals will fight to the death for these scarce things while economics says that some animals will demand a higher price thereby conserving these scarce resources whereas other animals will be provided for by charity. How are these two claims reconciled?
Clearly, the observations of economics then trump those of biology in this connection, as it is economics that is involved in the study of acting man. And that makes all the difference.
fakename:Like when animals run low on resources biology would say that the animals will fight to the death for these scarce things while economics says that some animals will demand a higher price thereby conserving these scarce resources whereas other animals will be provided for by charity.
Well, animals don't have any economic system to produce and allocate food. Anyway, if there isn't enough affordable food in the market, you're going to see some riots with humans as well. In a natural disaster, prices may quatriplicate or more, because the retailers don't know when the next cargo is coming, a lot of them might have been destroyed as well, people will buy more food because of the uncertainty of the future, etc. A lot of people however see price gouging as exploiting people, since the sellers are benefiting from a distaster, but if the prices remain the same, people will just buy as much or more future than before, and with supplies down, you'll just get long waiting lines for the following cargo... A price increase has also the advantage that it motivates a lot of people from outside to come in for the buck. Benevolence and charity has its play in economics, but fact is that greed feeds a lot more people. :P
fakename: But I was just wondering that if the predictions of a science run contrary to the predictions of another science, yet both have the same subject for their study, what are the truth values for these predictions? Like when animals run low on resources biology would say that the animals will fight to the death for these scarce things while economics says that some animals will demand a higher price thereby conserving these scarce resources whereas other animals will be provided for by charity. How are these two claims reconciled?
Does biology say that about social animals, such as ants?
It seems that even social animals will follow this type of behavior; at least I think rats and rabbits will fight each other if population increases beyond the food supply. Ants have been known to battle with members of their own species, for instance, supposing that one colony has larvae another might come to steal these and raise them as their "slaves".
fakename: It seems that even social animals will follow this type of behavior; at least I think rats and rabbits will fight each other if population increases beyond the food supply. Ants have been known to battle with members of their own species, for instance, supposing that one colony has larvae another might come to steal these and raise them as their "slaves".
Which is another way to say that ant colonies that cooperate better will beat out the other ants.
Ultimately, I think the question people should be asking to dissuade anybody from getting carried away with such eqivalencies is this: Would you contract with an animal? In my opinion, the whole exercise is as valuable as the latest science fiction fantasy movie -- all very silly.
Why just look at animals? How about inanimate objects?
Look at the market interactions between fire and rain! We could say that the lightening invaded the forest and coerced the trees into becoming charred carbon slaves. However, the clouds wanted a piece of the carbon action so they provided an incentive to the rain to fall down and offer a better deal to the trees. etc. etc. etc.
Ever curious regarding this question, of the delination between these two sciences, I say that perhaps my question is incorrect in its assumptions. Economics is the study of human action whereas biology, especially natural selection, is the study of how certain traits and genes randomly appear in animals. That is, biology is the study of genetic "action". So in the way of analogy we can say that it is possible at the same time to have a science describing human actions and a science describing the consequences of that action (for instance economics can tell us why a person mates with another but biology tells us the specific traits which develop from that interaction). Is this a good articulation?
Hmm, I think biology could perhaps be best seen as the science describing why biological forms are the way they are, and how they got that way. Psychology explains motivation on part of human agents, and praxeology deals with the consequences of human action, given whatever preferences.
yes that is a better characterisation of praxeology than what I had.
Mises never claimed that people would not kill eachother for scarce rescources, he simply said that we could all be better off by dividing our labor and trading material and emotional circumstances.
You see, in this day and age, a disruption in the division of labor would mean the deaths of millions if not billions. Conflict is not an option, yet people fight anyway.
When the division is broken, there would be panic. I guarentee people won't be waiting in line for food once it starts running low, it'll be every man for himself. The division would start over of course when people realize it's better to rob eachother in groups... And maybe even work together peacefully again! BUT the fact remains in such a famine scenario that self preservation will be the first thing on many peoples' minds (with plenty of exceptions). And sorry for my fellow Austrians, but if worst comes to worst, I will pick my own existence over yours. =]
Luckily, thanks to peaceful trade, we haven't had a full scale famine in the west in many long decades. Socialism hasn't torn it apart, but I know what could do it in a day, a war. We must avoid war at all costs.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer