I've noticed that some of the writers featured on LRC are non-evolutionists. Rockwell himself doesn't seem to take a position on biological evolution in anything I've read of his. Rothbard seems to be silent on the matter. I think I've run across a few remarks by Mises that suggest he accepted the idea of biological evolution. Hoppe has made many remarks that indicate he accepts an old universe and biological evolution. Some of the contributors to the Mises daily are Roman Catholic, which indicates that they might hold to evolutionary biology - since JPII sanctioned it, it's no longer a conflict of conscience for RCs to hold to it.
It seems to me that praxeology, as a discipline, must take into account not only the physical but also the biological facts about man. Is AE silent on biological evolution? Or does it explicitly embrace evolution? Or does it implicitly embrace evolution but treats it as a separate discipline? Or none of the above?
Clayton -
Why should economists talk about biology?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
As both a theist and an evolutionist, I would say Austrian economics and evolution are part of seperate sciences, but I do think it's fascinating to compare the process of natural selection with the process of active market selection and how both, though different in mechanism, one possessing a will and one an unthinking process of luck and diligence, produce superior products.
Esuric:Why should economists talk about biology?
Because it at the very least informs our decision making, and depending on how determinist you want to get might lend some inevitability to certain decisions. For example: old people and sweets. Ever notice there's barely a geezer without some kind of hard candy in his pocket or in the house, certainly within easy reach somehow? There's actually a reason for it, it's that as we get old our ability to smell and thus taste degrades and the finer points of complex tastes are lost to the basics of sweet, sour, salty. And old coots generally tend to gravitate toward one, usually sweet, which is why granny always had a boatload of hard caramels or cough drops, etc. I personally don't think evolution trumps free will, but it certainly informs our decision making processes.
And businesses take advantage of it too, especially at the marketing end. Businesses invest tons of resources into figuring out behaviors and marketing upon them. One that applies equally to the police as well as retailers: people tend to turn right more than left. When cops lose sight of someone in a chase and circumstances allow for a left or a right, chances are higher they went right. When people walk into stores, they also tend to go right, which is usually where you'll find the most expensive, fattest margin stuff.
At the very least there may be some evolution/biological origination for the tendency of many people to favor command and control rather than laissez faire when it comes to government. Perhaps an adaptation to small group living in which such command and control approaches are practicable because there's barely any resources to coordinate. Which would suck because it would likely mean no serious movement toward genuine free markets until enough people 'get it' on a cellular level so to speak.
Also evolution offers insights into domestication, where generally speaking it's thought man didn't go out and find cows, dogs, cats, etc. and bring them home and proceed to domesticate them. What's more likely is as we developed these animals developed with us, cows probably taking a liking to cultivated fields as a food source, cats probably taking a liking to the rodents and smaller animals that came with the same fields, not to mention closer quarters living in more built up places, and dogs for hunting and other reasons. I don't know if there's a "shit happens" school of capitalism which offers that as the impetus behind some developments, but it's a strong possibility that the entire pet industry finds its roots in the beginings of agriculture.
Why should that matter to economists who merely study the systems? Libertarians may want to know why laissez-faire is not preferred to command economies, but as an economist the preferences of individuals - resulting as they do from biology - are inconsequential in their capacity as a scientist.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Esuric: Why should economists talk about biology?
Ask them. They keep bringing this stuff up.
Jon Irenicus: Why should that matter to economists who merely study the systems? Libertarians may want to know why laissez-faire is not preferred to command economies, but as an economist the preferences of individuals - resulting as they do from biology - are inconsequential in their capacity as a scientist.
One would think that knowledge about the biology and origins of humans would be helpful in the study of human action.
Z.
A couple quick points that I know can be backed up with quotes, but I just don't have time to unearth them:
Jon Irenicus:Why should that matter to economists who merely study the systems?
Because being intellectually insular is a bad idea?
Evolution is a system of change. Economics is a system of change. Yes, it happens on another level but understanding of the one helps in the understanding of the other.
J. Grayson Lilburne:Misesian praxeology itself, however, can have nothing to do with biology
Sure, if you believe in spirits and ghosts. But then why must the laws of human action be considered laws? The supernatural can always defy such laws.
Could you elaborate, please? I have no strong opinion on this but, at first thought, it would seem that a praxeology built around a "pigeons act" axiom -- one focused on pigeon action -- would be somewhat different from one studying human action.
Maybe, but that doesn't apply to evolution alone then. Mises would agree considering the number of disciplines he considered an economist should be versed in. But strictly speaking it's neither here nor there insofar as pure economics is concerned except for giving useful analogies of how market systems work.
In the back of "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman, Appendix 2, he provides some short comments about some books, one of which is very interesting and also somewhat related to this thread.
David Friedman, "The Machinery of Freedom", Appendix 2: Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976). An explanation of evolutionary biology and sociobiology--the economics of genes. One of the most interesting books I have read in recent years.
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976). An explanation of evolutionary biology and sociobiology--the economics of genes. One of the most interesting books I have read in recent years.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
z1235: J. Grayson Lilburne:Misesian praxeology itself, however, can have nothing to do with biology Could you elaborate, please? I have no strong opinion on this but, at first thought, it would seem that a praxeology built around a "pigeons act" axiom -- one focused on pigeon action -- would be somewhat different from one studying human action. Z.
I'm supposed to be working right now, so I don't have time to fully go into it, but if pigeons could economize, then all the theorems of praxeology would apply to them just as much as to humans. The accidental material phenomena that happen to give rise to action is immaterial to praxeology. Praxeology deals with action as such, not the origins of action.
J. Grayson Lilburne:I'm supposed to be working right now,
Me too ... Thx for the explanation.
I agree with others in here that praxeology as such need not have anything to do with biology.
But than again, I’d find the intellectual capabilities of a guy who rejects evolution seriously wanting. I would hardly lend this guy an eager ear when it comes to walking uncharted paths in AE, not merely applying what Mises already said.
Merlin:But than again, I’d find the intellectual capabilities of a guy who rejects evolution seriously wanting.
One can reject evolution and still realize that our behavior is a product of our biology.
The debate over evolution can simply be over the designer. One Engineer (A creator) vs. the natural process of evolution.
DD5: One can reject evolution and still realize that our behavior is a product of our biology. The debate over evolution can simply be over the designer. One Engineer (A creator) vs. the natural process of evolution.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, as I do not consider myself exactly the hioghest authority on this, but as far as I know the theist position is that, according to the Old Testament, God made people some 10’000 years ago, and nothing before existed. I find that view hard to reconcile with…anything I know. A theist accepting evolution as a process, albeit a designed process, would be seriously deviating form holy writ.
Merlin: DD5: One can reject evolution and still realize that our behavior is a product of our biology. The debate over evolution can simply be over the designer. One Engineer (A creator) vs. the natural process of evolution. Please correct me if I’m wrong, as I do not consider myself exactly the hioghest authority on this, but as far as I know the theist position is that, according to the Old Testament, God made people some 10’000 years ago, and nothing before existed. I find that view hard to reconcile with…anything I know. A theist accepting evolution as a process, albeit a designed process, would be seriously deviating form holy writ.
The whole premise behind "Intelligent design" theorists is that biology per se is not rejected. It just claims that the complexity of living organisms need not require an evolutionary process. In fact, they pretend to refute it by "scientific" means. As an alternative, they suggest that a Creator could have designed all that you see around you.
DD5: The whole premise behind "Intelligent design" theorists is that biology per se is not rejected. It just claims that the complexity of living organisms need not require an evolutionary process. In fact, they pretend to refute it by "scientific" means. As an alternative, they suggest that a Creator could have designed all that you see around you.
I personally find it interesting when an Austrian economist rejects evolution claiming that natural self-organization is preposterous (I'm not claiming you're doing this; I only quoted you because your post is the inspiration for this one). To me the two disciplines, while describing very different things, have a whole lot in common. And the more I learn about nature and how everything in it fits together, the more I find it hard to believe that it's all the brainchild of some central planner in the sky. To me, intelligent design is preposterous for many of the same reasons as is the notion, implicit in statism, that civilization was built by central planners.
Mike: DD5: The whole premise behind "Intelligent design" theorists is that biology per se is not rejected. It just claims that the complexity of living organisms need not require an evolutionary process. In fact, they pretend to refute it by "scientific" means. As an alternative, they suggest that a Creator could have designed all that you see around you. I personally find it interesting when an Austrian economist rejects evolution claiming that natural self-organization is preposterous (I'm not claiming you're doing this; I only quoted you because your post is the inspiration for this one). To me the two disciplines, while describing very different things, have a whole lot in common. And the more I learn about nature and how everything in it fits together, the more I find it hard to believe that it's all the brainchild of some central planner in the sky. To me, intelligent design is preposterous for many of the same reasons as is the notion, implicit in statism, that civilization was built by central planners.
I agree and I also find it ironic that certain people (won't mention names) affiliated with Austrian economics try to discredit sciences such as Evolutionary psychology, when it was actually statists and Marxists who were its biggest intellectual enemies. Evolutionary psychology has actually helped to refute theories of social corporation based on altruism, and it has reinforced a human nature that is based on the self-interest and voluntary corporation that is the basis for any market economy.
Merlin:But than again, I’d find the intellectual capabilities of a guy who rejects evolution seriously wanting. I would hardly lend this guy an eager ear when it comes to walking uncharted paths in AE, not merely applying what Mises already said.
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
ClaytonB: Some of the contributors to the Mises daily are Roman Catholic, which indicates that they might hold to evolutionary biology - since JPII sanctioned it, it's no longer a conflict of conscience for RCs to hold to it.
Some of the contributors to the Mises daily are Roman Catholic, which indicates that they might hold to evolutionary biology - since JPII sanctioned it, it's no longer a conflict of conscience for RCs to hold to it.
Believe it or not, it never was a conflict. The Roman Catholic Church has never had an official position on evolution, nor has it ever taught young earth creationism. Now the Church adheres somewhat (inconsistently) to a Creator-driven evolution while calling mankind a 'special' creation, while obviously rejecting atheistic evolution.
maxpot46: Does that include the origin of life debate? Because I find myself undecided on that issue. Certainly evolution and random selection exist and are active forces.
Does that include the origin of life debate? Because I find myself undecided on that issue. Certainly evolution and random selection exist and are active forces.
The origin of life is a form of evolution itself. And before that you have the evolution of planetary bodies and matter. All are forms of change but on different scales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_evolution
Scholar's Curse: once you've mastered a specific field of study, you're deluded into thinking you've mastered them all.
ClaytonB:It seems to me that praxeology, as a discipline, must take into account not only the physical but also the biological facts about man.
Praxeology is not even about man. It could be about robots or aliens or dolphins. It is only about actors, not biological man.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: ClaytonB:It seems to me that praxeology, as a discipline, must take into account not only the physical but also the biological facts about man. Praxeology is not even about man. It could be about robots or aliens or dolphins. It is only about actors, not biological man.
Praxeology revolves around teleological beings.
1) Merlin writes "as far as I know the theist position is that, according to the Old Testament, God made people some 10’000 years ago, and nothing before existed. I find that view hard to reconcile with…anything I know. A theist accepting evolution as a process, albeit a designed process, would be seriously deviating form holy writ."
This is misleading. The Bible is not considered by Christians as a literal account. Moreover this is not revisionism (The Bible was never considered to be a literal account by Christians). This point is made in a good documentary called Did Darwin Kill God? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so04TV09SKE). Fundamentalist Christians, who consider the world to be a few thousands years old, thus ruling out evolution, are seriously deviating from Christian teachings. There may be good biological reasons to be sceptical of some claims made by biologists, but no such reasons come from Christianity.
2) Merlin writes: "I’d find the intellectual capabilities of a guy who rejects evolution seriously wanting."
Most people would agree with you. I basically agree with you, but would prefer to clarify the position. I don't know enough about evolutionary biology to really hold a position. Accordingly I question the intellectual capabilities of others who are similarly ignorant of biology yet challenge the established position. I suspect this is a reasonable position and most people would agree with it. I just think this is interesting to juxtapose this what with the widely held position: "I'd find the intellectual capabilities of a guy who rejects global warming seriously wanting." Food for thought.
3) Focusing on the initial topic: It is important to note at the outset that evolution and Darwinism have nothing to do with biology. Evolution just requires a couple of conditions: I think variation, mutation, selection and replication (there's a good quote on this in a Geoffrey Hodgson paper, but I can't remember it). Darwin applied evolutionary thinking to biology, but he borrowed from others who applied it to society and economy first. The general principle tends to be known as Universal Darwinism. It coheres quite nicely with Austrian economics. Consider Menger on money, Hayek on the spontaneous emergence of institutions more generally, Mises and Kirzner on the market process. In this way the Austrians understanding a lot of economic and social behaviour as a result of viewing the economy as an evolutionary process. There are also evolutionary economists (Geoffrey Hodgson is probably the most important) who try to apply evolutionary concepts more self-consciously. He takes Austrian economics seriously, though he has some reservations about methodology. There are perhaps a few others working at this boundary.
In conclusion I would advise Clayton that "biological facts" (there is a nod to behavioural economics here too) may have a bearing on some new contributions to economics, but they don't have a bearing on praxeology. There is more to economics than praxeology, though perhaps not much more. The unfortunate fact is that whilst praxeology, or basic economic reasoning, or mundane economics tells us almost all we need to know about political economy, the way to succeed as an economist is to generally unearth new knowledge, rather than repeating the important, unlearned lessons of praxeology. Thus I think you might find it fruitful to take evolution seriously, so that you can weave a rich tapestry of Austrian economics and other approaches, or just to inform yourself enough to write a good critique. If you are interested have a look at http://www.geoffrey-hodgson.info/ which has good information and many papers. Also his book Economics and Evolution, which has chapters on Smith, Menger, Spencer and two on Hayek!
Also, theism/=/Christianity. Theism simply implies belief in some form of supernatural entity. You could be a Wiccan, a Hindu, a Devil-worshipper, a Shintoist, a Mahayana Buddhist or a believer in the Greek gods and you'd still be a theist.
Praetyre: Also, theism/=/Christianity. Theism simply implies belief in some form of supernatural entity. You could be a Wiccan, a Hindu, a Devil-worshipper, a Shintoist, a Mahayana Buddhist or a believer in the Greek gods and you'd still be a theist.
Being a Hindu or a Buddhist doesn't mean you have to believe in a supernatural entity. That would be lumping in all the people who take symbols metaphorically with the ones who take symbols factually.
That is an important point to be made. I myself believe that “theists” form “atheists” are hardly distinguishable in real life, and serious discussion has ever arisen between ‘simple’ theist and atheists.
But what criticism have been levied here has, I believe, been levied against the position held by organized religion, and beliefs that take such a concept as “God” much deeper, such as: he did this, and he said that. Such beliefs are inherently falsifiable (or provable) in real life, by scientific proof, and, as such must be categorized simply as “wrong scientific theories”.
At best you could relate it through "Evolutionary Psychology", but that isn't that strong...
Personally I think Economics and Evolution don't really have much to do with each other. The evolutionary timescale is massive enough that it shouldn't really come in conflict with economics.
ClaytonB: I've noticed that some of the writers featured on LRC are non-evolutionists. Rockwell himself doesn't seem to take a position on biological evolution in anything I've read of his. Rothbard seems to be silent on the matter. I think I've run across a few remarks by Mises that suggest he accepted the idea of biological evolution. Hoppe has made many remarks that indicate he accepts an old universe and biological evolution. Some of the contributors to the Mises daily are Roman Catholic, which indicates that they might hold to evolutionary biology - since JPII sanctioned it, it's no longer a conflict of conscience for RCs to hold to it. It seems to me that praxeology, as a discipline, must take into account not only the physical but also the biological facts about man. Is AE silent on biological evolution? Or does it explicitly embrace evolution? Or does it implicitly embrace evolution but treats it as a separate discipline? Or none of the above? Clayton -
I don't think economics and evolution are linked though I'd be interested to know what these writers say about evolution.
do you have a link to Mises' quotes on evolution?
same with Hoppe?
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.