General

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Telpeurion — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:50:37 GMT

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.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

fakename — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:17:39 GMT

yes that is a better characterisation of praxeology than what I had.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:56:44 GMT

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.

-Jon

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

fakename — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 04:53:09 GMT

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?

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Charles Anthony — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:33:57 GMT

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.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Stranger — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:42:35 GMT

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.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

fakename — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:36:44 GMT

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".

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Stranger — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:07:58 GMT

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?

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

BlackSheep — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:14:00 GMT

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

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:02:31 GMT

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.

-Jon

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

fakename — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:21:29 GMT

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?

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Stranger — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 07:00:26 GMT

Biology is a subclass of complexity science, just like economics. But the comparison does not go further.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Nitroadict — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:09:10 GMT

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.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

fsk — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:45:55 GMT

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.

Re: on biology and it's relation to economics

Nitroadict — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:19:46 GMT

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.