Screw you, Ayn Rand: Study finds evidence that selfish behaviour is not evolutionarily sustainable - Polidicks

[URL="http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2013/evolution-will-punish-you-if-youre-selfish-and-mean/"]'EVOLUTION WILL PUNISH YOU IF YOU'RE SELFISH AND MEAN'[/URL] [QUOTE]Two Michigan State University evolutionary biologists offer new evidence that evolution doesn’t favor the selfish, disproving a theory popularized in 2012. “We found evolution will punish you if you’re selfish and mean,” said lead author Christoph Adami, MSU professor of microbiology and molecular genetics. “For a short time and against a specific set of opponents, some selfish organisms may come out ahead. But selfishness isn’t evolutionarily sustainable.” The paper appears in the current issue of Nature Communications and focuses on game theory, which is used in biology, economics, political science and other disciplines. Much of the last 30 years of research has focused on how cooperation came to be, since it’s found in many forms of life, from single-cell organisms to people. In 2012, a scientific paper unveiled a newly discovered strategy – called zero-determinant – that gave selfish players a guaranteed way to beat cooperative players. “The paper caused quite a stir,” said Adami, who co-authored the paper with Arend Hintze, molecular and microbiology research associate.[/QUOTE] :v: On a more serious and poetic note, there's something beautiful to discover that the physics of life (that is to say, biology and evolution) seems to require cooperation. We are [I]meant[/I] to care for and help each other on a fundamental level, more fundamental than language.

I never thought otherwise. I mean, we're social animals after all. Can't survive without each other, and we can't have each other if we're all going to be selfish.

Won't stop idiots shouting "survival of the fittest" in every other economy thread. (And everywhere else as well)

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41677698]Won't stop idiots shouting "survival of the fittest" in every other economy thread. (And everywhere else as well)[/QUOTE] it's funny because evolution has never really been "survival of the fittest", but "survival of the good-enough". being the best at something doesn't guarantee survival. if you are too fast, or too strong, you probably use more resources than you need. you will be slowly beaten out by contemporaries who are just good enough to get by. natural selection selects the individuals who are most efficient, which does not always equate with being "the best".

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons[/url] p. simple really

I don't think selfish and greedy humans give two shits anyways about evolution and the long-run.

No surprise. Ayn Rand was a borderline sociopath and no man is an island.

Studying choice theory in high school and Ayn Rand in college has honestly been some of the most depressing moments in my life. Its hard to deny some of the theories, its even harder to accept them.

As a philosophical note, this doesn't necessarily mean that the 'selfish' trait isn't very good or that it is not at all beneficial. Imagine a society with rampant parasitism. One member, for whatever reason, contributes very little while absorbing some massive wealth of the goods. Perhaps cooperative evolution made this member's original purpose in the society obsolete, without reducing it's cost. It would be very good for the worker members of this society to remove the parasite from themselves, for a host of reasons. What this is saying is that 'selfishness' is unsustainable, which even the most blockheaded Randian would agree to, since even the most brilliant Fountainhead tycoon has to rely on his workers to execute his vision. On a scientific note, this is just evidence against another theory, which itself is evidence that 'selfish' traits are infact sustainable and good in evolutionary pools. So put away your communist champagne for now atleast.

Ayn Rand knew this too considering she was a welfare recipient.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41677698]Won't stop idiots shouting "survival of the fittest" in every other economy thread. (And everywhere else as well)[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLhpJsIEQXc[/media]

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41677698]Won't stop idiots shouting "survival of the fittest" in every other economy thread. (And everywhere else as well)[/QUOTE] Maybe they'll follow Ayn Rand fan Paul Ryan to his underwater individualistic paradise.

Except our financial system is built in such a way that some can piggyback and always come out on top. Nature is a level playing field, our economy isn't. Not arguing against the paper, just the comparsion between it and Ayn Rand's ideas.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;41677942]Except our financial system is built in such a way that some can piggyback and always come out on top. Nature is a level playing field, our economy isn't. Not arguing against the paper, just the comparsion between it and Ayn Rand's ideas.[/QUOTE] it's interesting to note that the people that actually piggyback and leech in our economic system are the exact people that the capitalist apologists praise and revere: the land owner.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41677772]it's funny because evolution has never really been "survival of the fittest", but "survival of the good-enough". being the best at something doesn't guarantee survival. if you are too fast, or too strong, you probably use more resources than you need. you will be slowly beaten out by contemporaries who are just good enough to get by. natural selection selects the individuals who are most efficient, which does not always equate with being "the best".[/QUOTE] I think you're confusing physical fitness with biological fitness. Biological fitness is how good a living being is at surviving and reproducing, "survival of the fittest" is still correct.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41678012]it's interesting to note that the people that actually piggyback and leech in our economic system are the exact people that the capitalist apologists praise and revere: [B]the land owner[/B].[/QUOTE] Care to elaborate a little bit?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;41678581]Care to elaborate a little bit?[/QUOTE] farmer tends the fields, worker produces useful goods, land owner steals the fruits of the worker and farmer's labor to sell for profit. is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? no, it belongs to the capitalist. [editline]1st August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Electrocuter;41678276]I think you're confusing physical fitness with biological fitness. Biological fitness is how good a living being is at surviving and reproducing, "survival of the fittest" is still correct.[/QUOTE] i meant "survival of the fittest" as most people generally understand it.

This isn't really a novel result. Things like reciprocal altruism have been known to be evolutionarily stable strategies for years now. Also we should be careful what conclusions we draw from this. The undertone of the OP is "evolution says selfishness doesn't work, therefore screw you libertarians!" But when you base a moral statement directly on a contingent empirical question, it leaves you vulnerable. In the counterfactual world where selfishness actually [I]was[/I] evolutionarily sustainable, you would be forced to accept the conclusion that Rand had it right all along. The correct answer is to let evolution inform us what is and is not possible to achieve in accordance with our current moral systems. [editline]2nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;41678638]farmer tends the fields, worker produces useful goods, land owner steals the fruits of the worker and farmer's labor to sell for profit. is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? no, it belongs to the capitalist.[/QUOTE] land owner takes risks and invests with his own capital, and coordinates those in his employ. he adds value the same way all the other workers do. any more tired canards?

Considering we've evolved as a species to rely on cooperation and are inherently social animals I'd say this doesn't really come as a surprise.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;41678656] land owner takes risks and invests with his own capital, and coordinates those in his employ. he adds value the same way all the other workers do. any more tired canards?[/QUOTE] the land owner may add some value, but he is also entitled to 100% of the profit. is that fair?

I hope everyone understands that the Ayn Rand reference in the title was a snarky joke, and the study itself has nothing to do with Rand. I also said absolutely nothing about Libertarians. However, keep in mind that the study methodology relied on game theory, and game theory has shown to have economic applications, and I do believe that Ayn had some things to say about economics.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41678638]farmer tends the fields, worker produces useful goods, land owner steals the fruits of the worker and farmer's labor to sell for profit. is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? no, it belongs to the capitalist.[/QUOTE] Whom protects the land from external threat? Whom invests into the land and ultimately improves in order to extract more wealth, thus indirectly improving the life of the farmer and worker? [editline]2nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;41678719]the land owner may add some value, but he is also entitled to 100% of the profit. is that fair?[/QUOTE] If the worker is happy with the pay then yes. Also entrepreneurs don't sit on the money. They often reinvest it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41678719]the land owner may add some value, but he is also entitled to 100% of the profit. is that fair?[/QUOTE] It's his capital. His Risk. His land. Maybe not 100%, but a land owner definitely deserves a majority of the profits. [sp]I use "his", but there is no reason to suggest a woman cannot screw over the Proletariat :3[/sp]

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41678638]farmer tends the fields, worker produces useful goods, land owner steals the fruits of the worker and farmer's labor to sell for profit. is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? no, it belongs to the capitalist. [/QUOTE] What of the farmer which is a mere land owner himself? The worker is then under the farmer within a certain extent. In accordance to usage of land, the accordance of your ownership of land. If the land-owner allows production of resources and items within his land, why should the land-owner not be entitled to some material goods? This philosophy is already in practice with Wilderness Management Areas(WMA), where hunters are required to contact land owners regarding the removal of pest creatures from their property, and depending on how the land owner sees fit, they may request certain things such as a few animal pelts for the fact that the animals had been preying on their yields of farmland and such. It's a rather fair business practice.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41678745]Whom protects the land from external threat?[/quote] the state generally. [quote]Whom invests into the land and ultimately improves in order to extract more wealth, thus indirectly improving the life of the farmer and worker?[/QUOTE] idk sometimes the land owner, sometimes the state, sometimes someone else like an investor. it's not a given that the land owner invests into the land. the land owner is entitled to the profits regardless of investment or work put into the land.

The difficulty in a world without land ownership is working out how to best use the land. With land ownership, it ultimately ends up becoming the person whom creates the most wealth from the land. On the whole, it's usually the best. (A farmer will improve the land so as to grow more food, ultimately benefiting many). [editline]2nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;41678769]the state generally.[/QUOTE] Of course. Taxes are paid by landowners to protect the land. [quote]idk sometimes the land owner, sometimes the state, sometimes someone else like an investor. it's not a given that the land owner invests into the land. the land owner is entitled to the profits regardless of investment or work put into the land.[/quote] If the land owner doesn't invest into the land, he eventually falls into poverty. It doesn't make business sense for a land owner to hold onto a loss, nor does it make sense to not increase ones profits. Only rarely do landowners fall into the poverty trap, and that's because they are incompetent at managing the land.

so if i worked on a farm and the farm was getting attacked by wolves sporadically, i could put up a fence(thereby investing time and capital into the land), and now i am legally entitled to a share of the profits?

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41678719]the land owner may add some value, but he is also entitled to 100% of the profit. is that fair?[/QUOTE] Yes, that's part what it means to own something, by definition. If the employees want some of the profit they can buy shares in the company.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41678827]so if i worked on a farm and the farm was getting attacked by wolves sporadically, i could put up a fence(thereby investing time and capital into the land), and now i am legally entitled to a share of the profits?[/QUOTE] Why would you do that though? You should be running away from the wolves you dope.

[QUOTE=Emperorconor;41678745][B]Whom[/B] protects the land from external threat? [B]Whom[/B] invests into the land and ultimately improves in order to extract more wealth, thus indirectly improving the life of the farmer and worker?[/QUOTE] stop doing this AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA who and whom have different meanings, using whom when who is meant is like 1000x worse than the opposite [editline]2nd August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;41678827]so if i worked on a farm and the farm was getting attacked by wolves sporadically, i could put up a fence(thereby investing time and capital into the land), and now i am legally entitled to a share of the profits?[/QUOTE] If you negotiated it with the landowner first, sure. If not it's up to his discretion.