It’s refreshing to see someone acknowledge the interrelatedness and complexities inherent in most natural and not-so-natural topics and phenomena and offer an explanation and brief summary of two otherwise incongruent topics of evolution and economics. an interrelated correlation and more of cause and effect. It was not so long ago that chemistry and physics were found to be two sides of the same coin with the advent of the discovery of atomic and subatomic particles and the formulation of the laws of modern physics. It may be that, from the beginning, nature and the natural process followed and obeyed the same fundamental and global rule, or we were simply busy looking for individual bits and pieces of the general rule that governs the great universal scheme of things that we forgot. look at it broadly and keep it so deep until such time as we are forced to look at the confluence of it with one or the other of the fields of study to get to the crux of it all.
Not long ago I wrote an article about the relationship between the material self and the conscious self, and I came to the conclusion that the conscious self has to do with the preservation of the material self. Economics is about the preservation of the material self and evolution is the process as the author has eloquently explained. “According to economist Eric D. Bienhocker, who published these calculations in his revealing work ‘The Origin of Wealth’ (Harvard Business School Press, 2006), the explanation lies in complexity theory, evolution, and non-economics.” are only analogous to each other, but are actually two forms of a larger phenomenon called complex adaptive systems, in which individual elements, parts, or agents interact, then process information and adapt their behavior to changing conditions, immune systems, ecosystems, language, law, and the Internet are all examples of complex adaptive systems.” Evonomics by Michael Shemer, Scientific American, January 2008.
Here I cannot pass without emphasizing the individual act of the individual in response to the unique conditions and circumstances in which the individual finds himself, regardless of the dynamism and flux state of the conditions beyond account due to the infinity of variables. that act and interact at a particular point in time. It is not without reason that I wanted to emphasize the indeterminable, it is rather to show why central economic planning failed and continues to fail. In an economy, each individual is a player according to his unique and dynamic individual condition, unique and changing ability, and individually unique talents at a uniquely individual place in time in the larger economic entity. In other words, the great economic entity is a grand sum total of these unique individuals whose unique circumstances are beyond the determination of any great central planner. There can be no greater lie than pretending to have a central plan that will account for all the dynamic and flowing needs and conditions of the individual elements of the entity than letting it flow according to the circumstances that govern on the ground and instantaneous changes. I am reminded again of a communist slogan that says “We will put nature under our control” only to be proven wrong many times. We only know a part of the totality of what nature has in store for us, let’s just capture nature in its entirety. I hope this is just a small footnote to the author’s eloquent exposition of a great subject, for we are all individual footnotes to the totality of human knowledge and wisdom.