Oct

3

The mutual aggression model.

Host(h) and parasite(p) are taking part in an evolution arms race. The prudent parasite model. Selection in the p is always for characteristics that limit the damage done to the host. A de-escalating arms race (rabbits and myxomitosis in austral) incipient mutualism co-evolution is actively cooperative with both evoluting attributes so as to promote the continued presence of the other. A p that kills its host before it can transmit itself to other hosts doesn't get any genes into the next generation. The costs and benefits of a particular strategy determine the type of interaction that will occur. (From lecture 17 co-evolution and host parasite interactions): "it is important to contemplate an entangled bank clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by the laws acting upon us." Darwin, 1859. Okay, my query is how do the sponsor, the palindrome, the sage, the flexions–indeed the whole ball of Was– fit into this structure, and what predictivity can be drawn from it?

Gary Rogan writes:

The prediction would be that they will stop the nonsense before they let the economy disintegrate into complete chaos. However, there is a difference between genetic evolution and a single case. The evolution rolls the dice millions of times and the parasites that procreate are tautologically the ones that make it into the nth generation. Each particular parasite doesn't "know" whether it's killing the host. And with the flexionic complex we have just one roll of the dice so the results seem hard predict. They are supposedly sentient beings so that can be substituted for evolution, but what if they all individually have totally incorrect beliefs? What if they really don't care about killing the host? What if some of them are so close to the end of their lives that that's not even a consideration? What if some of them only care about the pinnacle of political power for however long they have as the most important concern? What if they have enough assets outside the system so that they don't have to worry? What if they don't have complete freedom to act anyway?

Overall, I don't believe they are actions can be analyzed as if they will preserve the system when push comes to shove. I can't even answer the question whether Ben Bernanke has any idea about what he is doing, and if so to what degree. I don't know what his ultimate goal is nor whether he can be self-critical to any degree. I hope others are able to make predictions.

Kim Zussman writes:

Another hypothesis is that government actions in the wake of the crisis reflects human nature with respect to pain. It is normal to avoid pain, and if given a choice between extreme pain of short duration and moderate pain which lasts a long time, many would choose the latter - even if "total pain" (something like level of discomfort * time) is greater.

The analogy may extend to the use of multiple drugs to lower immediate pain; it is hard to know how they will interact, and what unintended long term effects may develop, including addiction or death. Inexperienced doctors are sometimes overconfident in their ability to manage disease, but with time learn to carefully observe signs of normal healing, reassure the patient, and let the powerful mechanisms of natural repair work on their own.

Marion Dreyfus writes: 

Speaking for someone who has this past fortnight endured pretty sever immediate pain, which has subsided into a moderate constant ache–I would much rather endure the latter, over a longer period, than the former. I trust nature will expunge the dull ache and pain I have now, eventually.


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search