This piece is so fundamentally naive that it’s really not worth considering. The author clearly does not understand evolution, or the nature in which humans participate in evolutionary, or economic systems (i know, the author is in neuroeconomics. I’m surprised too).
First, humans manipulate evolutionary systems for our benefit. Livestock and plant husbandry have served us well over several thousand years, and are really quite integral to individual survival and our survival as a species. Additionally there are a number of animals which have co-evolved with us, and have influenced and been influenced by our evolutionary trajectory (dogs, cats, mosquitoes, etc).
Second, economic systems are not like evolutionary systems, in that we have goals and objectives that our economic systems are supposed to meet. Survival of the fittest business is inappropriate if the fittest do it by turning people into soylent green.
Third, the premise that regulation can only stifle fitness in an economic system is simply and grossly incorrect. If you wish to preserve diversity in an economy then you want regulations that break up monopolies. You want regulations that tell telecom companies that they must lease their phone lines to competitors.
Fourth, there are cases where we simply must demand for the bar for economic fitness to be raised. It is in our collective best interest to ensure that banks are properly capitalized and are able to pay their debts. In fact, it’s of vital interest to the entire economic system, as the past year has demonstrated.
This article is frustrating/misleading/incorrect, and frankly i expected better, both out of a neuroeconomist, and a magazine called Psychology Today.
