My friends criticize me for criticizing #authoritarianism and #capitalism. One of the arguments put forward is that it is "efficient". (#efficient for whom is a different question 😑 )
But generally the most "efficient" things are not the most #sustainable.
If we learn from #nature : the energy conversion efficiency of #photosynthesis is only around 3% compared to a #fossil fuel powered engine which is around 30% or a silicon solar cell (around 20% )
@harikesh Efficiency and sustainable have nothing to do with each other. There completely separate concepts which aren't correlated.
Also, the idea that photosynthesis is only "3% efficient" isn't really correct (yes, I know everyone still says it). It depends a lot on which kind of photosynthesis and what part of the process you're talking about.
@mbbrown
Thanks for pointing that out. Still I would say natural processes do not always go for the maximum efficient solution but a sustainable one..Both are different concepts but should be considered equally while seeking a solution.
@harikesh how about: natural processes do go for the maximum, but only a few processes survive. These happen to have a maximum that promotes an equilibrium with other processes. <- not a new idea i think. Does anyone know of such an equilibrium theory? (a form of Nash Equilibrium perhaps?)
@hyperlingg seems true to me. Survival of the fittest process for a broader group of systems not an isolated one. Seems to point towards #cooperation 🤔 rather than #competition
@harikesh or to a state in which #competition is balanced - although, and i think this is important to keep in mind if one wants to draw any parallel to economics: this "cooperation" did not happen before a lot of players lost the game. Resemblance to oligarchy?
@hyperlingg Not really..cooperation is not the end result but a process itself . Can also think as if the ones which failed to cooperate lost the game.
@harikesh maybe its a chicken or egg problem. Do processes cooperate because they are the survivors (and there is equilibrium) or are they surviving because of cooperation? I don't dare answering this -> really not an expert on evolution, theoretical biology, game theory etc. ... . But the discussion has been very inspirational so far! 🙂 👍
@hyperlingg
or is it that - cooperation is the survivor among the processes determining the interaction between several processes.
@harikesh this is clearly a meta-question about the optimal evolution strategy. Although I'm already going far here, it seems to me that some successful strategies to the prisoner's dilemma showcase against cooperation as the optimal strategy (if you imagine natural processes as an iterated prisoner's dilemma game). If you aren't familiar with the prisoner's dilemma:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Even if the prisoner's dilemma might not be accurate here, neither is coop always the best decision.
@hyperlingg
I came across some cases where the prisoners dilemma problem fails in real world scenario's :
http://www.businessinsider.com/prisoners-dilemma-in-real-life-2013-7/?IR=T)
Even if the theory is correct, I think it doesn't contradict the survival of cooperative behaviour.. I have no idea about game theory but the scenario in which the the prisoners dilemma problem is set itself can be considered an artificial process which has to struggle to survive.
@harikesh no doubt. The real world is way richer than the prisoner's dilemma scenario. I just don't believe that it is cooperation only. What may look like cooperation might - in the end - be fierce enemies in an equilibrium in which every single process would face damage if it changed strategy. Not a pleasant thought, but also one that can't be dismissed easily.
@hyperlingg
What did u mean by using the term 'enemy' ?
@harikesh processes that work against each other to gain an advantage. In Equilibrium every process would make a loss by changing the current strategy.
@harikesh Regarding your point about "generally the most 'efficient' ...", this might be a better-worded statement than you intended, as I learned in environmental economics that mainstream models tend to not involve considerations of sustainability/externalities, so though they may point to "efficient" outcomes, those tend to be different from the "sustainable" and efficient outcomes. So there can be a choice that isn't often pointed to: efficient solution or efficient AND sustainable solution.