Interesting opinion piece on evolution

[Huevos Grandes]

And yet they end up working in mutually beneficial ways. A bee is a plant's way of spreading pollen; a plant is a bee's way of getting nectar. Insects and plants have co-evolved for hundreds of millions of years, each trying to exploit the other to the hilt, and the result is a network of mutual benefit.

One example. Bees and plants don't really compete for the same resources. Plus, that is an example of rough symbiotic relationship as Supreme Canuck and I pointed out (he did so first).

I think the author of the original article was merely making the March of the Penguins mistake: suggesting that we should take a moral lesson from the blind workings of nature. It was a mistake when the social darwinists did it, and it's still a mistake when it's done in the name of "cooperation."

I didn't consider this. I'm re-reading the article looking for a moral bent. There didn't seem to be one on the first few passes. My point was that the cooperation doesn't really occur; that's just the observation when looking at the end product. As others above have stated, one equilibrium will always eventually replace another. There's little "cooperation" involved in reaching an equilibrium, just harsh mathematics.

[Ken G]

And yet they end up working in mutually beneficial ways. A bee is a plant's way of spreading pollen; a plant is a bee's way of getting nectar.

Well put. Those bees keep coming in handy!

I think the author of the original article was merely making the March of the Penguins mistake: suggesting that we should take a moral lesson from the blind workings of nature.

I agree, but in defense of this perspective, I interpret him as saying that we simply can't help but take moral lessons from nature, we are human and want to understand and resonate with our natural roots. And further, he argues that he believes many have used this, whether consciously or unconsciously, to justify Enron-type business strategies, etc. Maybe he is wrong about this, but I don't really think so. When I think of all those high school kids being taught about "survival of the fittest" and the cutthroat competition of nature (as evidenced by many of the thread participants), how can this fail to engender a certain attitude of moral justificaton? At the very least, he is saying, we should teach the full story as we now understand it, involving the cooperative elements as well as the competitive ones. Then there would really be no worry about any particular moral lessons that were ingratiating themselves. (He did oversell the positive moral lesson piece, perhaps what I'm saying is that he should have said that teaching the cooperative element would have a balancing effect. But that doesn't make the article drivel, which is how it has been read by everyone so far but you and me.)

[Ken G]

Bees and plants don't really compete for the same resources. Plus, that is an example of rough symbiotic relationship as Supreme Canuck and I pointed out (he did so first).

OK, so you're saying that if we can apply the jargon word "symbiosis" then the vernacular term "cooperation" cannot also apply? I'm trying to follow the logic. Note that the article never said that cooperation only counts if one is competing for the same resources. But your point is well taken that in cases where groups that compete for the same resources cooperate with each other, it is especially interesting. Certainly a kind of hybrid example of this is when a subgroup cooperates in a way that makes them more efficient at competing against other subgroups. So already, we see that the terms "competition" and "cooperation" have a complex relationship, and all aspects of both must be considered when studying evolutionary forces. The complex interplay of competition and cooperation is a central theme of the Nash equilibrium as well, unfortunately that has been ruled out in this thread as an interesting way to look at biological relationships.

[grant hutchison]

One example.

Well, thousands of separately evolving examples across the plant and insect kingdom. And there are many other examples, from ants farming aphids to ant protecting the plant species on which they feed.

Plus, that is an example of rough symbiotic relationship as Supreme Canuck and I pointed out (he did so first).

But just renaming any mutually beneficial interaction as "symbiosis" doesn't get you away from the fact that flat-out competitive evolution can lead to mutually beneficial results.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

I'm re-reading the article looking for a moral bent. There didn't seem to be one on the first few passes.

You don't need to get much beyond: "... they play a role in validating me-first attitudes that snub the environment ..." to see that the author is taking a moral stance. The whole piece is bemoaning social darwinism and suggesting that cooperation and collaboration are more productive.

Grant Hutchison

[The Supreme Canuck]

I'm not sure I would call it cooperation. As you say, nature is blind. The bee evolves to exploit the flower (and the flower to exploit the bee). The result is beneficial to both bee and flower. But the intention of the bee (and the flower) is not to benefit both species, but to benefit itself. The fact that it benefits the other species is secondary and coincidental. This provides the illusion of cooperation, but is really just a mutually beneficial relationship reached by both species pursuing its own goals.

Perhaps the problem is in the use of the word "cooperation" itself. I see it to mean conscious cooperation, while others clearly do not.

[Huevos Grandes]

OK, so you're saying that if we can apply the jargon word "symbiosis" then the vernacular term "cooperation" cannot also apply? I'm trying to follow the logic.

No. Symbiosis or "mutualism" is a relationship that results in a positive for both partners. The term "cooperation" as it is used by you implies that other species not directly involved in the relationship are benefitting. An example might be, in the forest ecosystem where bees gather pollen for nectar, and fertilize other flowers, a small dung beetle feasts on a lump of detritus. Nothing the dung beetle does helps or hurts the bees or flowering plants. You tried to use cooperation with "interrelate" earlier; sure- it works here if the dung beetle lives near the bees and plants, but he doesn't work for them.

Note that the article never said that cooperation only counts if one is competing for the same resources. But your point is well taken that in cases where groups that compete for the same resources cooperate with each other, it is especially interesting.

If you are using "cooperation", as a term meaning to "act for the collective success", then yes- it does. Species that decline are hardly profitting for such a collaboration.

Certainly a kind of hybrid example of this is when a subgroup cooperates in a way that makes them more efficient at competing against other subgroups. So already, we see that the terms "competition" and "cooperation" have a complex relationship, and all aspects of both must be considered when studying evolutionary forces. The complex interplay of competition and cooperation is a central theme of the Nash equilibrium as well, unfortunately that has been ruled out in this thread as an interesting way to look at biological relationships.

Game theory and Nash Equilibrium do not say this, exactly. And with the DIRECT examples that I've referenced, Nash Equilibrium will tend to serve some participants maybe, but not a majority, and never ALL.

Well, thousands of separately evolving examples across the plant and insect kingdom. And there are many other examples, from ants farming aphids to ant protecting the plant species on which they feed.

Thousands, sure. But the millions of species of life on Earth compete first for themselves, and usually no one else second. Example: Bacteria make up the most diverse kingdom of species on the planet, as well as account for the vast majority of biomass. They compete nakedly for resources, with virtually no symbiotic relationships. If you want to state, that because we can SEE that they all exist together, means that they are working in concert- this is failing to see the forest, but for the trees.

But just renaming any mutually beneficial interaction as "symbiosis" doesn't get you away from the fact that flat-out competitive evolution can lead to mutually beneficial results.

Yes. One species can profit from another's demise. But this is neither intended, nor is it perfect equilibrium. Man's introduction of foreign animals to Hawai'i and Austrailia effectively cancelled evolution on those islands for many species. The introduced species (rabbits, dogs, cattle, pines, etc.) did not cooperate with, or produce beneficial results for the species that were out-competed for resources and who went extinct.

[Huevos Grandes]

I'm not sure I would call it cooperation. As you say, nature is blind. The bee evolves to exploit the flower (and the flower to exploit the bee). The result is beneficial to both bee and flower. But the intention of the bee (and the flower) is not to benefit both species, but to benefit itself. The fact that it benefits the other species is secondary and coincidental. This provides the illusion of cooperation, but is really just a mutually beneficial relationship reached by both species pursuing its own goals.

Quite right. The evoutionary relationship with bee and flowers has been forged over millions of years. They happened upon it by chance, have no concious knowledge that it contributes to their combined success, and continue it only because flowers and bees haven't tried with new methods.

Perhaps the problem is in the use of the word "cooperation" itself. I see it to mean conscious cooperation, while others clearly do not.

That is the crux of the problem. The author of the article in the OP, and Ken suggest that it can be used to cover ALL relationships in Nature, from symbiosis, to competition, to success, to extinction. Nash Equilibrium goes part of the way to explain how the differences in competition strategy contribute to the "success" of the equilibrium. But there is no success- if the process of photosynthesis was never evolved, or man stayed as dumb as a wily chimp, Nature would still exist. In that instance, some 3rd ET party viewing Earth would never admit Nature's equilibrium was a "success" then, beyond perhaps that life had arisen at all.

[Ken G]

Perhaps the problem is in the use of the word "cooperation"

Right, we are not implying conscious involvement. This no doubt is a sensitive point that involves the "charged" elements of the article. Strong Gaia uses a very broad definition of consciousness, AFAIK, such that the entire world is seen as a living, even conscious, entity. That's more philosophy than anything else. Let's not discount this article on the grounds that it could be used as support of that view.

To me, the valid point this article makes loud and clear, even if it could have been more careful in its tone, is: the way we teach evolution to the masses is a boiled-down version that overlooks many extremely important elements, and unfortunately tends to stress elements that are easily misapplied to motivate or justify cutthroat behavior. All one needs to do is peruse this thread and see phrases like "cruel and selfish" and "fierce competition", and you yourself used the term "exploit" (which is an appropriate term but note the connotations!). News flash-- these are morally charged terms! I think the problem is that the "least common denominator" appreciation for natural selection comes out sounding a certain way and leads to these problems, whereas it is only with more sophisticated understanding of the possibilities that one begins to see principles like cooperation and even altruism emerge. The article is a plea to try and get these more sophisticated ideas in there with the simple ones, in hopes of eliminating the false application of Social Darwinism. Failing that, it asserts that Social Darwinism is going to be applied, so let's soften the effects by teaching all the things evolution involves.

[grant hutchison]

Perhaps the problem is in the use of the word "cooperation" itself. I see it to mean conscious cooperation, while others clearly do not.

I think you're exactly right. He uses the word "collaborate", which does suggest consciousness might be at work, but doesn't really mean anything more than "working together". So I'm happy with "collaboration" as a metaphor for the way biospheres blindly accrue mutual benefits, and I think this may be the sense in which the author meant it, too. (In one of those odd bits of synchronicity, I'm half-way through Colin Tudge's The Variety of Life, and I find him using a similar metaphor for the behaviour of cells in a multicellular organism: "The cells of eumetazoans truly co-operate to form unmistakable tissues and organs.") But the author of the Star piece also (carelessly or otherwise) implies that organisms and evolution have "purpose", so the whole thing develops a distinct whiff of Strong Gaia or even ID, which probably accounts for some of the raised hackles here.
My own feeling was that it was intended as a meditative piece attempting to draw some human lessons from nature, and that the author probably did understand the science - but he didn't really expound it well enough for me to tell whether he believed in Strong Gaia or was merely talking loosely and metaphorically.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

Nothing the dung beetle does helps or hurts the bees or flowering plants.

I wouldn't stake your reputation on that, if I were you.

If you are using "cooperation", as a term meaning to "act for the collective success", then yes- it does.

Then we have grounds for agreement after all.

Bacteria make up the most diverse kingdom of species on the planet, as well as account for the vast majority of biomass. They compete nakedly for resources, with virtually no symbiotic relationships.

On this I defer to the expertise of the article author, who clearly offers counterexamples to your claim. But there's a deeper issue. Can you not see that describing natural selection with phrases like "compete nakedly for resources" is falling into exactly the kind of moral trap that the article objects to? If I have a magnetic field sweeping away charged ions, leaving neutrals behind, this is a form of natural selection for the presence of neutrals. Would I then say the ions "compete nakedly for electrons"? This proves the central claim of the article, in your own case, although it definitely comes from a more touchy-feely kind of place than how I'm interpreting it.

The introduced species (rabbits, dogs, cattle, pines, etc.) did not cooperate with, or produce beneficial results for the species that were out-competed for resources and who went extinct.

Yes, this an interesting example of the potential harshness of evolution. But note that this is an example of a highly non-equilibrium setting, while the article is discussing long-term equilibrium solutions, a la snarkophilus' post. We are likely seeing a role of more basic evolutionary processes when systems are out of balance, whereas more sophisticated and advanced evolutionary processes may be a luxury of longer-lasting equilibrium systems. That is a potentially interesting insight, I hope you are sharing in it.

[archman]

Intelligent discussion regarding evolution and evolutionary theory is tough, and it becomes almost unbearable between experts using different nomenclatures. The nasty thing about evolutionary theory is that there's several such nomenclatures, stemming from various life sciences disciplines and sub-disciplines.

Frequently arguments erupt for the mere reason that concepts and definitions are poorly communicated. This is happening a lot here. It's a nightmare gobbledeegook of clashing terms and theories. We're all speaking English, but we're not all speaking the same science lingo.

Which is why I'm not participating very much in this thread. Little is actually being communicated well.

Two additional comments. "Symbiosis" is strictly defined as a close relationship between organisms where at least one partner derives benefit. Parasitism and commensalism are symbioses just as much as mutualism is. Somehow symbiois has been corrupted of late to synonymize with only mutualism... probably all those dang Star Trek writers screwing thing up.

True altruism is very rare in Nature. Some sociobiologist camps don't believe it exists at all. Extremist biologists annoy me.

Never heard of Nash Theory before. Must not be very important.

[Huevos Grandes]

I think you're exactly right. He uses the word "collaborate", which does suggest consciousness might be at work, but doesn't really mean anything more than "working together". So I'm happy with "collaboration" as a metaphor for the way biospheres blindly accrue mutual benefits, and I think this may be the sense in which the author meant it, too. (In one of those odd bits of synchronicity, I'm half-way through Colin Tudge's The Variety of Life, and I find him using a similar metaphor for the behaviour of cells in a multicellular organism: "The cells of eumetazoans truly co-operate to form unmistakable tissues and organs.") But the author of the Star piece also (carelessly or otherwise) implies that organisms and evolution have "purpose", so the whole thing develops a distinct whiff of Strong Gaia or even ID, which probably accounts for some of the raised hackles here.

So, the author uses the wrong term to describe some sort of holistic inter-connectedness of Nature, and because the beating of a butterfly's wings in Minneapolis "cooperate" with the birth of a giraffe in a preserve in St.Paul, it's accurate ??

My own feeling was that it was intended as a meditative piece attempting to draw some human lessons from nature, and that the author probably did understand the science - but he didn't really expound it well enough for me to tell whether he believed in Strong Gaia or was merely talking loosely and metaphorically.

I hope not. The counter to ID is best explained in Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker, IMO. But the author would have us believe that it's not just the complexity of the cogs, dials, and springs working together that cause success, it's the fact that external forces to the watch- algal blooms, tidal waves, and concentrations of food dye in Chinese factories that contribute as well. I don't get an ID twinge, just a worshipping Nature for the sake that it exists at all.

To me, the valid point this article makes loud and clear, even if it could have been more careful in its tone, is: the way we teach evolution to the masses is a boiled-down version that overlooks many extremely important elements, and unfortunately tends to stress elements that are easily misapplied to motivate or justify cutthroat behavior. All one needs to do is peruse this thread and see phrases like "cruel and selfish" and "fierce competition", and you yourself used the term "exploit" (which is an appropriate term but note the connotations!). News flash-- these are morally charged terms!

No, they are not. They only become moral, if you assign "good" and "bad" affectations to them. Exploitation and fierce competition is simply what happens. Species live, prosper, decline, and go extinct within mere seconds on a geo-evolutionary timescale. For a casual observer to state that species cooperate, exploit one another, or ignore others, is completely subjective.

I think the problem is that the "least common denominator" appreciation for natural selection comes out sounding a certain way and leads to these problems, whereas it is only with more sophisticated understanding of the possibilities that one begins to see principles like cooperation and even altruism emerge. The article is a plea to try and get these more sophisticated ideas in there with the simple ones, in hopes of eliminating the false application of Social Darwinism. Failing that, it asserts that Social Darwinism is going to be applied, so let's soften the effects by teaching all the things evolution involves.

I agree that this is what the article is saying, just that the author is using junk science to justify it. You want to think of good vs. evil in species' competition. But it happens that way over time, because that is the only motivator for success. The "sophisticated" ideas you mention are human constructs, which few other animals on the planet might share.

[grant hutchison]

But the millions of species of life on Earth compete first for themselves, and usually no one else second.

Nowhere did I claim otherwise. I merely pointed that that mutual benefit can result from such competition. You seemed to be asserting that this never happened when you wrote:

But that doesn't happen either ! The various bacteria, plants and animals don't conciously OR unconciously "act in a mutually beneficial way".

I'd say your absolutely right when you use the word "consciously", but absolutely wrong when you use the word "unconsciously": the mutually beneficial interaction of insects and plants is all the counterexample I need.

Example: Bacteria make up the most diverse kingdom of species on the planet, as well as account for the vast majority of biomass. They compete nakedly for resources, with virtually no symbiotic relationships.

Some are very good at exchanging bits of genetic information between species, which has mutually beneficial effects.

Man's introduction of foreign animals to Hawai'i and Austrailia effectively cancelled evolution on those islands for many species. The introduced species (rabbits, dogs, cattle, pines, etc.) did not cooperate with, or produce beneficial results for the species that were out-competed for resources and who went extinct.

That's all true. I don't think I ever implied they'd sign a peace treaty under such circumstances. All I said was that co-evolution (emphasis on the "co-") can lead creatures to form stable, mutually beneficial relationships. And I gave an example. And then I gave some more examples. If you wish to claim that no species ever achieve mutually beneficial interactions through evolution, then we disagree and I have some awkward examples for you to explain. If not, then we seem to agree.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

True altruism is very rare in Nature. Some sociobiologist camps don't believe it exists at all.

I would like to know what they would call a bee that dies whenever it stings a threat to the hive...

Never heard of Nash Theory before. Must not be very important.

I presume you realize the folly of that statement if it is replaced by "never heard of _______ before. Must not be very important." Nice approach to science.

[grant hutchison]

So, the author uses the wrong term to describe some sort of holistic inter-connectedness of Nature, and because the beating of a butterfly's wings in Minneapolis "cooperate" with the birth of a giraffe in a preserve in St.Paul, it's accurate ??

It's a metaphor. It's a metaphor in common use (witness the Tudge quotation).
For you to imply, on the basis of its use, that the author believes in the "holistic interconnectedness of Nature" is just setting up a straw man and knocking it down again.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

I agree that this is what the article is saying, just that the author is using junk science to justify it.

Actually I thought the science that actually was included in the article was pretty good. Some of the scientific statements in this thread sound a lot junkier to me.

You want to think of good vs. evil in species' competition.

I'm not sure why I would want to do that. I'm not sure I'd even care to try and define those terms.

The "sophisticated" ideas you mention are human constructs, which few other animals on the planet might share.

Yes, those ideas are human ideas. I might call them "science", for lack of a better term.

[grant hutchison]

I presume you realize the folly of that statement if it is replaced by "never heard of _______ before. Must not be very important." Nice approach to science.

Ummm.
I think that one might have been a joke.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

My bad! Sorry archman. You should know better than to joke with me when I'm arguing!

[archman]

I would like to know what they would call a bee that dies whenever it stings a threat to the hive...

Those are eusocial organisms. Very rare, indeed. One of the few animal lines that fit the "social altruism" bill. Still disputed by many, of course.

I presume you realize the folly of that statement if it is replaced by "never heard of _______ before. Must not be very important." Nice approach to science.

Well no, I'm not joking, MUCH. It's my job to keep up with this stuff. I'm an "expert" on marine ecology. If I haven't heard of Nash Theory before, it's because:
A. Yet another theory not terribly dissimilar from existing ones, so generally ignored. Or it's referenced by a functional title.
B. Well out of favor.
C. Not relevant to marine ecology (my field).

I assume "C", but typically we are fully versed on all the mainstream evolutionary theories. The exception are theories dealing more with evolution of higher intelligence, which tend to stay with the anthropology and primatology crowd.

Nash theory is not in ANY of my ecology texts, nor referenced from my humongous pile 'o journal reprints. We certainly don't discuss it at conferences or seminars. Conceivably it might be in my sociobiology text... I think that's in storage somewhere...

If I have to look THAT hard for it, my assertion that it's "not that important" isn't really unreasonable, is it? There are an astonishing number of evolutionary theories out there, but only a double handful are seriously studied. If Nash theory was one, I'd know about it.

This does not imply that the theory is garbage. But it should not be used by itself to bolster a case study. Select a mainstream theory that complements it. Most of these "theories named after people" have one. Most mainstream theories are derived from these, but after critique and appendation by peers, the personal name gets dropped and a functional-sounding title (i.e. Stability-Time, Gigantism) replaces it.

[Huevos Grandes]

This does not imply that the theory is garbage. But it should not be used by itself to bolster a case study. Select a mainstream theory that complements it. Most of these "theories named after people" have one. Most mainstream theories are derived from these, but after critique and appendation by peers, the personal name gets dropped and a functional-sounding title (i.e. Stability-Time, Gigantism) replaces it.

You're right again, archman. It's called "Game Theory". John Nash proposed a derivative of this that went on to be used in the field of economics. It's since been *******ized and used to explain relationships in biology and philosophy.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Game theory is usually applied to economic theory, which may be why you haven't heard of it before. But it happens to be very versitile. Read: it interests the heck out of me.

Edit: Hm. You posted while I was. I'll have to go and disagree that it has been "*******ized." It works in a great variety of situations.

[archman]

Game theory is usually applied to economic theory, which may be why you haven't heard of it before. But it happens to be very versitile. Read: it interests the heck out of me.

Ah. That would then explain it. I'm not an economist. Still, I haven't heard of "game theory" before either. Is there another title for something like it, if not the same?

[grant hutchison]

Ah. That would then explain it. I'm not an economist. Still, I haven't heard of "game theory" before either.

That's a surprise to me. Games theory has been applied quite extensively to evolution: Richard Dawkins discusses it in several of his books. John Maynard Smith wrote a tome entitled Evolution and the theory of games as far back as 1982. In fact, a book on games theory as applied to evolution is sitting on my bookshelf within reach. By Karl Sigmund, it's entitled Games of Life: Explorations in Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour and has chapters entitled Evolutionary game theory and (interestingly for our current discussion!) Reciprocity and the evolution of cooperation.
Maybe this whole argument has blown up along a division between people who've read evolutionary games theory and are comfortable with the metaphorical use of "cooperation" applied to a group of organisms, and people who haven't and aren't.

Grant Hutchison

[beskeptical]

My point on the morality was that evolution doesn't automatically = lack of morals. Moral behavior evolved, just as everything else did. One could examine the selection pressures that led to it, but it didn't arrive in the human psyche apart from evolution. It doesn't come from Gaia or gods or whatever. It evolved.

So to claim survival of the fittest, or evolutionary principles are by definition amoral, is not correct. Eating other organisms or destroying them for one's needs isn't what is amoral. Morals are much more complex than that.

But they evolved. Our brain function evolved as did our sense of some things being moral or amoral or immoral.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Ah. That would then explain it. I'm not an economist. Still, I haven't heard of "game theory" before either. Is there another title for something like it, if not the same?

The Nash equilibrium is part of game theory. Ever seen "A Beautiful Mind?"

grant hutchison: Has it been applied to evolution? Well, you've gone and taught me something new...

[snarkophilus]

This is NOT cooperation. Cooperation implies deliberate forethought.

So here is a question: do ants cooperate to bring large pieces of food back to the nest? Certainly you can go out and see them pull a large meal back, and it does require a number of ants to do it. But are they really cooperating? Most descriptions of the behaviour use the word "cooperation," but what's really going on is that each ant is pulling in some direction, and it just so happens that it averages out in the direction of the nest. So there's an emergent behaviour there that mimics intelligence.

In fact, you could argue that thought itself is just an emergent behaviour of exactly the same kind. So where do you draw the line? What's the difference between a bunch of ants pseudo-randomly pulling a dead caterpillar (and ending up in the right direction) and a bunch of neurons pseudo-randomly firing (and ending up in the right direction)?

And of course, what's to stop you from saying that a crystallizing solution is intelligent, then? It's pretty much the same process as the ants, which is pretty much the same as thinking....

[Ken G]

This thread has gotten quite interesting! I don't agree that morals, as we know them, completely evolved, in the normal sense of the term. That would be like saying that human society evolved, in the normal way of natural selection. I would say that human intelligence evolved that way, for lack of a scientific alternative, though how it happened is very poorly understood, perhaps because intelligence itself is poorly understood. But the one thing to realize about intelligence is that, at some point, it takes responsibility for itself, for its knowledge. Any result of this self-actualization is no longer a process of natural selection, unless you generalize to the "meme" evolution idea. I think that human emotion is likely to be based deeply in normal evolutionary processes, and no doubt much of human society and morality also is based in emotional responses, yet the role of the intellect cannot be discounted either. Just ask yourself, do you classify someone who is in a moral quandary to be someone who is wrestling primarily with dumb emotions or with thoughts in their mind? To say that morality, or human society for that matter, are entirely evolved via natural selection is to discount the contributions of countless important thinkers in the history of our species. That would be a shame.

[snarkophilus]

The Nash Equilibrium has naught to do with a biological system in cooperative terms. Instead, individuals and species within an ecosystem *might change their strategy to FIT an equilibrium, not to plan it out. "The Prisoner's Dilemma" and "The Yossarian's Dilemma" examples bolster my point: one individual/species will generally always try to screw the other(s). Because plants and animals in a given ecosystem don't meet beforehand and determine who will be screwed (conditions almost invariably determine this, not species), the species involved do not care about the outcome, so long as their survival/success is assured.

Individuals do not need to meet and plan strategies in order to benefit from cooperation. If I hold open a door for a girl, I know there's a chance she'll reciprocate later with a compliment or something. And she knows that if she does, then I may continue holding doors for her in the future, resulting in a mutually beneficial relationship. We don't need to sit down and negotiate the details of it beforehand. We both recognize that that's how the world works, without needing to know anything about Nash (although if she's well versed in game theory, there is a much better chance of it working!).

[grant hutchison]

grant hutchison: Has it been applied to evolution? Well, you've gone and taught me something new...

For instance, the idea in biology that organisms may be reproductive "r-strategists" (many "cheap" expendible offspring) or "K-strategists" (few carefully nurtured offspring) comes from games theory, IIRC. The considerations that drive such reproductive strategies are outlined here.

Grant Hutchison