Music Box Second rule “Evolution is smarter than you,” he said. That is, our inability to explain how this or that feature evolved is a sign of a lack of imagination or understanding on our part. It is not conclusive evidence against the evolution of the feature. But it also has another implication: while certain features of evolution may seem inefficient or counterproductive, they may actually function as efficient adaptations to evolved constraints.
To see this in action, consider the following example: this A rather entertaining talk by Douglas Adams on the mating rituals of the Kakapo, a flightless parrot native to New Zealand. Adams details how every aspect of the Kakapo’s mating ritual is actually counterproductive to procreation.
He describes the whole process as “incredibly long, drawn-out, monumentally complicated and almost completely ineffective.” The first problem is that “male kakapo mating calls actively repel females,” which obviously seems like a less-than-optimal start. He then explains that kakapo mating calls consist of deep, pulsating bass tones. This introduces another layer of complexity, Adams says. He likens it to a home speaker system, which consists of two small speakers, “high-pitched ones that have to be placed very carefully in the room to define the stereo image.” But there are also subwoofers that produce bass, which “you can put anywhere in the room, even behind the sofa, because another thing about bass (remember, we’re talking about the mating calls of male kakapos) is that you don’t know where it’s coming from.” To put the whole scenario together, we’re told that a female kakapo will only agree to mate if the pohutukawa tree is bearing fruit, “assuming she’s there (she probably isn’t), assuming she likes the sound of the roar (she probably doesn’t), and assuming she can find him (she probably can’t).”
Now, studying this mating process, one might think that evolution had gone awry here: how could it have been good for the kakapo to evolve such an inefficient mating ritual? But there is an answer.
In New Zealand, kakapos have no natural predators and therefore no way to keep their population in check. Therefore, if they were to breed like rabbits, they would quickly become overpopulated on their islands, with negative consequences for their long-term survival. It turns out that the kakapo’s incredibly inefficient mating ritual is actually an efficient adaptation to keep populations in check in the absence of predators or other outside pressures. And this complicated mating process allowed kakapos to overpopulate islands, even if they were able to mate with other birds. more In effect, they are damaging their own chances of survival. gift In humans, things that at first seem highly inefficient when viewed statically turn out to be dynamically efficient upon deeper understanding. As a result, evolved social norms, practices and institutions that seem “nonsensical” or even socially harmful may very well be something like the kakapo’s mating ritual – a seemingly inefficient habit that is actually an efficient adaptation.
Unfortunately, this once-valuable adaptation is now a threat, as the conditions the kakapo face today are very different from those in which this mating ritual developed. Predators have been introduced to the island, and the kakapo No instinct As a result, this once abundant animal is now critically endangered, but its repopulation depends on this unchanging mating ritual, and the outlook for recovery is grim.
So am I just rambling, or is there an overarching point? Of course there is. (EconLog editors, insert your point here! 😉) But leaving that point aside, we should take this opportunity to reflect on what Hayek said about the difference between law and legislation, and why we cannot “abolish legislation altogether.”
FA Hayek He was perhaps the strongest defender of the values of the evolved order. Rules and OrderVol. 1 Law, legislation and freedom, Hayek also states that in some cases “grown laws may require revision by legislation.” One such situation occurs when “the process of spontaneous growth may lead to an impasse that cannot be extricated by itself, or at least cannot be corrected quickly enough.” I was reminded of this statement by Hayek when I was thinking about the current situation of the kakapo. (Yes, I saw some connection between the mating rituals of flightless parrots and Hayek’s work on social order. That’s the way my mind works. I don’t really understand it myself, but that’s the way it is.) Evolution is too slow for the kakapo to develop new mating rituals to suit a radically new environment. Similarly, cultural and institutional evolution may be too slow to adapt to changes in the social environment, leading to a situation where legislation is needed.
but, Very This idea has high hurdles. First, it is very difficult to know legitimately whether social institutions are truly inefficient or harmful, or even potentially effectively inefficient in ways we don’t understand. Second, even if we know that social institutions are suboptimal, it is often not obvious what the solution is, and people have a strong bias to assume that they understand more than they do. And top-down changes to an evolved order incur significant transaction costs, so we need strong reasons to think that the net benefits will be very large. Richard Hooker put it nicely:
When people see that what they have taken for granted by long-standing custom is suddenly cast aside, invalidated and rejected, they become perplexed, and they begin to doubt whether anything is intrinsically good or evil, rather than simply what people may choose to call it from time to time…It is therefore inevitable that every time we change our laws, the force that makes all laws valid is impaired and weakened in the eyes of the people.
Hooker concludes:
If the new law is only slightly beneficial, we should conclude that it is generally better to put up with minor injuries than to try dangerous treatments.
How often do we encounter situations in which we should attempt a remedy? I’m not sure. But the answer is not “never.” Unfortunately, although Hayek describes several different situations in which, in principle, law could serve as a valid corrective to mature law, I don’t know of any concrete examples he gives in practice.
But I’d also like to hear from readers: How often does top-down modification of evolved institutions prove beneficial? And what’s the bigger risk? Is it that we overestimate our ability to implement such modifications effectively, and end up doing more harm than good by constantly tinkering with systems we don’t understand? Or is it that we’re too reluctant to attempt such modifications, and end up in the same position as the kakapo, trapped in behaviors that were once helpful but are now harmful?
