How would you design an arms race?

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How would you design an arms race?

 There are two primary kinds of evolutionary “arms races” — symmetric and asymmetric.  A symmetric arms race is one in which two or more competitors are trying to do essentially the same thing.  If we imagine a forest full of various trees, vines, and other plants, we can easily see this kind of arms race in action.  All of the trees, regardless of their particular species, are interested in the same thing, namely sunlight.  To that end, many of them “discover” the same path to their goal.

Imagine a primordial forest in which (for simplicity’s sake) there is one kind of tree that grows to approximately ten feet in height.  So long as all the trees grow to the same height, everything will be stable, but the fact is, natural selection produces variation, so sooner or later, one of the trees is going to grow to eleven feet.  Let’s assume that this tree has an umbrella like spread of leaves at the top, so that ten foot trees will receive less sunlight if an eleven foot tree is next to them.  In a very few generations, eleven foot trees will dominate the landscape.

Only… natural selection produces variation, so soon, there will be a twelve foot tree.  This is the nature of symmetrical arms races, and individual species are one of the best examples.  All members of a species are competing for the same thing, and so they tend to push each other towards new innovations.  Once we understand this dynamic, it’s easy to see that different species also have the same effect on each other.  Elms and oaks and pines all want the same thing, and so they tend to evolve in very similar ways.  Though elms, pines and oaks don’t have precisely the same leaf shape or root structure, they are still in the same business — getting to the sunlight and absorbing it through leaves.   They’re all part of the same arms race.

An asymmetrical arms race is one in which the goals of two or more participants are mutually exclusive.  That is, success for one is necessarily failure for the other.  This is the kind of relationship we see in predators and prey.  The lion wants to kill and eat the gazelle.  The gazelle wants to avoid being eaten by the lion.  For one to achieve its goal, the other must fail.

In a symmetrical arms race, we often see multiple species achieve their ends through very similar innovations.  In the case of trees, it is largely a matter of height.  In asymmetrical races, we tend to see much more dynamic and intricate solutions.  For many insects, for instance, a highly elaborate system of mimicry or camouflage develops to counter the highly elaborate system of detection posessed by predators such as bats and birds.   It is not unlike the arms race in which humans developed radar to detect airplanes, and then promptly developed airplanes with radar defeating countermeasures.  One innovation prompts the development of another.

These examples are very simple, and are meant only to illustrate the broad principles.  What we must remember is that most, if not all, natural arms races are not as simple as these one against one examples.  In the real world, gazelles must not only avoid lions.  They must also avoid hyenas, who have entirely different hunting strategies.  They must also avoid starvation, dehydration, and disease.  They must compete with each other for mates.  In short, there are dozens, maybe hundreds of individual arms races going on at any moment, and every creature is in effect a compromise between all of the races going on.

Even so, there is much we can learn by examining the results of arms races.  Let’s return to the trees as an easy example.  Just how far will natural selection drive trees?  Left unmolested, would forests be populated by 5,000 foot trees in a billion years?  No, they wouldn’t.  Arms races are not infinite.  There are real physical limitations to how tall trees can grow.  Wood is only strong enough to hold a certain weight.  Gravity opposes the absorption of water through the roots.  Wind tends to knock down trees that are too tall for their own good.  Eventually, arms races will stagnate because there is simply nothing left to improve.   (Of course, this is also overly simplistic, as height is not the only trait available for an arms race.)

At this point, we should see a certain principle of natural selection that seems counterintuitive to a lot of people.  Evolution is not very good at efficiency.  There is a finite amount of sunlight hitting the trees, and if competition is forcing them to grow ever taller to get to it, the net result is that trees are getting less bang for their buck.  A ten foot tree only has to support ten feet of trunk whereas a fifty foot tree has five times as much trunk to support while using exactly the same amount of sunlight.

A better solution would be for trees to form some sort of pact by which all trees would grow to ten feet and then stop so that all could benefit from both the sunlight and the efficiency of being small.  We can now ask a very pointed question.  If life is intelligently designed, how did the designer miss such an obvious arrangement?  Rather than design life to strive for less efficient use of energy, why not design it such that it would reach a state of most efficient use of energy and then stay there?

Granted, this isn’t really much of an argument.  It’s an observation that raises a question.  Still, it’s something I’ve never heard addressed by a proponent of intelligent design.  It’s a very logical question to ask, anyway.

There’s one more observation I’d like to make about this tendency towards arms races and inefficiency.  It works for humans, too.  Take a look at the world around you and look at how much energy it takes to sustain a human.  Now, compare that to a hundred or five hundred years ago.  Sure, we have a lot more gadgets and gizmos than we did before, but it takes a LOT more energy to sustain a human now than it used to.  We are not moving towards efficiency, but away from it.

To head off the most obvious objection to this observation, I will note that efficiency within a particular system is not the same as overall efficiency.  That is, if we build cars that get fifty miles per gallon as opposed to twenty, that is certainly making more efficient use of energy within that particular system.  However, the overall trend in humanity is not to use less energy, but to be able to do more things with the energy we have, and to produce more energy overall so that we can do more things overall.

Looking back over the history of life, it is telling that only in the last few thousand years (or less) have humans even been able to comprehend the question of efficient energy use and devise ways to produce the same amount of work for less energy.  Only in the past century have we become keenly aware of the horrific consequences of using too much energy too fast.  Isn’t it odd that even with this knowledge, we are still travelling down a path predicted by the simple formula from natural selection?  We are still competing with each other, still using more and more energy to accomplish more and more things despite having learned to use science to make our energy expenditures more efficient.  No, I don’t think it’s a very intelligently designed system at all.  In fact, I’d say that the only thing that might save us from the illogic of the system itself is to collectively rise above instinct and learn to reduce our competition and increase our efficiency.  Unlike trees, we do have the power to make collective bargains, and we can decide that ten feet is tall enough.

Will we do it?  I don’t know.  I tend to think not.  Our instincts are strong, and we are not designed to be collectively logical.  Sometimes I wish there was any evidence at all that someone with some intelligence designed this planet.  Natural selection is elegant and explains life as we know it with virtual perfection.  We know it’s the correct answer.  However, it’s very telling that we can also use our own logical minds to realize that it’s not designed for our happiness or longevity.  It doesn’t have enough forethought for that.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
You have no idea how happy

You have no idea how happy reading this has made me. A very nice metaphor for a very real dilemma.

 

However cynical you remain concerning the future of humanity's rational thinking capabilities, you have still expressed a veiled hope.

Hambydammit wrote:
Unlike trees, we do have the power to make collective bargains, and we can decide that ten feet is tall enough.

This is not an insult. That is the essential facet of socialism, in my opinion (and Lenin's).

Lenin in 1897 wrote:
Therefore, in reply to the reactionary complaints and lamentations of the romanticists, modern theory indicates exactly how this narrowing of the gap between the conditions of life of the agricultural and of the non-agricultural population creates the conditions for eliminating the antithesis between town and country.

To keep with the metaphor, capitalism tries to grow bigger trees. Lenin wanted to mingle the two until the lines became unintelligible.

 

Now, I don't bother you with socialism that much. I don't even expect to open a dialog concerning this. I wouldn't mind one some day, but I think you can agree that we are on diametrically opposite frames of mind concerning human endeavor vs. human failure.

I strive to be a 'realist', but optimism is my greatest vice.

 

To continue with trees, how many and how tall can we have them? If we leave it to natural selection then we must face the fact that evolution diversifies changing the rules each time.

Do we manage the forest or let it grow rampant only to ultimately be burned by a dry season lightning flash to then grow back again the same way? It is unethical to do so except in a nihilist(def.#3 answers.com) mind, again in my opinion.

I think humanity will reach the conclusion that our arms are long enough and so are our trees.

 

Well-written piece, Hamby.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:This is not an

 

Quote:
This is not an insult. That is the essential facet of socialism, in my opinion (and Lenin's).

I just want to make it clear that I don't see full fledged socialism or communism as a logical conclusion derivable from my argument.  If it is, somebody's going to have to connect the dots for me.

Quote:
To continue with trees, how many and how tall can we have them? If we leave it to natural selection then we must face the fact that evolution diversifies changing the rules each time.

The rules don't change.  It's the trees themselves that change.  If fifty feet is as tall as a tree can grow with the strength of its particular wood fibers, and another tree can grow to sixty feet, there are two choices for the tree:  Physically change in some way that allows you to continue to survive, or die.  IOW, the rules are constant.  Natural selection can't be changed.

To extend the principle to human consumption, we have to note that we are (apparently) the only species capable of seeing its own destruction in the future.  We know the principles of natural selection.  Is it possible for us to use them to our advantage such that we change ourselves enough to avoid destruction?  I don't know.

Quote:
Do we manage the forest or let it grow rampant only to ultimately be burned by a dry season lightning flash to then grow back again the same way? It is unethical to do so except in a nihilist(def.#3 answers.com) mind, again in my opinion.

I think humanity will reach the conclusion that our arms are long enough and so are our trees.

As you've noticed, I'm very careful not to get into political debates except in the very broadest of terms.  I'm not a capitalist, nor am I a socialist.  The simple fact is, I don't know what the "perfect political system" is.  I suspect there isn't one.  They all have good aspects and bad aspects, and like human morality, they need a scale in order to be judged.  Which is the correct scale?  Environmental sustainability?  Egalitarianism?  Equality of resources?  I dunno.

The same goes for sustainability.  Species go extinct all the time with or without human intervention, and humans don't have a monopoly on environmental destruction.  We have to be careful not to commit an appeal to the natural, but we have to also avoid what I call a reverse appeal to the natural -- saying that a particular human activity is wrong or unnatural simply because it is the product of human industry.

I'm not a humanist.  That is, I don't believe human interests automatically supercede those of any other species.  I don't believe a single life is inherently more valuable than that of any other single creature.  Ask me if it's better to kill one human or the last female of an important species and you might not like my answer.  (Hell, I might not like it.)  That being said, I'm not an anti-humanist either.  I don't believe in saving every single species, letting the forests return to an unmolested state and forcing humans back into nomadic tribes.  The fact is, I don't know the answer to population growth, overconsumption, and energy use.  Maybe there isn't a realistic one.  Maybe natural selection is more inevitable than human ingenuity.  Remember, I'm the guy who thinks interstellar collonization is beyond the reach of humans.  I also suspect saving ourselves from the laws of natural selection is, too.

You are right to say that I'm somewhat pessimistic when I look into humanity's future.  Even so, I spend my winters with small space heaters rather than heating my whole house.  I produce about one trashcan full of trash in two to three weeks.  I walk instead of drive.  I've chosen to keep the tree at ten feet.  So, I guess I still have hope.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Hamby always pulls me in,

Hamby always pulls me in, with titles that i find interesting... then springs damn intelligent stuff at me, that have nothing to do with the title!

 

>.> but i readed it anyways

What Would Kharn Do?


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10484
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
An awesome post.I think

An awesome post.

I think that increasing use of energy per person is a necessity to an extent. It is a necessity to increase our species' technological level, which is a requirement for our and all the Earth's other species long term survival.

The deficiencies we see in our management of resources and industry are not necessary deficiencies. We are simply too lazy and greedy to switch over to better methods right now. The pressures we are effecting against ourselves will hopefully force us to make that switch before we wipe ourselves out.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.