Further to my original comment, this idea has also been discussed in non-human animals in the context of biological markets (Noe & Hammerstein 1995). In nature, many forms of cooperation can be described in terms of trade, e.g. primate allo-grooming effort can be used as a medium of exchange to obtain not just reciprocal grooming but also can be traded for other goods and services (Barrett et al. 1999).
In artificial markets, counter-party risk can be mitigated through institutions which enforce contracts, but in biological markets this is not possible. Incremental increasing of “bids” has been proposed as one explanation of how large-scale cooperation can be bootstrapped in nature (c.f. Phelps & Russell 2015, Section 4 for a review).
Barrett, L., Henzi, S. P., Weingrill, T., Lycett, J. E., & Hill, R. A. (1999). Market forces predict grooming reciprocity in female baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266(1420), 665–665. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0687
That paper about economic drivers of biological complexity is fascinating! In particular I am amazed I never noticed that lekking is an auction. The paper lends some credence to my intuition that capitalism is actually isomorphic to the natural state. Are you the Phelps that was involved in writing it?
Also: I wonder if you’d be interested in my vague notion that genes trade with one another using mutability as a currency.
Yes that is me (sorry, I should have put a disclaimer). Feel free to get in touch if you want to discuss 1-1. Thanks to the pointer re mutability-trading; I will take a look, but full disclaimer- I am not a biologist by training.
Further to my original comment, this idea has also been discussed in non-human animals in the context of biological markets (Noe & Hammerstein 1995). In nature, many forms of cooperation can be described in terms of trade, e.g. primate allo-grooming effort can be used as a medium of exchange to obtain not just reciprocal grooming but also can be traded for other goods and services (Barrett et al. 1999).
In artificial markets, counter-party risk can be mitigated through institutions which enforce contracts, but in biological markets this is not possible. Incremental increasing of “bids” has been proposed as one explanation of how large-scale cooperation can be bootstrapped in nature (c.f. Phelps & Russell 2015, Section 4 for a review).
Barrett, L., Henzi, S. P., Weingrill, T., Lycett, J. E., & Hill, R. A. (1999). Market forces predict grooming reciprocity in female baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 266(1420), 665–665. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1999.0687
Noë, R., & Hammerstein, P. (1995). Biological markets. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10(8), 336–339. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/01695347/1995/00000010/00000008/art89123
Phelps, S., & Russell, Y. I. (2015). Economic drivers of biological complexity. Adaptive Behavior, 23(5), 315–326. https://sphelps.net/papers/ecodrivers-20150601-ab-final.pdf
That paper about economic drivers of biological complexity is fascinating! In particular I am amazed I never noticed that lekking is an auction. The paper lends some credence to my intuition that capitalism is actually isomorphic to the natural state. Are you the Phelps that was involved in writing it?
Also: I wonder if you’d be interested in my vague notion that genes trade with one another using mutability as a currency.
Yes that is me (sorry, I should have put a disclaimer). Feel free to get in touch if you want to discuss 1-1. Thanks to the pointer re mutability-trading; I will take a look, but full disclaimer- I am not a biologist by training.