Of course people do things for different motivations. But the people who make money (whether or not that is their motivation) are the ones who get to keep doing their thing. So the ecosystem selects for those who make money.
Some person might earn money in one activity ot be able to lose money in another activity. While typically they are tought as being in a job to get a salary and being a product consumer to lose money to get cookie points there is nothing from stopping somenoe to do less consumering and do self-sacrificial other benefitting work.
And money doesn’t select people per se. The main way to get money is to buy it from a store. But if you get your food from a source that doesn’t require buying then you do not risk your biological metabolism from being interupted if you can’t buy food.
Why does war fall outside of the scope? It is a generally touchy kind of thing so let me try to imagine a more standard example. Following fashion trends early nets you more notoriety and it is hard to be in the leading edge of fashion by being a copycat. For consumer level economics the financial costs of clothes is nearly same whether bough in trending phase or after it being settled style. So people buying different clothes risk being strange but get to be trendsetters if their choices end up as the fashion of the day.
Re war, I just didn’t analyze that here. It’s worth analyzing how that changes selective pressures, and more generally how government organizations fit into this analysis, but I just didn’t cover that.
The language used is somewhat abstract so it is hard to guess what the expected domain of applicability would be (either from which it was instilled or to what its claims claim to hold in).
One can take the fashion example also in the organizational sense. A museum or fashion designer house might need ot deal with suc h pressure with being fre from moneyhtary pressures.
Of course people do things for different motivations. But the people who make money (whether or not that is their motivation) are the ones who get to keep doing their thing. So the ecosystem selects for those who make money.
Re war, that is outside my analysis.
Some person might earn money in one activity ot be able to lose money in another activity. While typically they are tought as being in a job to get a salary and being a product consumer to lose money to get cookie points there is nothing from stopping somenoe to do less consumering and do self-sacrificial other benefitting work.
And money doesn’t select people per se. The main way to get money is to buy it from a store. But if you get your food from a source that doesn’t require buying then you do not risk your biological metabolism from being interupted if you can’t buy food.
Why does war fall outside of the scope? It is a generally touchy kind of thing so let me try to imagine a more standard example. Following fashion trends early nets you more notoriety and it is hard to be in the leading edge of fashion by being a copycat. For consumer level economics the financial costs of clothes is nearly same whether bough in trending phase or after it being settled style. So people buying different clothes risk being strange but get to be trendsetters if their choices end up as the fashion of the day.
I’m talking about organizations, not individuals.
Re war, I just didn’t analyze that here. It’s worth analyzing how that changes selective pressures, and more generally how government organizations fit into this analysis, but I just didn’t cover that.
The language used is somewhat abstract so it is hard to guess what the expected domain of applicability would be (either from which it was instilled or to what its claims claim to hold in).
One can take the fashion example also in the organizational sense. A museum or fashion designer house might need ot deal with suc h pressure with being fre from moneyhtary pressures.