Infinite Resources, Diversity, and Creativity: The Paradox of When Plenty is Little

 

The secrets of evolution are death and time — the deaths of enormous numbers of life forms that were imperfectly adapted to the environment; and time for a long succession of small mutations — Carl Sagan

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: In a world of infinite resources, there would be no need for competition, and the notion of survival of the fittest would be absent. Consequently, evolution would slow down, leading to a less diverse biosphere. Similarly, if humans were immortal, it could reduce the urgency for innovation, potentially causing societal stagnation.

Resources are Limited

Resources on Earth are limited. Although the Sun provides abundant energy daily and will continue to do so, and this energy has been stored over eons as fossil fuels, the amount of available energy is still finite. This simple constraint has profound implications for evolution.

Biological Evolution in an Infinite Resource Environment

In our world, the finiteness of resources drives the process of natural selection, leading to the mechanism of survival of the fittest. This competition for limited resources has resulted in a diversity of life forms, each adapted to its specific niche.

But what if resources were infinite and there was no need for competition? Can one imagine such a counterfactual world and the evolution of biology in it?

The paradox is that in a world with infinite resources, the driving force behind natural selection would be absent, and the notion of survival of the fittest would be missing. Without the pressure to compete for food, shelter, or mates, organisms would not need to develop specialized adaptations to survive. This could lead to a much less diverse biosphere. Species might evolve more slowly, as there would be no urgency to adapt to changing conditions or to outcompete others for resources. Having plenty might result in stagnation and lack of biological diversity.

Without the need for competition, the concept of “fitness” would be irrelevant. All organisms would have adequate access to resources, leading to a more homogeneous population. Evolution might still occur, driven by random mutations and genetic drift, but the pace and direction of evolution would be vastly different. Organisms that are more efficient and better at conserving their energy would exist alongside those that do not have the necessary traits to do so.

The rich biodiversity of life we see today, with its myriad forms and behaviors, might be replaced by a more uniform, less dynamic, and a less competitive ecosystem.

In another arena of human endeavor where something similar might happen is the fact that our time on this Earth is limited. The fact of our mortality may have shaped our urge and drive for creativity and innovations.

Human Mortality and Creativity

The finite nature of human life has been a significant driver of creativity and innovation. Knowing that our time on Earth is limited, we are motivated to achieve, create, and leave a legacy. Limitation of lime and the pressure to accomplish goals within a finite timeframe spur us to action.

In a counterfactual scenario where humans are immortal and there are no deadlines, the impetus for creativity and innovation might diminish. With infinite time, the urgency to create, discover, and innovate would be greatly reduced. Procrastination could become the norm, as there would always be more time to accomplish tasks. Having plenty of time may result in little.

Human society might become more stagnant, with less frequent innovations and less progress. The drive to solve problems, explore new frontiers, and push the boundaries of knowledge could wane. Art, science, and technology might advance at a much slower pace, as the pressure to innovate would be lessened.

On the other hand, one could argue that immortality could also lead to a deeper exploration of long-term projects and finer pursuits. With no fear of death, humans might undertake endeavors that span centuries, leading to achievements that are currently unimaginable. The focus might shift from short-term gains to long-term sustainability and harmony with the environment. In that counterfactual world we will miss on colorful phrases like “low hanging fruits” or “let us go for some quick wins.”

A difference between the counterfactual world of immortality and counterfactual world of infinite resources is that we have consciousness that gives us a sense of agency that the process of evolution lacks,. Given enough time, we might actually come up with brilliant solutions to social issues that currently plague us. But do not wager on that bet yet.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

I attribute therefore I am

 

I prefer to make up my own quotes and attribute them to very smart people, so that I can use them to win arguments — Albert Einstein

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Attribution is a science that seeks to explain an observable phenomenon by something that may be responsible for it. It attempts to do so by dividing the world in two — a world of observable that is being influenced and a world that is the influencer. Attribution gets progressively challenging as the role of probability in shaping the observable increases.

Attribution refers to the process of identifying the factors responsible for an observed phenomenon. Take the example of epidemiology.

In epidemiology, attribution is the process of determining the cause(s) of a health outcome or disease. This involves identifying and quantifying the factors that contribute to the occurrence of a disease or health condition within a population. For example, attributing lung cancer (the observable phenomenon) to smoking (the cause).

In general, a single factor may not be able to explain the totality of the observable. In such cases, the notion of attributable fraction is used to measure the part of the observable phenomenon that can be attributed to various causes.

In another example, the concept of attribution is of significant interest in the context of weather and climate, where it is used to discern the causes of observed climatic variations that include societally and economically devastating extreme events. The approach of attribution in climate science relies on dissecting the totality of the Earth System into an internal component that is being influenced by the external component (the influencer).

For instance, scientists use attribution analysis to assess how much human-induced changes in the atmospheric constituents (e.g., carbon dioxide, ozone etc., treated as an external forcing, the influencer) contribute to the changes in intensity and frequency of extreme weather events like hurricanes, heatwaves, and floods (the phenomenon).

The approach for attribution involves comparing observed data with model simulations that are done with and without the inclusion of human induced changes, thereby isolating the impact of human influence.

The separation of the Earth System between internal and external is arbitrary. One can put variations in Earth’s atmosphere and ocean in the box tagged internal and changes in the atmospheric constituents in the box tagged as external. One can then treat what is in the external box as a known forcing (i.e., not worry about causality of its origin) and attempt to quantify to what extent variations in the internal box are linked to the former.

One can also put Earth’s atmosphere only in the box that is tagged internal and put variations in the ocean and atmospheric constituent in the box tagged external. In this paradigm, the exercise of attribution is an attempt to explain variations in the atmosphere when variations in the ocean and atmospheric constituents both are prescribed.

The boundary between what components in the Earth System get tagged as internal and what get tagged as external is an artificial construct and depends on the question one is posing. The question — What changes in the frequency of climate extremes is due to anthropogenic causes — slices the Earth System into influencer and influencee (which is not a word in in the English lexicon but so what) in one way. Asking the question — what changes in the frequency of climate extremes is due to anthropogenic causes during an El Niño — requires a different strategy for slicing the Earth System.

If you are not a climate scientist, you will think this discussion about climate attribution is not terribly interesting. There are, however, aspects of attribution that transcend the specifics of a single area of interest.

The necessity for the science of attribution stems from the fundamental role of randomness in how the world operates. The future of stocks is uncertain, knowing if it is going to rain two weeks from now starts to resemble flip of a coin. Life is known for throwing curve balls and hence we are advised to “Hope for the best, prepared for the worst, and unsurprised by anything in between.” Without the role of randomness, there would not be a need for the science of attribution.

The very existence of attribution science underscores the significant role of randomness. The greater the effort required to identify causes, the more pronounced the influence of randomness in the system. One could even envision the effort needed to find causality and the role of randomness as complementary variables — similar to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle — in that their magnitudes are inversely proportional.

On that note would the world not be a boring place if randomness does not have a role in shaping our future? In the absence of randomness and with the ability to understand the causality of it all, we would have missed out constructing superstructures of religious and philosophical traditions. The world would have been a boring monochromatic place.

Humans have an innate desire for certainty and understanding, which stems from our need to predict and control our environment to enhance our success for survival and reproduction. Uncertainty can lead to anxiety, discomfort, and stress, because it challenges our ability to make informed decisions and anticipate future events. This aversion to uncertainty makes the science of attribution particularly attractive and important.

The science of attribution is also synonymous with prediction. If we can attribute an observable phenomenon to an external cause, and if that cause can be anticipated ahead of time, we can predict its consequences. For example, in epidemiology, if we can attribute an outbreak of a disease to a specific pathogen and understand the conditions that lead to its development and spread, and subsequently monitor it, we can predict future outbreaks. This allows public health officials to implement preventive measures, such as vaccinations or quarantine protocols, to mitigate the impact of the disease.

Attribution science also has significant ethical and policy implications. Attributing extreme weather events to climate change can influence public policy, disaster preparedness, societal practices, and international agreements on climate action. It can also affect legal decisions, such as liability for damages caused by climate-related events.

In the grand tapestry of our desire for understanding, attribution serves as the thread that weaves together the intricate patterns of cause and effect, the influencer and the influencee. It attempts to transform the chaos of randomness into a coherent narrative, allowing us to predict, adapt, and thrive. Whether deciphering the mysteries of climate change, unraveling the complexities of disease outbreaks, the science of attribution empowers us to see beyond the surface. It is a testament to our innate curiosity and relentless pursuit of knowledge, bridging the gap between uncertainty and insight. As we continue to refine our tools and expand our understanding, attribution will remain a cornerstone of our quest to make sense of the world and lead us to a better future.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Understanding the Basics of Natural Selection Through Tetris

 The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale — Richard Dawkins

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: The game of Tetris serves as a simplified analogy for understanding the mechanisms of evolution. Tetris and natural selection bear similarities like randomness, selection, and adaptation.

The Evolutionary Game of Tetris

At some point in your life, you may have played Tetris. If not, then you may have watched someone else playing, sitting next to you while waiting for whatever you two were waiting for. Tetris is a game that, on the surface, seems simple: various shapes, known as Tetriminos, fall from the top of the screen, and the player must rotate and position them to create complete lines, which then disappear. However, beneath this simplicity lies an interesting parallel to the process of evolution by natural selection.

Tetris: A Game of Randomness and Fit

Tetris is a game where random shapes are thrown at the player, and only those that fit into the existing structure are useful. Each falling Tetrimino represents a random guess, and the player’s task is to find the best possible fit for it within the current configuration. The goal is to create complete lines, which can be seen as a metaphor for achieving a stable and functional state.

Natural Selection: The Ultimate Game of Fit

Natural selection operates on a similar principle. In nature, random genetic mutations occur within organisms. These mutations are akin to the random Tetriminos in Tetris. Just as in Tetris, where only the pieces that fit well into the existing structure are beneficial, in natural selection, only the genetic variations that enhance an organism’s fitness (in the backdrop of the current state of the environment) are likely to be passed on to future generations. Over time, this process leads to the evolution of species, with traits that are well-suited to their environments becoming more common.

Commonalities Between Tetris and Natural Selection

• Randomness: Both Tetris and natural selection involve an element of randomness. In Tetris, the shapes of Tetriminos are random (although selected from a limited pool). In natural selection, genetic mutations also occur randomly.
• Selection: In both processes, there is a selection mechanism. In Tetris, the player selects the best plays for each shape to fit. In natural selection, the environment “selects” the random mutations that are most advantageous for the survival and reproduction of the organism.

Differences Between Tetris and Natural Selection

• Agency: In Tetris, the player actively makes decisions about where to place each shape. In natural selection, there is no conscious decision-making; the process is driven by the interplay between environmental pressures and random mutations.
• Time Scale: Tetris games are fast-paced, with decisions made in seconds. Natural selection operates over much longer time scales, often spanning generations.
• End Goal: The goal in Tetris is to clear completed lines and achieve a high score. In natural selection, there is no specific end goal; the process is a trajectory of evolution that can go in any direction over time, potentially stopping, bifurcating, or merging.

Conclusion

While Tetris and natural selection operate in vastly different contexts, they share intriguing similarities in their reliance on randomness and selection. Tetris provides a simplified, game-based analogy for the complex and ongoing process of evolution by natural selection.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Which gene I lack

 

There is a joy
that you are able to find,
in the simple act of
searching for beach glass.

Walking along the shore
your eyes lit up,
coming across,
something other than
a seafoam green.

Watching you languorously walk
your steps in sync
with breaking waves,
I wonder,
which gene I lack
to miss your pleasures.