From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 09:37:19 MST
cryofan@mylinuxisp.com wrote:
>Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> said:
>
>
>
>>Charles Hixson wrote,
>>
>>
>>>cryofan@mylinuxisp.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have always thought that the basic premise that diversity
>>>>
>>>>
>>>is inherently beneficial is flawed
>>>
>>>There's not conflict here. Homogeneous environments are, when well
>>>adapted, more efficient (allowing for requisite
>>>specializations). But
>>>they are excessively vulnerable to even slight variations in the
>>>environment. And they provide fertile ground for any
>>>predator, be it a
>>>virus or a meme (or anything else). So there is a trade off between
>>>short term and long term benefits.
>>>
>>>
>>Evolution only works to develop improvements by diversity.
>>
>>
>
>That must explain all those lambs that are part of all lion prides these days.
>Come to think of it, you are absolutely right! I have *never* seen any animal
>group composed of only ONE type of animal. For example, every antelope herd
>has a large contingent of tortoises, and every elephant troop I have ever
>seen has at least 10% rhinos and 10% baboons.
>
You almost have it right. The eco system won't support a system of all
lions. They'd starve to death. Likewise, the grazers depend on the
plants, and the plants depend on the bacteria. Perhaps there are
self-sufficient bacteria.
Likewise, a field in monoculture, say all wheat, must be heavily doused
with poisons of various sorts to keep out the predators (mainly fungi)
and fenced to keep out the grazers, etc. But many diverse systems
(meadows, forests, jungles, etc.) are quasi-stable, and tend to bend
gracefully to environmental perturbations.
>>Capitalism only develops better products by diversity.
>>
>>
>How true. I have never seen a firm improve its competitive position by
>focusing on just one product.
>
I think the quote tags have gotten confused, however:
When a monopoly exists in an area, innovation tends to die. They act to
surpress anything that will raise their costs, such as a requirement to
design a new product. This is to the short term benefit of the monopoly
and the to long term detriment of their customers. Eventually they
raise their prices so high that their customers rebel, or they
experience an intrusion from outside their sphere of control (e.g.,
Toyota), and the monopoly collapses. This is frequently a quite
expensive process, and not infrequently destroys the original company.
...
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 09:44:51 MST