HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011086.jpg

I too reason from biological axioms, and from much the same ones implicit or explicit in the classical period. But I end up framing ideas of biology in the language of economics rather than the opposite. I begin with total capital = means of ends = means of replication = fitness, where fitness is understood as a stock. The concomitant flow and rate would be output (creation of fitness/total capital) and return (ratio of the two). Free growth theory gave the inference optimum ex ante output = optimum controllable output = exact offset of pure consumption, at the collective scale. Next generation theory specified the period of this exhaust and recovery as the generation length. Consider Hamilton’s rule in this context. All ex ante output, continuing steadily at the generation rate, must be invested concurrently in the next generation or stored for later investment within the deadline. It is the problem of Brewster’s millions. Adults must invest or store as efficiently as practical (the maximand rule) before the output means has slipped by. And the more stored instead, the more pressure to invest later within the deadline. Time left for investment is another of the practical constraints on maximization of rb/c. What I sense is a watering down of Hamilton’s rule from what seemed logical compulsion a few decades ago to something more like a target of opportunity. A prediction maximizing rb/c has proved its value as a useful rule of thumb. | suggested why some nepotism might be more adaptive than none in my review of the Hamilton-Zuk parasite theory. It’s about giving all genes a fair but speedy trial. Chapter 7 Petty’s Idea 2/3/16 27 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011086