Hacker News Reader

They were unfit because a giant asteroid is as much a part of the environment as anything else.

I question whether it is possible to be "fit" in this analogy, or just lucky.

Also, let's not forget that "fitness" and "conformance to our values" are separate dimensions. It is not necessarily the case that we humans want to optimize companies for their ability to withstand once in ???? year events without government assistance. Companies optimized along such criteria would be more fit for an environment where government assistance doesn't exist, but crucially that is not necessarily the actual environment that companies exist in in the real world. And it is not obvious to me that the citizenry benefits from companies optimized that way.

It's a good analogy because fit and lucky are hard to tell apart in evolution too.

Homogeneity leads to effecency and hedrogeneity leads to resiliance. The stability the fed provides allows them to do what they want in hugely optimized and complex ways, it just turns out what they want to do doesn't align with the interests of the population sometimes. I don't think they would be any less likely to do what they are doing they would just do it less effecently.

The fed doesn't want to use the stick anymore, and business gets a carrot when it throws a tantrum. The insentives are perverse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com