The problem is that there had been pretty irreversible changes in the meantime
A point that Stuart Kauffman has been talking about for a while (but in a subdued way since he has no clue how to tackle it) is that in biological evolution (and by analogy in economics), evolution does not happen in a fixed "fitness landscape" but the landscape changes as evolution progresses. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
This is very important.
What this means is the local minima/maxima of the Agents in a fitness landscape can remain "the same" in relative terms but "improve" in overall terms by raising the fitness landscape. To illustrate: If A is at 2 and B is at 3 and the landscape is at 1 then the total of A is 3 and B at 4. "Improving" the fitness landscape to 3 means A is now at 4 and B at 5. The relative distance of A to B is remains the same but the objective net increase _is
Another way to put it: a rising tide lifts all boats.
And the point is not that the fitness landscape rises more or less rigidly, but that the shape of the lanscape changes, and even the dimensionality of the space. In other words, suddenly you find yourself solving a qualitatively different problem. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
Well. Yeah. Each of those are also possible.
