No estic sol

Alguns han qüestionat el meu atreviment, conscientment exagerat, de considerar la biologia evolutiva i la microeconomia com essencialment la mateixa cosa. De totes maneres no us penseu que és una il·luminació només meva això:

'To read the real thing in evolution - to read, say, John Maynard Smith's 'Evolution and the Theory of Games', or William Hamilton's new book of collected papers, 'Narrow Roads in Gene Land', is a startling experience to someone whose previous idea of evolution comes from magazine articles and popular books. The field does not look at all like the stories. What it does look like, to a remarkable degree, is - dare I say it? - neoclassical economics.

And it offers very little comfort to those who want a refuge from the harsh discipline of maximization and equilibrium.' Paul Krugman

Fins i tot un neokeynesià com Krugman, columnista habitual del New York Times i molt estimat per l'esquerra nord-americana i la mundial que el coneix, es mostra fascinat per les similituds entre les dues disciplines.

Stephen Gordon, a Economist's view, també en diu alguna cosa:

'If you are familiar with economics and start reading evolutionary biology in earnest - and presumably vice versa - you quickly realize that these are sister fields. They actually have a remarkable amount in common, not only in terms of the kind of questions they ask and the methods they use, but in terms of the way they relate to and are perceived by the rest of the world.'

'The analogy even bears some straining: Economics and evolution are both driven by an 'invisible hand' of decentralized interactions between selfish agents, and both sciences are susceptible to interpretations that fall prey to the naturalistic fallacy: If it happens in the market, then it is good. If it happens in nature, then it is good. Neither inference holds, of course, and so we remain free to make normative statements about how best to regulate markets or how to lead a moral life.'