Nature is nice. Even when dinosaurs go extinct, it nonetheless makes humans who are able to write stories about them.
There are long traditions of comparing theories of natural evolution with those of so-called fundamental laws of economics. A while back, for example, I wrote an entire post about ideas spread by Pareto (see “More or Less is Better“). Even Adam Smith’s vision of an “invisible hand” is wonderful in a way that seems to almost send signals to Charles Darwin — and perhaps similarly Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto also is sort of a premonition of the later instantiations known as “social Darwinism”.
Yet we should not be misled to believe that simply since someone might have discovered such similarities, that humanity (and the ASS systems which have become a cancerous outgrowth upon humanity) has resolved all issues (such that there might no longer exist any unresolved questions throughout the universe). In my humble opinion: Nothing could be further from the truth.
As it is, the wonders of life have just today bestowed to me another example of such a phenomenon of fallacious reasoning:
Attention equals money — that this is a literal attention economy. People — it would be silly to think that these things don’t matter, because — if it is your industry — obviously if you don’t get any attention, you won’t be in business.
https://podcasts.video.blog/2026/05/17/if-you-dont-get-any-attention-you-wont-be-in-business
Today, many (if not most) people seem to adhere to a rather narrow-minded interpretation of the “business” concept. In my own broad-minded interpretation, business refers to the state of being busy. It doesn’t mean money or dollars or gold or bitcoins. Indeed, perhaps in “broadest“-minded terms, even “rest” is a state of activity. I could busy myself with incessant meditation. In these terms, business is not even an option. It is more of a mindset.
Personally, I prefer to direct my attention to rational media. [1] There are many reasons behind this decision, yet I do not feel the slightest urge or need to justify them. I view this as my own preferences which I feel are rational much in the same way, I guess, that it feels rational (and also natural) for me to sleep during the darkness of nighttime rather than during the bright hours of daytime.
In the camp opposite my own camp — in other words, among those who prefer irrational media to rational media — there seems to be a bias against “context dependency”. People who prefer irrational media usually say things like: “the names of things don’t matter” or “don’t judge a book by it’s cover” (and thereby imply that the titles of things are immaterial — see also “What’s X?“). Indeed, this is fundamental to the “Google” approach, insofar as the Google mythology dictates that it is necessary to scour every last corner of the Internet in order to obtain the so-called best results. Shockingly, this mythology has hardly any explanation whatsoever for the very astounding fact that a huge proportion of “top results” happen to be extremely laden with advertisements that primarily fill the Google organization’s coffers (which seem to be overflowing so rapidly that they not only reach to the moon but continue to overflow and overflow and spread Earthly resources far and wide out into space — even past the final frontier, all the way across the universe).
Socio Business blog 