Carrol writes that "Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' is the right metaphor."
I wonder about his punctuated equilibrium. It seems a lot like the economists' comparative statics: the evolutionary system reaches a (rough) equilibrium, which is then shock by some external force (e.g., a comet). Then the evolutionary system adjusts, moving toward a new rough equilibrium. The main difference here is that standard economics is essentially static, while evolutionary theory is essentially dynamic. On the other hand, for Marx, the shocks came from within the system (though external or exogenous shocks were possible). In one version, there is an internal dynamic that drives the rate of profit down, so that "good times" are always temporary. While punctuated equilibrium may be really good for evolutionary biology, it seems inadequate for political economy. BTW, what happened to the listserv? we haven't seen subject lines with "Re: [PEN-L] Re: [PEN-L] Re: [PEN-L] Re: [PEN-L] Re: [PEN-L] Re: [PEN-L] Re:" in a long, long time. -- Jim Devine / "The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal which can individuate itself only in the midst of society." -- Karl Marx.
