I think you're looking at it backwards, *and* drawing an invalid comparison.
First, the invalid comparison. Economics and software design, no matter whether the management structure is imposed by Authority or allowed to develop freely by the actions of the participants, have a targeted end point in mind, and the changes that happen along the path are *not* random. Evolution's changes *are* random, and there is no predefined target, merely the filter of survival to reproduction. Creationism doesn't *have* changes, and it can be argued doesn't have a targeted end point either, because we're already there (But it's rarely interesting to discuss the degenerate case).
Second, the backwards view. In all three cases, people's preferences are not formed by beliefs about the process, but by *who is controlling* the process. I see it as totally consistent that people who are unwilling to allow God to choose their heredity or a faceless corporation to choose their software features are perfectly happy to let an intellectual elite (of which they consider themselves a member) control their economy. It comes down to "whom do you trust?"
Sadly, it never seems to come down to a question of "Who has earned your trust?", but that's a different question.
A corollary argument could be predicated on the fact that pure libertarianism and pure communism have both been shown to fail utterly on a large scale, but that's outside the scope, I think (and LJ doesn't let me post adequately large comments.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-17 07:00 pm (UTC)First, the invalid comparison. Economics and software design, no matter whether the management structure is imposed by Authority or allowed to develop freely by the actions of the participants, have a targeted end point in mind, and the changes that happen along the path are *not* random. Evolution's changes *are* random, and there is no predefined target, merely the filter of survival to reproduction. Creationism doesn't *have* changes, and it can be argued doesn't have a targeted end point either, because we're already there (But it's rarely interesting to discuss the degenerate case).
Second, the backwards view. In all three cases, people's preferences are not formed by beliefs about the process, but by *who is controlling* the process. I see it as totally consistent that people who are unwilling to allow God to choose their heredity or a faceless corporation to choose their software features are perfectly happy to let an intellectual elite (of which they consider themselves a member) control their economy. It comes down to "whom do you trust?"
Sadly, it never seems to come down to a question of "Who has earned your trust?", but that's a different question.
A corollary argument could be predicated on the fact that pure libertarianism and pure communism have both been shown to fail utterly on a large scale, but that's outside the scope, I think (and LJ doesn't let me post adequately large comments.)