The comet orchid and hawk-moth relationship is used as a clear example of co-evolution in a natural environment. It is also a clear example of the high degree of specialization that can be achieved in an Complex Adaptive System(CAS). A CAS is a system where a multitude of agents interact and continuously adapt to their system, what is more popularly known as biological evolution from Charles Darwin theory. Our society is also a clear example of an even more complex CAS, as humans tend to adapt faster to our environment than other biological beings to theirs.
The “comet” orchid has a foot-long nectar tube that can only be pollinated by a moth with a foot-long proboscis, in this case the hawk-moth. The benefits of the co-evolution are clear on both sides. The hawk-moth is a very efficient pollinator of the comet orchid, thus increasing the efficiency of its reproductive process; on the other hand, the Hawk-moth doesn’t need to fight with other insects for the nutrients that the comet orchid can provide. It’s one of those clear balances in nature that astonishes us. However, we’re in a CAS and CAS are uncertain. At a given time in the life of this process, an ape discovers that the comet orchid provides a better flavor to water than what it usually have. The ape loves it and other apes learn from it that the comet orchid has this especial quality mixed with water. Consequently, The apes start collecting the comet orchids for their water.
The comet orchid has low control of this situation. The only way it can adapt is through creating a venom or becoming unpleasant for the apes to eat (Extra spicy?). Nonetheless, in nature this process can be centuries. Apes are drinking their water everyday. The comet orchid loses its balance.
The hawk-moth can’t find as many comet orchids as before. Out of necessity it needs to compete with other insects for the less specialized nectar for itself. Moreover, its foot-long proboscis may hinder its ability to take the nectar of other flowers more efficiently. As in the case of the comet orchid, the hawk-moth may take centuries to adapt to the lack of the comet orchid. The hawk-moth can fight the battle, but it will suffer.
This seems as a bleak scenario for both the comet orchid and the hawk-moth, just because an ape learned how to make its water more tasty. The whole ecosystem is disrupted as other insects suddenly receive more competition, and animals that would feed from the hawk-moth would see its food quantity decrease. This is a clear example of the consequences of an action in a CAS, the change of actions from an agent can have great effects in the whole system and lead to a permanent change in its structure.
This thought experiment rose the question to me: How can one define merit here? Is the comet orchid and hawk-moth to blame and to suffer due to a random idea of an ape? Does the ape deserves a better life than the comet orchid and the hawk-moth just because it had an idea? In the complexity of the natural ecosystem, doesn’t the generations, lives, and interactions of the comet orchid and the hawk-moth helped for the ape’s ecosystem to be stable until it disrupted it itself?
This are clear questions that we have in our current economic system which overvalues technological change and glorifies innovators, while ignores those that contributed to the stability of the system or even its growth for the innovator to be able to realize its vision.
The ape disrupted the system and it gain from it. What about the comet orchids and the moths? Is life all destroyed?
Not necessarily. If the ape learns that it need to help the comet orchid to reproduce to obtain tasty water throughout its life, then the comet orchid may have found a more efficient pollinator than the hawk-moth. An unconventional one through unconventional methods from the comet orchid’s perspective, but more efficient. As for the hawk-moth, there’s a chance that on its search for new flowers it will reach one that provides a better nectar to it. The life of the moth is now filled with tasty nectar.
The ape needs to learn how to care for the orchid, and the moth needs to sustain itself until it finds the tasty nectar (if it exist). Only after this is when the new idea of the ape thus provide a benefit to the complete system (even though there can be consequence because the moth started to prefer another flower).
If we accept, and even promote and provide more resources, to innovators for them to disrupt continuously disrupt the system; shouldn’t we accept that the ones left behind need all the support necessary to adapt for the whole economy to be better off? Do the people that are disrupted by these innovators merit their demise by contributing to the society that ultimately allowed the innovator to create?
I don’t support or believe in constant stability. There are many aspect in our societies that need change. Most of the time is not the shiny things. Nonetheless, we can’t be blind through the glorification of innovators (due to the change they provide) that all change have negative externalities that usually impact the hardest to those that can’t adapt quickly. We tend to think that innovators deserve the merit of all the change they cause, don’t they also merit the loss of the externalities they create? Why do we still are obsessed with providing resources for disruption but not for the adaptation for the disrupted? Is the latter boring?
The innovator merits both the gains and to responsibility to provide for the adaptation of the disrupted. Otherwise, we can never truly trust or take advantage of the society from the disruption. Let’s not obsess with shiny things but with what seems boring to help the disrupted to adapt and take advantage of the many wonders that humanity creates. I finish with a quote that I like:
“We notice what varies and changes more than what plays a larger role but doesn’t change. We rely more on water than on cell phones, but because water does not change and cell phones do, we are prone to thinking that cell phones play a larger role than they do.” — Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragility.
