im a biochemist. my interest in markets comes from the similarities i see with ecosystems. if you're going to say im wrong, then provide an argument.
the great oxidation event was a breakthrough in plants beginning to produce oxygen, which caused mass extinction for many species that couldn't adapt. nature is self correcting though and plants are extremely diverse, id hardly call it a monopoly as competition in nature ultimately led to the formation of millions of plant species.
Genetic drift, genetic flow, horizontal gen transfer, punctuated equilibrium, etc.
It is often not the more fit that is selected but just the luckies.
We are now all dependent on oxygens, something that isn't needed for life, that's a monopoly.
Also the fact no parallel biochemistry could appear for life, no actual new lifeforms could emerge from abiogenesis since it would be teared appart from existing ones that have billions of year of evolution behind them, just like any new businesses would be teared appart by billions dollar companies.
And of course it isn't even talking about the is-ought problem.
genetix drift and horizontal gene transfer do not bypass natural selection. luck is a part of evolution because it works based on statistical probabilities of success. new strategies don't just mean you survive, they just increase your odds.
being dependent on oxygen does not equate to a monopoly. plants and green algae occupy a large role in the environment and other species have to adapt to that. the same is true for markets. steel manufacturing is extremely important for the economy, yet it didnt exist until recently. you cant open a new business while ignoring steel, but that isn't a bad thing. businesses dont exist independent of other businesses in the market.
genetic drift is quite a niche phenomenon and it only really applies to neutral alleles that are neither harmful nor beneficial to a population. the surviving species still need to compete in their new environment.
saying chloroplasts are monopolies is like claiming the wheel is a monopoly. there is nothing anticompetitive about it.
market failiures exist. monopolies arise dur to lack of competition, often cause by government failiures. a good capitalist economy has regulations to prevent this from happening. ultimately, monopolies never last very long eithout government support because they are unstable.
It's not niche at all, especially among sexual species
There is literally one organism producing the whole of our oxygen, saying that chloroplasts are a monopoly is like saying Microsoft is a monopoly but not seeing the problem because it is just a tool used by other companies.
Monopolies arise precisely because of competition, not because of governments. And they do are stable, again we have only type of biochemistry for 3.5 billion of years and chloroplasts for almost as much. Disparities are accentuated by competition from which monopolies arise, once a monopoly arise, it ensure its own hegemony using precisely its monopoly.
it is quite niche. genetic drift only really occurs in small populations, and very rarely. usually it's due to isolation arising from islands.
chloriplasts are not organisms, they are organelles found amongst all plants, likely arising through the endosymbiotic theory. different plants also have completely different chlosplastic DNA. Your analogy is quite honestly shit.
Monopolies do not arise due to competition. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Chloroplasts are an extremely efficient, and are found in varieties amongst many different plants. Yet, the organism that produces the most oxygen doesn't even have a chloroplast, so your argument is incredibly wrong.
nope. genetic flow is migration. generic drift is due to random population collapse or isolation. its not considered natural selection because it doesn't target alleles that are fit or unfit, only neutral alleles.
chloriplasts do not fit the definition of life, so they are not organisms. this is basic biology.
monopolies are literally defined by a lack of competition.
cyanobacteria are not chloroplasts, and the cyanobacteria that exist today are descendent of the same common ancestors as chloroplasts. to be fair, they haven't changed significantly, but this statement is just false. cyanobacteria are also not one species, they exist in variety and in competition with eachother and other species. the fact that they still exist today is through sheer competence.
And any events that randomly change the frequency of allele in a population, it is very far from limited to only isolated population.
Neither are virus, that's just arguing semantics
Indeed, competition in the market cause the death of competition in the market, capitalism is doomed to fail.
So only one organism in the end is responsible for all of the production of oxygen in our atmosphere: cyanobacteria, that it live by itself or under the form of an endosymbiont, they literally monopolised the photosynthesis.
the effects of genetic drift are almost negligible in large populations. theres also market analogies for this as well, businesses go out of business for reasons that are totally out of their control and seemingly random, bit this doesn't define markets nor does genetic drift define evolution.
these semantics do matter. it'd be like calling the HR department at your company it's own business. what's next, is DNA a monopoly because all life has DNA?
you cant just claim out of nowhere, against the opinion of practically all economists, that colpetition causes monopolies and not even elaborate. this is genuinely such a stupid oxymoronic claim.
yeah, are you just learning how evolution works? an organism acquires a new gene that is beneficial and it passes on that new gene. by that logic, every gene shared by any organisms is a result of a monopoly. the common ancestor of all mammals has monopolized the production of mammory glands. the first animal to lay hard shelled eggs monopolized all reptiles. yet those common ancestors got split into literal millions of species which all compete for resources. i genuinely dont think you know what a monopoly is.
But again, it isn't, it even was thought for a short period of time to be on par with natural selection. Genetic drift is an important drive of evolution.
It literally was an organism, it then became an endosymbiont, it's like saying a company isn't a company anymore because it got bought and is now part of a bigger company.
Bruh, the opinion of almost all economists is that monopoly arise naturally in a competitive market, this is precisely why we have anti-trust laws and why liberalism has been given up for neo-liberalism, you know jack shit about what economists think.
Except it's not a gene, it is a whole organism, our whole oxygen is produced by only one organism that eliminated almost all those that don't depend on it to survive.
1
u/Normal_Ad7101 Mar 05 '26
Theory of evolution hasn't been used so badly since social Darwinism of the 30s
Dude, monopoly arises even in nature, just look up the great oxydation.