« Why the yield curve matters | Main | Why is journalism so bad? »

July 27, 2005

Comments

Andrew Duffin

Natural Selection?

What, as in Darwin?

Are you suggesting that more successful terrorists are more likely to survive and breed? It seems a bit counter-intuitive, to put it midly...

neil

As a biochemist/evolutionary geneticist with a (mild) grasp of economics, the relationship appears clear - successful terrorists don't get killed conducting operations. They learn from others' mistakes; Security forces act as Darwin's natural selectors - the "best" terrorists survive and pass on their experience via Dawkin's meme hypothesis to the next generation.

Note: Obviously a grossly simplified analaogy.....

chris

Sorry, I should clarify. I'm not saying there's a selection mechanism directly for terrorism - just that there's (possibly)one for the extremism that can lead to terrorism.
One piece of corroboration here is that a huge proportion of the world's population is descended from Genghis Khan:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030205-100301-1566r

Andrew Duffin

Ah well that clarifies it a bit.

However I still have a quibble. "Successful terrorists don't get killed conducting operations"

So, to pick an example, Atta was not successful? Whereas those idiot boys last week were?

Maybe you mean "_the bosses of_ successful terrorists don't get killed..."

otoh not many IRA men got killed - hardly any while conducting operations. And they were certainly successful - their bosses ended up in Government and even in Parliament, or would have done if they had taken their seats.

So perhaps your argument does stand.

Interesting.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad