Nature's Opaque Logic (Evolution vs. Human Intervention)
Taleb argues that localized evolutionary trial and error limits losses, while some large-scale human interventions expose many people to the same potentially catastrophic error. He applies this concern to synthetic life and other technologies that can spread beyond their initial setting.
THE IDEA
NATURE’S OPAQUE LOGIC
At the time of this writing, the biologist Craig Venter is engaging in the creation of artificial life. He conducted experiments and stated them in a famous paper titled “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome.” I have an immense respect for Craig Venter, whom I consider one of the smartest men who ever breathed, and a “doer” in the full sense of the word, but giving fallible humans such powers is similar to giving a small child a bunch of explosives.
If I understand this well, to the creationists, this should be an insult to God; but, further, to the evolutionist, this is certainly an insult to evolution. And to the probabilist, like myself and my peers, this is an insult to human prudence, the beginning of the mother of all exposures to Black Swans.
Let me repeat the argument here in one block to make it clearer. Evolution proceeds by undirected, convex bricolage or tinkering, inherently robust, i.e., with the achievement of potential stochastic gains thanks to continuous, repetitive, small, localized mistakes. What men have done with top-down, command-and-control science has been exactly the reverse: interventions with negative convexity effects, i.e., the achievement of small certain gains through exposure to massive potential mistakes. Our record of understanding risks in complex systems (biology, economics, climate) has been pitiful, marred with retrospective distortions (we only understand the risks after the damage takes place, yet we keep making the mistake), and there is nothing to convince me that we have gotten better at risk management. In this particular case, because of the scalability of the errors, you are exposed to the wildest possible form of randomness.
Simply, humans should not be given explosive toys (like atomic bombs, financial derivatives, or tools to create life).
When to use it
Evaluating whether to release a genetically modified organism into the wild.
Assessing the systemic risk of new financial instruments before widespread adoption.
Deciding on the deployment of geoengineering technologies with unknown side effects.
Regulating new medical treatments that could have delayed or cascading impacts.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
Artificial Life Creation
Taleb cites Craig Venter’s synthetic-genome work as an intervention whose possible downstream effects concern him. His example asks whether potential benefits justify exposure to errors that could spread through complex biological systems.
Financial Derivatives
Leveraged exposures to mortgage-related securities illustrate how apparently steady returns can coexist with large, interconnected losses, as in the 2008 financial crisis.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
How does this concept apply to the development of artificial general intelligence?
Can you identify a current technology or policy that exhibits negative convexity—small wins with huge potential losses?
Why do we repeatedly fail to learn from past risk management mistakes, especially in complex systems?
Often confused with
References
- Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome — Craig Venter
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Antifragile (Nassim Nicholas Taleb)