Alfred Marshall avait en son temps estimé que la Mecque des économistes devait être la biologie. Mais, aujourd’hui, ne serait-ce pas l’inverse ? C’est en tout cas ce que l’on peut se demander quand on prend connaissance des dernières découvertes en biologie évolutionnaire, comme par exemple cette étude sur l’émergence de la règle du ” à tour de rôle” chez plusieurs espèces animales :
“Using evolutionary game theory and computer simulations, Professor Colman and Dr Browning discovered a simple variation of “tit for tat” that explains how turn-taking can evolve in organisms that pursue their individual self-interests robotically.
The researchers state: “Turn-taking is initiated only after a species has evolved at least two genetically different types that behave differently in initial, uncoordinated interactions with others. Then as soon as a pair coordinates by chance, they instinctively begin to play ‘tit for tat’. This locks them into mutually beneficial coordinated turn-taking indefinitely. Without genetic diversity, turn-taking cannot evolve in this simple way.”
Professor Colman added: “In our simulations, the individuals were computer programs that were not only dumb and robotic but also purely selfish. Nevertheless, they ended up taking turns in perfect coordination. We published indirect evidence for this in 2004; we have now shown it directly and found a simple explanation for it. Our findings confirm that cooperation does not always require benevolence or deliberate planning. This form of cooperation, at least, is guided by an ‘invisible hand’, as happens so often in Darwin’s theory of natural selection.”
Si on se souvient que Darwin lui-même avait trouvé son inspiration en lisant Smith et Malthus et que la théorie des jeux évolutionnaires a été initalement importé en biologie… de l’économie, il n’est finalement pas étonnant que la biologie retrouve des résultats qui sont pour le moins standard en économie.
C.H.
la miss des villes
isaac37500
