Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The economics of evolution: Henry Ford and the Model T

2009; Wiley; Volume: 119; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17613.x

1600-0706

Robert A. Laird, Thomas N. Sherratt,

Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation

OikosVolume 119, Issue 1 p. 3-9 The economics of evolution: Henry Ford and the Model T Robert A. Laird, Robert A. LairdSearch for more papers by this authorThomas N. Sherratt, Thomas N. SherrattSearch for more papers by this author Robert A. Laird, Robert A. LairdSearch for more papers by this authorThomas N. Sherratt, Thomas N. SherrattSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 December 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2009.17613.xCitations: 4 R. A. Laird, Dept of Biological Sciences, Univ. of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, T1K 3M4, Canada. – T. N. Sherratt ([email protected]), Dept of Biology, Carleton Univ., Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract For the past 30 years evolutionary biologists have used a fictional tale about engineer and businessman Henry Ford to help illustrate the undesirability of over-design. Thus, on discovering that kingpins were rarely damaged in scrapped Model T automobiles, Henry Ford is alleged to have concluded that the kingpins were unnecessarily durable and asked that they be built to a cheaper specification. The general lesson that has been drawn from this tale is that natural selection will act to equalize the mortality risks accruing from damage to each part of the organism's body. Yet it is well known, at least as far as humans are concerned, that death is more likely to be attributed to a failure of some organs compared to others. To understand why this might be so, we use some graphical and mathematical models to show that even if all body organs were equally important to survivorship, then the optimal investment solution that maximizes whole-organism longevity will typically not be the solution that equalizes the fail-times of the individual organs. As with natural organisms, the key to any optimal investment policy in multi-component systems is understanding what 'bang you can get for your buck'. Moreover, we use a specific model to show that, even following selection to ameliorate the effects of damage, those body parts that receive more damage are still more likely to be the ultimate cause of death – that is, there is 'under-compensation'. Therefore, the decision to make the kingpins more cheaply should not have been based only on the fact they rarely cause car failure compared to other car components. Such arguments wrongly assume that if one car part (or body part) is less durable than the others, then it will always be the reason for any future breakdown (or death). References Alexander, R. M. 1981. Factors of safety in the structure of animals. Sci. Progr. 67: 109–130. Alexander, R. M. 1997. A theory of mixed chains applied to safety factors in biological systems. J. Theor. Biol. 184: 247–252. Armitage, P. and Doll, R. 1954. The age distribution of cancer and a multi-stage theory of carcinogenesis. Brit. J. Cancer 8: 1–12 (reprinted in Int. J. Epidemiol. 33: 1174–1179.). Barlow, R. E. and Proschan, F. 1965. Mathematical theory of reliability. Wiley. Barrow, J. D. 1995. The artful universe: the cosmic source of human creativity. Clarendon Press. Charnov, E. L. 1976. Optimal foraging: the marginal value theorem. Theor. Popul. Biol. 9: 129–136. Conant, G. C. and Wagner, A. 2003. Duplicate genes and robustness to transient gene knock-downs in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271: 89–96. Currey, J. D. 1984. The mechanical adaptations of bones. Princeton Univ. Press. Dawkins, R. 1995. River out of Eden. Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Dawkins, R. and Brockmann, H. J. 1980. Do digger wasps commit the Concorde fallacy?. Anim. Behav. 28: 892–896. Diamond, J. 1997. Why is sex fun? The evolution of human sexuality. Basic Books, New York. Diamond, J. 2002. Quantitative evolutionary design. J. Phys. 542: 337–345. Eyre-Walker, A. and Keightley, P. D. 2007. The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8: 610–618. Ford, H. and Crowther, S. 1922. My life and work, (10th ed.) Project Guttenburg E-Book. Frank, S. A. 2004a. A multistage theory of age-specific acceleration in human mortality. BMC Biol. 2: 16. Frank, S. A. 2004b. Genetic variation in cancer predisposition: mutational decay of a robust genetic control. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101: 8061–8065. Frank, S. A. 2004c. Age-specific acceleration of cancer. Curr. Biol. 14: 242–246. Gavrilov, L. A. and Gavrilova, N. S. 2001. The reliability theory of aging and longevity. J. Theor. Biol. 213: 527–545. Humphrey, N. 1983. Consciousness regained: chapters in the development of mind. Oxford Univ. Press. Kung, H. C. et al. 2008. Deaths: final data for 2005. National vital statistics reports; vol. 56 no. 10. Natl Center Health Stat., Hyattsville, MD. Laird, R. A. and Sherratt, T. N. 2009. The evolution of senescence through decelerating selection for system reliability. J. Evol. Biol. 22: 974–982. Maynard Smith, J. 1962. Review lectures on senescence. I. The causes of ageing. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 157: 115–127. Medawar, P. B. 1952. An unsolved problem of biology. Western Printing Systems, Bristol. Nowak, M. A. et al. 1997. Evolution of genetic redundancy. Nature 388: 167–171. Perrin, N. 1992. Optimal resource allocation and the marginal value of organs. Am. Nat. 139: 1344–1369. Citing Literature Volume119, Issue1January 2010Pages 3-9 ReferencesRelatedInformation