Why do some species live much longer than others? (another long-ish biology/Bitcoin analogy…)
There is a phenomenon observed in nature of remarkable longevity being reserved for only the most well-adapted and niche-dominant species. Think of all the organisms known to live for extreme amounts of time: humans (100+), tortoises (170+), bowhead whales (200+), Greenland sharks (500+), crocodiles (70-120), and of course, trees (1,000+). All of these species are so well suited to their ecological niches, that they are effectively removed from the food chain. The adaptations vary, but they all demonstrate recurring themes. First, excellent defense. Take the example of the tortoise. It is essentially a mobile boulder. It doesn't even need speed because it is essentially impervious to physical attack. Similarly, an oak tree does not share the same vulnerability that a clover plant does to being consumed by a grazing mammal at a moment's notice. Second, efficient, low-cost offense. Owing to their methods of attack, crocodiles and pythons are exposed to very little risk when they take down prey (as opposed to big cats or wolves, which hunt at considerable risk to themselves). Their offensive, and consequently defensive, adaptations make these reptilian carnivores superpredators with essentially no natural threats (except sometimes, each other). A third element, which straddles the first two, intelligence allows an organism to optimize its behaviors to its environment in such a way that it maximizes both its offensive and defensive attributes. This is the case with humans, whales, and, I would theorize, long-lived avian species such as parrots. Honorable mention goes to adaptations such as venom and flight. Both of these adaptations adhere to the same principle. Ultimately a pattern emerges: before a species can dedicate valuable adaptive resources to longevity (i.e. evolving defenses against cancer, infection and physiologic breakdown) that species must definitively conquer more imminent threats to its existence. A tiger sees no benefit from being able to live 50 years, if it is only physically capable of taking down large game for a decade or so; a broken jaw, injured joint, or simply age-induced decline in speed or agility are all a death sentence for a predatory cat in the wild. Therefore, a species having a long lifespan is almost a proxy indicator that that species has discovered some optimally efficient means of surviving in its environment (and it turns out that having to kill a bull elk with your face is not a long-term efficient strategy). In other words, ALL other natural threats must be neutralized before a species will evolve to live a long life. Absent this precondition, it is much more evolutionarily efficient to prioritize a short and expedient life/reproductive cycle.
So how does this apply to Bitcoin? I would argue that Bitcoin needed to have the security and robustness to defend against hostile adversaries (e.g. China mining ban), supposedly well-meaning innovators (e.g. blocksize wars), bad actors (e.g. FTX, Teraluna), and a host of heretofore unknown threats FIRST, as a precondition for its long-term viability. Immutability, permanence, and durability of the timechain are attributes that must be built atop censorship resistance, permissionlessness and antifragility. Bitcoin must possess the attributes necessary to transcend politics, centralization, and human folly/greed if it is to unflinchingly transmit value through time. A theme I am going to borrow here is the axiom: Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed. Bitcoin, whether by design or by happenstance, just seems to abide by so many of the dictates of biological, physical, and indeed Natural law. This ties into a previous post on the relationship between Life and Entropy. By overcoming the immediate threats of day-to-day disintegration, Bitcoin can ultimately stand as an awe-inspiring monument against entropy into the distant future. Simply put: in order to be able to build for forever, Bitcoin had to be built for forever.
#bitcoin #thinkstr
