Frequent ‘disasters’ select for traits while rare ‘catastrophes’ mostly just decrease fitness

Evidence

Two related terms were used by Harper (1977): “disaster” and “catastrophe.” Harper contrasts these as follows: a “disaster” occurs so frequently that it is likely to occur within the life cycles of successive generations, while a “catastrophe” occurs rarely, so that it is unlikely to be experienced as a repeated, selective force. Harper expressed these differences in evolutionary terms: a disaster would be likely to increase fitness through selection, while a catastrophe would generally decrease fitness. — S. T. A. Pickett and P. S. White, eds., The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and…, 95

Categorization

• DEFINE: Useful vocabulary distinguishing evolutionary-scale recurring disasters from one-off catastrophes.
• CANDY: A neat, tweetable distinction: ecologists call a frequent disturbance a ‘disaster’ and a rare one a ‘catastrophe,’ the opposite of loose everyday usage.
• XREF: connects to: Unpredictable shocks harm more than predictable stronger ones — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 522; Unpredictable harm damages organisms more than predictable but greater harm; Situation explains much behavior, but residual variance need not be trait-based — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4047 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Unpredictable shocks harm more than predictable stronger ones #expands (0.85) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 522
• Rare events justify mechanisms requiring many precise conditions #expands (0.80) — Eric J. Heller, Why You Hear What You Hear- An…, 719
• Unpredictable harm damages organisms more than predictable but greater harm #expands (0.75)
• Situation explains much behavior, but residual variance need not be trait-based #qualifies (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 4047