Markets and battlefields select among rifle designs like natural selection acts on weapons

Evidence

The more I sought common threads—themes uniting the stories of diverse animal species—the more apparent it became that these threads applied to our own weapons, too. In the end, my book about animal weapons evolved into a book about extreme weapons everywhere. I pored deeper into the literature surrounding our past, searching for the environments and circumstances in which our most elaborate weapons evolved. To my amazement, these circumstances truly were the same, and I realized I couldn’t tell one story without telling the other. Back and forth I went, as the biology of animal weapons and our weapons fused, inextricably woven into a single tale. This is a book about extreme weapons. Let’s just leave it at that. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 7 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Artillery and fortifications are manufactured structures, yet they evolve just like the weapons of animals do. Advances in the effectiveness of artillery select for new and better designs of fortresses, and vice versa, in a back-and-forth cycle that can spiral into an arms race. Because fortresses are fixed in place, rivals in these races have defined roles as attackers and defenders, much like animal predators and prey. The final examples pit attacker against attacker, in matched contests more reminiscent of battles between beetles or elk. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 525 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

In a sense, males compete with rival males regardless of whether sexual selection proceeds through female choice or male competition and, in many respects, the process—the intensity, consistency, and social nature of selection—is the same regardless. Why, then, do some species embark on a trajectory of overt competition leading to the evolution of weapons, while others end up dancing or singing with displays? Here is where the ingredients for arms races come into play, for these are the pieces that must fall into place if sexual selection is to trigger evolution of extreme weapons. The first ingredient is competition, the essence of all sexual selection. The second is economic defensibility. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 191 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 21; Weapon evolution is judged by competition among designs, not human survival — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 506; Weapon evolution needs both competition and economically defensible resources — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 191 (+4 more)

Related

• Weapon evolution is judged by competition among designs, not human survival (similarity 0.90)
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit (similarity 0.90)
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons (similarity 0.90)
• Weapon evolution needs both competition and economically defensible resources (similarity 0.89)
• Sexual selection can be far stronger than natural selection and drives weapon extremes (similarity 0.88)
• Human fortifications and artillery evolve via the same arms-race logic as animal weapons (similarity 0.88)
• The evolutionary drivers of animal weapons also explain human weapon elaboration. (similarity 0.87)
• Specific conditions are required before weapons escalate into an arms race (similarity 0.87)
• Balanced selection keeps most animal weapons modest rather than extreme. (similarity 0.87)
• Weapon size in animal species is under stabilizing selection, not open-ended directional selection (similarity 0.87)
• Fortification-artillery escalation mirrors predator-prey arms races, not rival contests (similarity 0.87)
• Comparisons of animal and human weapons have a long scholarly tradition. (similarity 0.87)
• Reproductive success, not survival, drives the largest animal weapons (similarity 0.86)
• Weapons evolve only when reproductive benefits exceed costs (similarity 0.86)
• Specific ecological circumstances must align before weapon arms races begin (similarity 0.86)

Broader Connections

• Human fortifications and artillery evolve via the same arms-race logic as animal weapons #exemplifies (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 525
• The evolutionary drivers of animal weapons also explain human weapon elaboration. #corroborates (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 7
• Weapon evolution is judged by competition among designs, not human survival #corroborates (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 506
• Weapon evolution needs both competition and economically defensible resources #expands (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 191
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons #corroborates (0.65) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 136
• Natural selection usually favors modest weapon size because cost offsets benefit #corroborates (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 21