Resource value and defensibility are relative to each species’ perspective

Evidence

What this exercise in the logic of economics reveals is a central tenet of the field of animal behavior: animals benefit most from fighting to guard territories when those territories contain valuable and limiting resources. The more limiting they are, and the more economically defensible they are, the higher will be the payoffs for successful guarding behavior. But here is where things get interesting, because whether or not a particular resource is valuable enough, or sufficiently localized to make its defense cost-effective, depends entirely on the perspective of the animal in question. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 203

Categorization

• DEFINE: Lays out the economic defensibility framework that governs whether fighting for territories pays off.
• XREF: connects to: Variation in animal weapon size is explainable by species ecology and behavior. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 253; Economic logic explains weapon evolution across virtually all animal species — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 198; Most scarcity is socially defined rather than intrinsic to resources — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 387 (+1 more)

Related

• Weapons evolve only when reproductive benefits exceed costs (similarity 0.85)
• Weapon evolution needs both competition and economically defensible resources (similarity 0.84)
• Weapon expense is what keeps signals of fighting ability honest (similarity 0.83)
• Mobile resources deny weapons a cost-effective performance advantage (similarity 0.83)
• Weapon size should track resource availability more than any mandatory body part (similarity 0.83)
• Uniformly distributed resources make territorial weapons uneconomical (similarity 0.83)
• Clumped scarce resources make guarding territories economically worthwhile (similarity 0.83)
• Dueling plus competition and defensibility is the general rule for extreme weapons (similarity 0.82)
• Military size honestly signals a state’s fighting strength just as animal weapons do (similarity 0.81)
• Specific ecological circumstances must align before weapon arms races begin (similarity 0.81)
• Economic logic explains weapon evolution across virtually all animal species (similarity 0.81)
• Weapons grow late because development prioritizes mandatory survival expenses first (similarity 0.81)
• Markets and battlefields select among rifle designs like natural selection acts on weapons (similarity 0.81)
• Human fortifications and artillery evolve via the same arms-race logic as animal weapons (similarity 0.81)
• Weapons disappear when fights stop being duels over defensible resources (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Variation in animal weapon size is explainable by species ecology and behavior. #corroborates (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 253
• Economic logic explains weapon evolution across virtually all animal species #expands (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 198