The Rational Bull Elk

I am an avid viewer of nature documentaries. I’m not picky about which creatures are featured—whether they be whales, moles, lions, ants, chameleons, blowfish, or mosquitoes. I even find myself captivated by microscopic images of bacteria.

As I settle in front of my large-screen television, I am fully engaged, especially if the program enlightens me about the subtle complexities of the vibrantly colored animals. What do they consume, and how do they avoid becoming prey? What are their lifespans, mating behaviors, and social structures? It astounds me that both blue whales and monarch butterflies possess the ability to sense the Earth’s faint geomagnetic field and navigate vast distances across continents.

The nature shows I gravitate towards typically adhere to the tried-and-true three-act movie structure:

• Act 1: Establishing the tension between conflicting powers (good vs. evil),
• Act 2: Building towards a climax with uncertainty surrounding the resolution, and
• Act 3: The resolution, often culminating in an unexpected outcome.

In these documentaries, the conflicts presented must generally be easily comprehensible. Movie narratives rarely delve into obscure philosophical questions, as they could hinder viewership.

Nature documentaries naturally align with this classical structure. The antagonistic forces are clear: predator vs. prey. However, they often incorporate additional layers not typically found in mainstream films, specifically illustrating Darwinian principles regarding the coevolution of predator and prey attributes (with prey often ending up with only a marginal advantage in escaping scenarios).

In this piece, I will explore the conventional narrative surrounding elk mating during the rut, which occurs from late August through October. I choose this focus because the common Darwinian conclusion drawn from these ruts is frequently misinterpreted: the notion that superior genes are not necessarily the ones transmitted from bull elk (and other species) following mating confrontations.

While I have a fondness for elk, I admit that my interest in their mating behaviors serves to illustrate a larger argument: rational decision-making occurs in unexpected contexts—namely, in the midst of mating confrontations—where Darwinists may not anticipate it. If elk have developed even a limited capacity for rational thought, which runs contrary to typical Darwinian assumptions, why should we not likewise expect lower-tier species, such as voles and ants, to demonstrate some form of limited rationality? Should my evolutionary perspective be embraced, it signals the need for revisions to Darwinian theory to account for economic reasoning. Decision-making, shaped by constraints of scarcity, might (at least to some extent) steer species away from their expected Darwinian evolutionary trajectories.

Darwin and Elk Mating

Documentarians generally initiate their elk mating narratives in Act 1 by depicting a group of elk grazing peacefully in a meadow before the onset of the rutting period.

Initially, mature bulls are filmed engaging in gentle sparring with their antlers. As the rut draws closer, these encounters become increasingly intense. Once the females come into estrus, the stakes for the bulls elevate to life-or-death battles, in which the victor gains exclusive mating rights to a harem of typically 15–20 cows (the harem size likely evolved in response to the necessity for bulls to keep their females from wandering off with non-dominant bulls). This scenario remains true, reflecting historical evolutionary pressures.

As the dominant bull faces successive challenges, he has little opportunity to recuperate and feed, facing numerous potential injuries that gradually sap his strength and diminish his competitive edge, regardless of the size of his antler rack.

Darwin and the Selfish Gene

Why do bull elk (and the males of other species) actively pursue mating confrontations? Darwinian theory provides an explanation, as outlined in Act 2: these bulls are driven by heightened testosterone levels to fulfill what is viewed as their Darwinian fate—propagating their genes.

In the mid-1970s, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins added a reassuring perspective to the understanding of male mating behaviors, enhancing the predictive capabilities of Darwinian theory. Dawkins suggested that current males and females of species, including humans, are largely propelled by their genes to pursue their genes’ self-interests (distinct from their own) for survival and reproduction.^[1]

With this inherent mating bias, males can optimize their limited energy and cognitive resources by narrowing their focus on others, only providing assistance that furthers their own gene propagation.

Over generations, the ancestors of today’s dominant elk bulls, influenced by their selfish genes, likely achieved greater success in disseminating their genes and in reinforcing the dominance of these genes compared to those of their less narrowly driven counterparts.

Darwinian Tough Love

While dominant bull elk are often depicted as enjoying privileges, they also bear the consequences of short-lived mating reigns. Their position comes with perks—yet these are accompanied by significant costs!

To inject drama into the narrative, filmmakers often showcase the dominant bull effortlessly overcoming a series of challenges in Act 2, with impending defeat lurking on the horizon. Mating struggles are frequently portrayed as valorous endeavors supporting a Darwinian axiom: The fittest elk (as determined by struggle, vigor, and commitment) will ultimately prevail.

In both real life and documentary storytelling, the reign of the prevailing bull must be expected to end. Why is this? The standard rationale is that a younger bull with greater strength and stamina—and better genes—will eventually rise to challenge and dethrone the dominant bull.

Documentary producers conclude their narratives with a Darwinian principle: “The defeated dominant elk has fulfilled his evolutionary role. The new dominant bull’s superior genes will, henceforth, flow through future elk generations.”

Human Rationality

In theoretical economics, it’s presumed that individuals possess rational faculties, meaning they are capable of identifying available choices, valuing these options, and selecting those that maximize their satisfaction in a reasonably consistent manner. In essence, they can make real decisions that enhance their overall welfare, albeit within certain limits dictated by scarcity.

However, as evidenced by psychologists and behavioral economists, individuals often experience various cognitive shortcomings. People fall victim to decision-making biases, irrationalities, and errors, many of which are calculated and anticipated. These errors can still be rational—stemming from the scarcity of resources that underpin the need for the economic rationality premise.

This implies that economists should interpret many documented biases and irrationalities simply as the costs of decision-making processes that cannot reach perfection due to limited resources (primarily neural and energetic). Moreover, these decision costs may have rational underpinnings.

For instance, the salience bias may thinly spread available cognitive resources, thereby making other decisions more rational. After all, why should sensible consumers burn time and energy meticulously analyzing the constant flow of market information? That would not only be irrational but utterly absurd.

If we apply an economist’s analytical approach to elk behavior, we can see that although the testosterone levels in bull elk can significantly influence their actions, these levels do not entirely dictate them. Variations in external conditions, such as winter severity or the commencement of the rut, can sway decisions. Yet in economic contexts, these changes affect the relative costs tied to different options.

To Darwinist thinkers, there exists no room for erroneous decisions—only actions that fail to enhance a species’ fitness and propagation—minus any implied moral judgment. For them, errors of judgment do not signify miscalculations of costs and benefits (or at least not miscalculations made through conscious reasoning). Conversely, economists argue that many so-called erroneous decisions could be rationally designed and welfare-increasing, just as decisions perceived to be correct.

This holds especially true since both flawed and accurate decisions can be reached using imperfect decision heuristics. This still remains rational, as it economizes on decision-making expenses while aiming for welfare gains.

Despite behavioral economists documenting the decision deficiencies of individuals, they often assert their authority to recommend alterations to decision-making processes for others, seemingly oblivious to their own potential for errors (and inconsistencies). They appear to stand apart from others, confidently believing that their findings (as they interpret them) can create nudge mechanisms that steer all towards unfailing welfare enhancement as judged by the subjects (not the behavioral economists).^[2]

Non-Human Rationality

Why not consider that elk (or moose, voles, or butterflies) might possess some degree of rational capability, albeit on a smaller scale compared to humans? After all, elk’s significantly smaller brains likely limit their ability to conceive of alternative actions. Elk are indeed less adept at honing their options and accurately estimating their relative benefits. Yet such restrictions do not imply that elk lack any level of rationality, even if it allows for basic welfare-enhancing choices, like selecting grazed areas and discerning when to compete or retreat in mating fights. Would elk even desire the rational capacities that humans possess, considering their physical limitations that hinder more nuanced decision-making?

Could Darwinian evolution enable elk or any other species to exceed a rationality threshold that they cannot effectively utilize? I doubt it, as such excess would squander valuable resources for decision-making, ultimately impacting the species’ chances of survival.

I previously believed humans were the sole possessors of rationality due to their larger brains. At that time, elk mating held little interest for me.

Initially, I thought other species—from elk to ants—lacked adequate intellectual capacity for rational thought. I did not see the analytical advantages of assuming non-human species were capable of rationality. However, I have come to understand that rationality does not demand particularly stringent requirements. An organism must only recognize (some) alternative actions available and select among them based on their comparative worth, with the extent of this ability differing by species.

However, as I discussed in Rationality Evolved,^[3] I have grown to appreciate insights regarding non-human species: First, species with significantly smaller brains may deplete their neurons more quickly than humans if they attempt to develop neuron networks preassigned to make specific daily decisions. Elk possess (based on my estimations from drawings) at most one-third of the neurons humans do. Ants are equipped with a mere 50,000–150,000 neurons.^[4]

Should economists simply assume rationality (which critics of behavioral economics often decry)? As extensively explained in my book, there is no reason to think that human rationality could not have evolved in tandem with other attributes, like limbs or eyes. Given that Darwin utilized the term selection in the context of sexual selection, he may have implicitly acknowledged a basic level of rationality across species. Through the lens of rational decision-making economies that I have elaborated on in The Selfish Brain^[5], rationality possesses the requisite fitness advantage within the framework of Darwinian evolution, comparable to benefits provided by strength, speed, and visual insights.

This assertion does not imply that elk (or ants) would evolve to exhibit the same rational capabilities as humans. Of course, that is not the case. As highlighted, elk possess a fraction of the neurons found in humans. Realistically, we should anticipate that elk rationality will be confined to their specific needs for survival and prosperity, rather than the needs typically associated with humans.

When a dominant bull is bested, narrators usually credit his defeat to the superior might and stamina of the victor. This may hold true. Yet, introductory economics teaches us that this is hardly a guaranteed outcome. The evidence suggests that natural selection is not the sole determinant of a species’ evolutionary trajectory. In truth, I perceive the potential for rational choices from elk in earlier eras to have diversified their evolutionary course (even if subtly) from a predetermined trajectory, informed by the economic reasoning of previous dominant bulls (and their counterparts).

The vanquished bull may have bested his challenger previously but chose not to exert every ounce of strength, possibly due to fatigue from earlier confrontations and previous injuries, thus granting the victor a critical edge. After several mating encounters, the defeated bull may have even concluded that further mating was not worth depleting his dwindling energy; from an economic standpoint, perhaps engaging in the fight was too costly relative to the potential gain.

The newer dominant bull might not have been able to best the reigning bull had he faced him earlier in the series of challenges. The dominant bull might have been in better shape and condition prior to the earlier fights, unharmed by injuries and benefiting from valuable mating experiences. If the law of diminishing marginal utility applies to indulging in French fries, could it not also apply to mating practices?

Concluding Remarks

An array of biologists, Darwinists, economists, and social scientists may find my ideas troubling—if not bordering on heretical. My central theme posits that both human and non-human species likely possess an evolved capability for rational thought. Nevertheless, I have not claimed that extant species have evolved to be perfectly rational, as economic theory often presumes but does not expect to materialize in practice. Perfection in any domain, particularly in decision-making, is unattainable in a world riddled with pervasive scarcity, which limits evolutionary progress.

Achieving absolute rationality is not feasible within the confines of Darwinian evolution. However, this does not imply that an ideal of rationality cannot serve as a fruitful foundation for theoretical analysis.^[6] Any species pursuing perfect decision-making would face extinction, primarily due to resource wastage, meaning the marginal gains from refining decisions would fall short of the associated costs. Those individuals willing to tolerate imperfection in decision-making will likely flourish amid Darwinian struggles. Moreover, species would be prone to reject the pursuit of perfect rationality, as it would prove inferior in terms of welfare and fitness compared to a more flawed but functional form of rationality. Importantly, successful species would benefit from allowing many decisions (especially minor or routine ones) to remain automated or instinctively determined in reaction to external stimuli (without engaging in cost/benefit assessments), as theorized by biologists for all behavioral manifestations, merely to preserve decision-making resources.

Nevertheless, theoretical frameworks represent a distinct undertaking separate from lived experience. Economists’ assumptions regarding perfect rationality can, in theory, help minimize analytical costs while enhancing insights and testable hypotheses. This premise can yield more valuable insights than would a theory grounded in (imperfect) rationality complicated by the myriad decision flaws documented by behaviorists. (By cataloguing individuals’ decision-making imperfections, aren’t behavioral scientists inadvertently demonstrating that human decision-making is more rational than economists typically allow in their theoretical frameworks?)

Numerous nature commentators devoted to Darwinian concepts have yet to contemplate the potential for animals, carrying brains no bigger than oranges (or walnuts or peas), to make purposeful decisions. Consequently, they have overlooked an essential point that comes naturally to economists: During mating battles, bull elk may at certain points throughout the rut willingly forfeit their dominant positions, even if they possess the strength and stamina to fend off challengers. Hence, the victorious challenger may not necessarily possess superior genes, a common claim among nature experts.

Thus, it becomes evident that natural and sexual selection are far from the only mechanisms influencing a species’ evolutionary trajectory. Economic forces can—and undoubtedly do—play a role. Such economic influences may (I dare posit) chart paths leading to new species or, at the very least, novel adaptations in antler morphology.

Footnotes

[1] Richard Dawkins, 2016. The Selfish Gene. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press (1976). Dawkins’ selfish-gene theory allows Darwinists to predict that species will assist each other based on kinship proximity. For instance, humans are more likely to aid their own children compared to their siblings’ children.

[2] Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein, 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

[3] Richard McKenzie, 2024. Rationality Evolved!: Why People Have No Choice Over Having Choices. Athens, N.Y.: Cognitive Alley.

[4] Li, Q., Wang, M., Zhang, P. et al. A single-cell transcriptomic atlas tracking the neural basis of division of labour in an ant superorganism. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 1191–1204 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01784-1

[5] Richard McKenzie, 2021. The Selfish Brain: A Layperson’s Guide to a New Way of Economic Thinking. Athens, N.Y.: Cognitive Alley.

[6] To reference Milton Friedman’s theoretical justification for economists’ perfect rationality premise, see Milton Friedman, 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–46.

As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.