Arms Races and Battlefields

Evolutionary explanations often invoke warlike imagery: predator–prey arms races, battlefields of competition, and species “fighting” for survival.

Charming — but profoundly misleading.

---

The Metaphor Problem

• Arms race / battlefield implies intentional strategy, aggression, and conflict.

• Reality: evolutionary change arises from relational interactions and differential reproduction, not from organisms scheming or plotting.

• Such metaphors make it easy to overlook cooperation, mutualism, and the subtler dynamics of ecological networks.

---

Why This Is Misleading

1. Anthropomorphises organisms — animals are not generals or soldiers.

2. Obscures relational ecology — interactions involve networks of influence, feedback loops, and emergent constraints.

3. Reinforces zero-sum thinking — evolution is not inherently competitive; survival and reproduction emerge relationally.

Battle metaphors impose agency and conflict where there is only patterned actualisation of potentialities.

---

Relational Ontology Footnote

From a relational perspective, co-evolution is a dynamic alignment of organismal and environmental potentials. There is no battlefield, no strategy; only relational patterns actualising under constraints.

---

Closing Joke (Because Parody)

If evolution were a battlefield, squirrels would ambush acorns, flowers would form militias, and bacteria would launch sneak attacks in Petri dishes — and yet somehow still obey the rules of physics.