Technology is not a ladder, it is a bush

From principle 4 - Complex artefacts of any description or purpose always have precedents that are complex. A lineage must always be assumed to exist to a less complex precedent with either trial and error pathway for any additional complexity, or a lineage with an added component that has extensive precedent in itself.

Now this is part of the main argument against "ex nihilo" creation of the Earth's species - The Earth shows historical evidence of a progression of species, and no evidence of species occuring without similar species preceding. The genetic record of species also concurs.

The historical human record also shows that for every highly technological product humans "created", there has been remarkably similar products preceding them. Just as in paleontology a lot of the "in-between" record is inaccessible (eg. extensive beta-testing, simulations etc. by private companies) such that products seem quite different from their predecessors more so than simple trial and error and/or combining with other technologies would indicate.

Humans can no more dictate what artefacts will survive and reproduce in the artificial artefact environment anymore than we can genetically engineer animals to better live in their environment. Thus technology has no preferred direction, just like evolution. We often naively believe that technology only goes up, but all technologies rather become survivors in the artificial human environment, and we can't really know what the next big thing will be. We just know that successful stuff gets duplicated ad nauseum for a while, and others just die out quietly, even if they had potential.

Self-Adjusting Systems

Most discussions regarding democracy and liberal economy, etc. revolve around the freedoms and benefits to the individual over those of dictatorships and strictly controlled economies. Discussions on Darwinian evolution dwell a lot on the selfishness of the individual progressing the genetic quality of the species. Marconomics is more interested in the self-adjusting nature of these systems.

Very successful non-democracies have existed with little problem for the individual citizen - There is even advantages as dictators can make unpopular decisions that benefit the country. However, succession is almost always a problem, and bad dictatorships don't have an automatic way of being reviewed and fixed.

Command and control economies, similarly, are capable of achieving specific goals immediately and without fuss, but every goal (eg. lower fuel prices) has unpredictable knock-on effects down the line, and in general these economies are unstable. Liberal economies are self adjusting in this regard, but one has to put aside capabilities of dictating that certain goals be met.

Similarly, genetic engineering may well produce genetics and species that achieve specific goals better than anything in nature. However, these genetics and species will fail spectacularly in nature because the self-adjusting systems of evolution are put aside as the survival of the genetically engineered is guaranteed for the purposes of the design, while survival under stress of competition etc. is the only thing that matters in nature.