This is poor advice at two levels. First, natural selection does work at the level of species too. Else there wouldn't be identifiable species or the possibility of species going extinct. Darwin wouldn't have gotten far with the theory of evolution, if it weren't for the huge variety of observable species.

Nor should one read Darwin just for the science, but rather to see how a master writer and scientist puts together a beautiful and profound scientific argument. So much of scientific writing today is crap. It's poorly written and stuffed with cliche, sometimes not even understood by the author much less anyone else who reads it.

What are you trying to say here? Darwin was Christian and Wallace was a spiritualist. So both had some sort of belief along these lines.

I don't buy that. When are the NSA's poor and unlawful decisions going to get appealed?

And your IRS versus private business example is laughable. Notice that the IRS took the money straight away while the private business would attempt to do by less sure means. And if you win a private case against a business, you can get your lawyer money back from the business.

What's the reason for this unprovoked and gratuitous assault on Darwin? Darwin didn't start as a famous noble either though admittedly started with a somewhat better economic position (and social status) than Wallace.

Perhaps you ought to read Darwin first before you cast judgment? "The Origin of Species" is remarkable as a coherent, broad, and detailed argument for evolution. While much has been said about how we've moved on since then with far better and more nuanced understanding of biology and evolutionary processes, it is still remarkable how well Darwin's works can stand up to scrutiny, even today. I think these works will long stand as examples of how to make thoughtful, convincing scientific arguments.

What is your reason for treating foxes differently than people? What can change people? Some sky god?

Not at all. Such a claim is merely a claim about economics. And if it does actually create a "new" discipline, what of it? We're allowed to do that. But frankly, I think there's enough overlap on both the biology and economics side to avoid the need for doing so.

Which is an absurd claim. We can look at actual definitions of economics:

Obviously, the phrase "individuals, governments, firms, and nations" is very human-centric. And "unlimited wants" is kind of an exaggeration since there are limits to wants even at infinite levels of resources (eg, the cost of making the decision concerning disposition can outweigh the benefit of the additional infinite part of the resources).

But that doesn't change that economics is fundamentally about multiple parties with preferences making choices that allocate scarce resources.

I find it hard to take seriously arguments which depend even a little on redefining a term in a non-standard way. You continue with:

Science can't make assumptions because it's just an inanimate collection of ideas. Scientists can make assumptions. And we do see in the real world differences in behavior even at the microbe level when an organism has plentiful food rather than too little food. Just because the organisms might not have a concept of time value of calories or whatever, doesn't mean that they can't behave in ways which happen to exploit that concept.

No. Reality doesn't work that way. The power of patterns is that if some aspect of reality meets the preconditions of the pattern, then the pattern exists whether or not we are even aware of the pattern.

This. The anode can be replaced in certain situations. I know they do it for bridges (at least when the anodes aren't stolen for the metal content).

It's still economics no matter what assumptions get used or not used in a particular application of economics. And these aren't purely psychological characteristics.

So are you claiming that economics because of my argument above, and unlike any other science, should be applicable to the entirety of all reality? I already specified the circumstances under which it applies.

What parties with preference are there? There's just reality. There's no sense of goods and services to trade or seize.

The economic assumptions I mentioned earlier apply whether you consider them economic or not.

The big unknown with electric cars is that battery pack. I gather that's roughly a quarter to a third of the cost of the Tesla presently. Maybe the "Gigafactory" will knock that down a lot.