Why balance suck

Peter Thiel wrote an exceptional analyses here on the impact of survivor bias on stock evaluations.

His analysis was driven by "fears of antedelivium apocalypse". He was basically trying to determine what stock to invest in, in the long run and concluded very wisely that collapse of the market skews our evaluation of stock since we exclude the catastrophic scenarios from our evaluations.

I believe he meta identifies the following theories:

1. Apocalypse cannot be avoided, but it is a question of when.
2. Our investment hastens or delays apocalypse.
3. Balance is an optimal strategy to maximise gains. Unconstrained globalization suggest efficient markets, but they are not.

So, there is what I think/feel:

Balance (like in "the force") will possibly encourage globalisation that is good for us (more efficient markets?) while curbing globalization in a healthy way will keep us responsible in terms of a sustainable future.

1. The information virus in us desires to survive as long as possible.
2. All the money in the world can just buy other money and not survival.
3. So, to survive, we should resist globalization, unless....
4. We get trapped in a local maximum (like the fire departments in New York at the turn of the previous century) that could have been avoided by a more efficient market.
5. So survival is about resisting growth while revolution is about supporting globalization.

We always seem to favor gambling/genetic algorithms/revolution over evolution/optimization/risk management. Well, at least the men in our society do that.