> If you follow evolutionary theory, you know that one big question is why sexual reproduction evolved — and why it persists, given the substantial costs involved. Why doesn’t nature just engage in cloning?
>
> And the most persuasive answer, as I understand it, is [defense against parasites](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090706171542.htm).
via [krugman.blogs.nytimes.com](http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/google-needs-sex/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman)
His conclusion: Google needs sex. Meaning it needs to evolve like humankind did, rather than clone itself like a machine. It needs to adapt faster than the parasite spammers scamming it. And that isn’t happening.
Considering that Eric Schmidt thinks that cars should be driven by machines, and that people should just move every few years in order to avoid their digital pasts, I’d say that Krugman has made a more astute observation here than maybe he even realizes.
All kidding aside, Google’s biggest problem under Schmidt has always been that he’s out of touch with normal human behavior. As a result, Google has no sense of UI, it fails at selling products directly to consumers (Nexus), and its behavior continues to scare and creep people out on a regular basis. Schmidt has hired so many brains over there that no one in the building has any sense of how to get laid anymore.
Sex, indeed, professor Krugman.
