Spontaneous order vs. natural selection (same thing?)

The principles of "spontaneous order," "extended order," "invisible hand"... etc. (as explained by Hayek Adam Smith and many other economists)  are the same as those that govern a natural ecosystem--natural selection.  Those shinning principles that most economists point to be the most efficient means of allocation of resources... the free market, the price system.  If not disturbing the natural flow within a market place: allowing for resources to distribute themselves based on pure supply and demand and limited government that protects life liberty and property, is the most ethical means of approaching the knowledge problem, than is it essentially unethical to take a similar regulatory behavior towards the environment?  Uni-cropping, preventing the flow of species onto a property or landscaping.  How far does the ethic of supporting spontaneous orders extend?  Self benefit plays in. That is to say when it stops benefiting me, than I place restrictions on my yard and regulate my env.  

This is an interesting intersection between The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold (an extreme environmental philosopher from Wisconsin, and Hayek.   Maybe it means nothing but I think they are applying the same idea in two different directions... It's like turn around Dorothy! your sister's right behind you! but they both walk opposite directions down the same yellow brick road.