Capitalism and survival of the fittest?

[Count of Montesano]

Ok, just playing devil's advocate here for a sec.

Despite what we want to believe, humans are not completely immune to natural Darwinian laws. In fact, one could argue that the best civilization is one that provides a basic level of protection but at the same time allows for the strong to flourish and the weak or old to be naturally selected. Otherwise, in times of crisis a society may find itself crumbling from within as well as without.

So the question becomes, is the harsh side of capitalism actually good for the human race? Does capitalism help promote the smartest, strongest, and hardest working individuals? Should we look at people dying from food shortages or lack of healthcare in America as sad but inevitable given nature's laws? In a time of climate change/peak oil/dwindling food and water resources/super-bugs, will capitalism help ensure that the strongest humans survive? And perhaps in the end none of us as individuals really matter. It's the collective survival of our species - and one would argue the entire Earth ecosystem - that's far more important.

BTW, I'm not saying I necessarily believe this myself. But I did have an interesting discussion with some hardcore libertarian friends about whether or not those who aren't winners in the global economy deserve to survive. And if a population crash is coming - and I believe it might very well be only a few decades away - even I'm wondering if socialism is not a terrible idea from a standpoint of the human race's survival.

[Senno]

Pure capitalism or our rather mixed system?

[Dromikaites]

Actually human solidarity is probably one of the reasons why the humans are the dominant species on Earth. The human being cannot run faster than a gazelle nor is as strong as a lion. Human fossils from the Stone Age show that individuals crippled as a result of accidents lived many years after they were incapable to move by themselves. This means the rest of the tribe or at least their close relatives were keeping them fed and safe from harm. How does this translate into an evolutionary advantage which resulted in us ruling the planet?

Quite simple actually. Picture this: a lions pride is stalking a herd of gazelles. One of the gazelles notices and starts running, prompting all the others to run. The least fit individual from the herd is caught and eaten by the lions.

The early hominids could have chosen the same strategy and left their weakest ones behind. However, through some random genetic mutation one day a whole group of ape-like ancestors of ours didn't abandon their weak fellows. Instead they threw stones and grabbed whatever sticks were lying around and faced the lions. And probably discovered the lion meat tastes good. Those who didn't have the genetic mutation which triggers the solidarity behavior were eaten one by one. The others were forced to find ways to protect the more feeble members of the group from various dangers so they invented all sorts of things (housing, heating systems, medication, surgery, etc.) which in turn gave them more control over the environment.

Therefore protecting the less successful is forcing the human species to be more creative and thus to improve the security and the well being of everybody, including the most successful ones (any successful person would be one day old and less able to take care of himself/herself).

[ivan_the_terrible]

Actually human solidarity is probably one of the reasons why the humans are the dominant species on Earth. The human being cannot run faster than a gazelle nor is as strong as a lion. Human fossils from the Stone Age show that individuals crippled as a result of accidents lived many years after they were incapable to move by themselves. This means the rest of the tribe or at least their close relatives were keeping them fed and safe from harm. How does this translate into an evolutionary advantage which resulted in us ruling the planet?

Quite simple actually. Picture this: a lions pride is stalking a herd of gazelles. One of the gazelles notices and starts running, prompting all the others to run. The least fit individual from the herd is caught and eaten by the lions.

The early hominids could have chosen the same strategy and left their weakest ones behind. However, through some random genetic mutation one day a whole group of ape-like ancestors of ours didn't abandon their weak fellows. Instead they threw stones and grabbed whatever sticks were lying around and faced the lions. And probably discovered the lion meat tastes good. Those who didn't have the genetic mutation which triggers the solidarity behavior were eaten one by one. The others were forced to find ways to protect the more feeble members of the group from various dangers so they invented all sorts of things (housing, heating systems, medication, surgery, etc.) which in turn gave them more control over the environment.

Therefore protecting the less successful is forcing the human species to be more creative and thus to improve the security and the well being of everybody, including the most successful ones (any successful person would be one day old and less able to take care of himself/herself).

Interesting take on the survival of the fittest, never thought of it like that before.

[Count of Montesano]

Well thought-out response Dromikaites. And capitalism taken to the extreme would probably result in a stagnation of human advancement. But then again, severe environmental pressures and dwindling resources may also throw humanity back into a new dark age.
@ Senno - I'm referring to the unregulated capitalism of the 19th centuries, where you had rags to riches robber barons, millions living in dire poverty, and almost no government regulation. But truth be told, I see the global economy as a return to these times. Millions in the developing world are on the brink of starvation. Conditions in third world factories are about as bad as those in Dickens' time. And the First World is not immune, since multinational corporations can redeploy to countries where there are no safety regulations or worker protections.

[Dromikaites]

Well thought-out response Dromikaites. And capitalism taken to the extreme would probably result in a stagnation of human advancement. But then again, severe environmental pressures and dwindling resources may also throw humanity back into a new dark age.

It is very true that only recently we've come to realize how easily the civilization can quickly collapse because of the environmental problems and/or lack of resources. If this happens we will for sure return to a variant of the Dark Ages "Mad Max" style or something along those lines. But human solidarity existed even during the Dark Ages and that's how we've got to have this discussion over the Internet.

@ Senno - I'm referring to the unregulated capitalism of the 19th centuries, where you had rags to riches robber barons, millions living in dire poverty, and almost no government regulation.

It was like that for most of the 19th century then the things changed. Maybe it was about the fact most of the people are actually good (otherwise no society could survive). Maybe it was just a self-preservation instinct of the ruling classes who didn't want socialist/communist movements to wipe them out on one hand and who didn't want to fall prey to the rag to riches robber barons on the other hand. Maybe it was a combination of both (good human nature and self-preservation of the ruling class). This type of capitalism was to be seen again in Central and Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union from 1989 up until recently. Then it also became regulated.

But truth be told, I see the global economy as a return to these times. Millions in the developing world are on the brink of starvation. Conditions in third world factories are about as bad as those in Dickens' time. And the First World is not immune, since multinational corporations can redeploy to countries where there are no safety regulations or worker protections.

It might look counterintuitive for many Westerners but sweat shops, child labor, zero safety regulations and such actually speed up a third world country's transition to a better society.

Whatever little capital (by Western standards) might be needed to set up a sweat shop it is still a lot by local standards. The 19th century accumulation and multiplication of capital was accompanied by zero safety regulations, utter disregard for ecology and child labor.

And by the way unlike the common [mis]conception that ecology is a late 20th century thing the people understood the consequences of destroying the environment. Napoleon was very concerned about the deforestation of France because of the side effects of landslides and soil erosion and ordered his scientists to come up with proposals to reverse the trend. And the Portuguese kings had passed very tough laws to protect the Atlantic and Amazonian forests of Brazil as early as the 16th century. My guess is the fast degradation of the environment in the 19th century was not because of the lack of understanding of the consequences (everybody saw the water in the rivers became poisoned and the air was impossible to breathe) but because of the lack of capital needed in order to have a less polluting industry. Only in the 20th century the effects of pollution became less obvious but even more serious (Global Warming, Ozone Layer Hole, etc).

[Giuliano Taverna]

[quote=Count of Montesano;3020862]Ok, just playing devil's advocate here for a sec.

Despite what we want to believe, humans are not completely immune to natural Darwinian laws. In fact, one could argue that the best civilization is one that provides a basic level of protection but at the same time allows for the strong to flourish and the weak or old to be naturally selected. Otherwise, in times of crisis a society may find itself crumbling from within as well as without. quote]

I would argue that. We have no such Darwinism and our society is slowly degrading.

Idiots do not die, in fact many of them become rich and powerful. While those who do deserve to rule, are ruled.

[Thanatos]

Except tons of idiots and lazy slobs get paid tons without ever doing anything worthy of it.

Capitalism is not a fair check on the human population.

[Giuliano Taverna]

No but it has potential, much more so than the alternative, (communism.)

[Thanatos]

No but it has potential, much more so than the alternative, (communism.)

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

[Giuliano Taverna]

Then let us look for the good, in the mean time...

"We must at second best, chose the lesser of evils" Aristotle

[Thanatos]

Then let us look for the good, in the mean time...

"We must at second best, chose the lesser of evils" Aristotle

Nobody said you had to pick one extreme or the other. There's something called a middle ground, and that's where most of us live, in countries that have the middle ground.

It's called Democracy/Socialism/Republic/whatever.

[Thanatos]

And what is the middle ground?

The examples you gave can mean a lot of things.

Anywhere not either 100% capitalism or 100% communism is a good start.

[Giuliano Taverna]

And what is the middle ground?

The examples you gave can mean a lot of things.

[Problem Sleuth]

And what is the middle ground?

The examples you gave can mean a lot of things.

Examples: Western Europe. The US. Canada. They're all in the middle ground, and it's done well for them. The Communist countries we all know turned out poorly, and there isn't an existing 100% Capitalist country out there, and I don't think there ever has been.

Capitalism works now and will continue to work in the future. What alternatives have we? Communism? At the cost of freedom maybe.

Mixed Economies, not purely Capitalism. As with many things, the key is moderation.

[Pontifex Maximus]

The capability of compassion and care for a fellow member of the species is an evolutionary advantage. Capitalism promotes the strongest (richest) of us. In regards to the burma disaster of late, they are a poor nation and not able to support themselves well after a devestating disaster like a typhoon. America after hurricane Katrina could. These differences are significant. Capitalism works now and will continue to work in the future. What alternatives have we? Communism? At the cost of freedom maybe.

[Giuliano Taverna]

The capability of compassion and care for a fellow member of the species is an evolutionary advantage. Capitalism promotes the strongest (richest) of us. In regards to the burma disaster of late, they are a poor nation and not able to support themselves well after a devestating disaster like a typhoon. America after hurricane Katrina could. These differences are significant. Capitalism works now and will continue to work in the future. What alternatives have we? Communism? At the cost of freedom maybe.

It does work, when its done right. The way I see it, as long as capitalism is free from corruption, it works.

And there is one simple way to deal with corruption, punish the corrupt.

Of course corrupt is a relative term, I prefer to define it as acting out of self interest at the expense of the state. Which if the state is free of corruption, no one should want to be.

So, corruption breeds corruption, because it strains the loyalty of the people, and by association the leaders who are themselves people.

In any case, communism has proven an absolute disaster, we could probably learn more from fascism or monarchies than we can from it and that is saying something!

a mix is always the best answer, absolutism is always a failure.

Who said anything about absolutes?

We should take from any ideology all helpful ideas, but what if anything does communism have to offer us?

I can't think of anything good.

Examples: Western Europe. The US. Canada. They're all in the middle ground, and it's done well for them. The Communist countries we all know turned out poorly, and there isn't an existing 100% Capitalist country out there, and I don't think there ever has been.



Mixed Economies, not purely Capitalism. As with many things, the key is moderation.

And which western European countries are you referring to?

What communist tactics have they employed, and how can you show that those tactics are what brought about the success of said nations?

I will state with certainty that absolute capitalism has beaten out absolute communism at every turn. More over that the inherent beliefs of communism are flawed, so I can see no benefit from adopting it in any extent.

Again, if you can suggest some possible benefit from a specific communist practice, then I am all ears.

[Problem Sleuth]

And which western European countries are you referring to?

What communist tactics have they employed, and how can you show that those tactics are what brought about the success of said nations?

I will state with certainty that absolute capitalism has beaten out absolute communism at every turn. More over that the inherent beliefs of communism are flawed, so I can see no benefit from adopting it in any extent.

Again, if you can suggest some possible benefit from a specific communist practice, then I am all ears.

Not necessarily Communist tactics, but neither are they Capitalistic. They're a combination. Things like minimum wage, FDA (restricts the goods available to be sold legally), Occupational Health and Safety Act (forced businesses to have safe and tolerable working conditions), subsidizing crops, state-run roads and utilities, state-run fire departments, food stamps, Welfare, public/state-run schools, monopoly prevention. Those are some things in the US; in Europe, there are more.

Just because it isn't Communism doesn't make it Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and just because it isn't Laissez-Faire Capitalism doesn't make it Communism. It's called a middle ground. There are no forms of absolute Capitalism in the world at this moment, if I'm not mistaken.

[Chaigidel]

a mix is always the best answer, absolutism is always a failure.

[Thanatos]

Who said anything about absolutes?

We should take from any ideology all helpful ideas, but what if anything does communism have to offer us?

I can't think of anything good.

One thing first. The edit button is your FRIEND. Try it once in a while, instead of having three posts linked together one after the other.

Anyway, on to the topic. No, communism does not have anything good to give.

No matter how hard you try, you're always going to have differing classes, so it's pointless to try to do away with them.

Sharing is good. But sharing at gunpoint? No thanks.