How Capitalism Is Counter-Evolutionary (Part I)
In the late 19th Century many American industrialists - such as Carnegie and Rockefeller - promulgated the idea of laissez-faire capitalism as Darwinism by extension of Englishman Herbert Spenser's "survival of the fittest" theories. In other words, capitalism could be interpreted as a system which is most harmonious with Darwinism.This is a view I have been meaning to express my dissent to for a long time. My own theory is that capitalism is anti-evolution, or anti-Darwinism (whatever you will call it). I will, over the course of things, present a number of arguments to uphold my view that capitalism is harmful to Darwinism and, therefore, the natural order of things.
My first argument re-introduces Herbert Spenser. While I am rallying against the application of Spenserian theory to capitalism, I don't disagree with Spenser's demarcation of the "fit" and the "unfit or the "weak" and the "strong".
Most people would object to these distinctions on the grounds of political correctness. I wish to dispense with them as they are too poetic, preferring to acknowledge that inter- and intra-species there is a variation of breeding strategy which might largely be synonymous with Spenser's idea of fit and unfit.
I am referring to the ecological theory of r/K selection theory as espoused by MacArthur and Wilson.
'r' and 'K' are different types of reproductive strategists (within and between species). For convenience of explanation I have lifted the following from Wikipedia:
"Typically, r-selected species exploit empty niches, and produce many offspring, each of which has a relatively low probability of surviving to adulthood. In contrast, K-selected species are strong competitors in crowded niches, and invest more heavily in fewer offspring, each of which has a relatively high probability of surviving to adulthood. In the scientific literature, r-selected species are occasionally referred to as "opportunistic", while K-selected species are described as "equilibrium""
What this means is that mosquitoes tend to survive by having many offspring but investing little in the upbringing of the offspring. As the Wikipedia quote (above) explains, it is an opportunistic strategy. Where the probability of survival is low, it pays for a species to produce many offspring so as to increase the probability that at least one will survive.
Polar bears, on the other hand, have fewer offspring but invest more in their fewer offspring.
These are inter species examples. Speaking in terms of intra-species, we can see it in humans. Humans who have lower survival rates have greater numbers of children. This makes sense, in evolutionary context because, in spite of high morbidity and mortality rates, the more children produced the greater statistical probability that one child will survive and be healthy increases. In a crude sense it is a "hit and hope" strategy.
As humans who have higher survival rates have fewer worries about disease and premature death they can invest more time and energy rearing their fewer offspring. Quality over quantity.
That is not to say that either strategy is right or wrong. As much as this ecological theory may upset those with a politically correct bent, its plausibility cannot be denied. It is just so. Nature is thus defined.
Now, presuming we accept that capitalism is responsible for global warming and climate change, consider this:
The Planet's climate is changing so rapidly, the temperature is changing unprecedentedly, the polar regions are receding alarmingly, that species which are more fleet-footed, so to speak, are more likely to survive the capitalism-induced climate change. That is, the species that breed more quickly, that can reproduce at a younger age, that have lower gestation periods. The 'r' strategists, in other words.
The 'K' strategists, with their fewer offspring, longer gestation periods, a later conception, are more liable to endangerment.
This is an upset to the natural order. It is an upset which has been wrought by decades of unbridled, unregulated capitalism.
After all, where there a limited resources, the 'K' strategist is wont to survive as per the set-up of nature. But, as these are times of limited resources, clearly capitalism has too a degree - and temporarily, I'm sure - hacked the natural code; usurped it.
Capitalism is fashioning a future containing a disproportionate number of 'r' organisms. Iit will be the "photogenic" animals that perish - polar bears, pandas, dolphins. Those species with a higher 'K' value.
Related Articles:
-
In a previous post I speculated that capitalism is grey . From empirical observations, I have... Read Full Story » -
Capitalism Crisis? Financial crisis has been with us since 2007. Not much is changing. Have... Read Full Story » -
The greatest threat to the Western Way of Life is the Western Way of Life itself. by John Kozy... Read Full Story » -
By default the earth is green and blue and I would guess, although I have no scientific proof... Read Full Story »
Comments
