Someone commented on Twitter that if you believe in Evolution then you should be in support of a Free Market. (I am going to ignore the difference between Evolution and Natural Selection for this discussion because the commenter at the time didn’t seem to grasp it).
The premise here is that because I believe, as a humanist and a scientist, in the theory of natural selection, that I must therefore apply the process of Survival of the Fittest to every walk of life.
This is an obvious non-sequitur.
I believe natural selection exists because I have seen evidence (such as the Peppered Moth) to support it. However, I would not wish to live in a truly Darwinian world where the only method of survival was to be the strongest, the toughest, the most capable.
As a race, humans have permitted their intelligence to create civilisation. We have worked together to create a society where pursuits such as art, poetry, writing and the playing of games, have become valuable. These pursuits act directly in the face of traditional natural selection (though they themselves may be selected for in a population depending on the social trends of the time).
So how does this relate to a Free Market?
Well, it doesn’t. The position that a belief in Natural Selection should mean the application of this theory to every walk of life is typical of someone who neither understands society nor evolution nor natural selection. Humans do not wish to live in a Darwinian society – we have laws to prevent this. We cannot kill with impunity to gain prestige or power, we choose to restrict the ability of those who have an undue advantage. We believe in fair play, in following rules, in applying compassion and mercy. These are not the agents of Natural Selection – quite the opposite.
For the individual, evolution and natural selection is meaningless. When we try to apply it to human constructs such as the economy of a nation then we end up creating meaningless applications which serve to undermine what, in my opinion, is the core of civilisation: overcoming our nature.
It’s fundamentally wrong to say that evolution by the process of natural selection is about being biggest, strongest – rather it’s about being the most suitably adapted for an environment. This misunderstanding is then mis-applied to economics as a justification for the people at the top getting to/staying at the top by any means. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that per se, but it’s got nothing to do with evolution/natural selection. Oh, and I disagree that evolution is meaningless for the individual – it’s profoundly meaningful, but is open to being shaped by the human ability to plan ahead for contingency.
I didn’t say it was about just being the strongest or biggest. I also used the words ‘most capable’ and used the example of the Peppered Moth.
We will have to disagree on the application of evolution and natural selection to the individual. We’ve mostly used technology to bypass the forces of natural selection and our evolution is not drastic enough to be measured meaningfully.
right, ok. So, another twist. If we use the bare-basic definition of Natural Selection, there is indeed a link to even our not-quite-so-free Market culture. In nature, it’s not about who’s stronger, faster, etc…it’s about who can reproduce. Plain and simple. If you can pass your genes onto the next generation, you are “the fittest”. So, we look at a general overview of the market economy…who are the successful companies? Why, those who make money and survive to the next year. We can make laws, prevent monopolies…do what we want…but we are still letting the money-makers in business win. Sure, we give the little guys a chance to prove themselves…start-up funds, etc. But it’s still all down to success.
So, sure, it applies. It applies to humans still, as well. We’ve done LOADS to take the biology out of our ‘selection’, but that’s not the point. Those who reproduce are successful under a Darwinian construct. They are driving the evolution of the human species. Just like business models that work are driving the changing definition of what goes into a successful business.
It doesn’t matter if we WANT to live in a “Darwinian” society. We don’t have a choice. It’s there, and we can’t do anything to change it. We can change, perhaps, WHO is successful, and WHO perpetuates into the next generation (be it people or businesses), but we can’t alter the concept of “natural selection”.
I didn’t say that you said it was about being biggest or strongest – I was saying that this misunderstanding is a convenient/misguided root of a lot of pseudo-darwinian economics.