Capitalism and Evolution: Alike? (Part 2)

Last time we looked at a few similarities between evolution and capitalism that are regarded by some people as evidence that capitalism is the best economic way to go. But there are some key differences between them that we might also consider, to be more thorough in our examination. One big difference is how waste is handled. Nature recycles. One species' detritus becomes another's valuable resource. Decaying dead bodies are sustenance for many kinds of critters—even excrement is valued. Capitalist economies, however, create garbage that no creature wants. Moreover, it's often very toxic. Exhausted electronic devices become hazardous trash. Abandoned industrial sites pollute the environment.

Another difference is that capitalism is usually a zero-sum game: somebody wins only when somebody loses. This is a necessary result of economic competition for finite resources. Since capitalism does not recycle much at all, the resources it uses are limited. In contrast, nature often plays a nonzero-sum game, if, for no other reason than that it recycles. One species' waste, if it does well, provides even more resources for other species. They both do well.

Cooperation can also often be found buried deeply within nature's competitive process. Two complementary species, who, at first glance are seemingly in competition, can find themselves mutually beneficial to one another in the long run. A lean-and-mean corporation, however, is rarely concerned with anything beyond its immediate sphere of influence.

The various kinds of interactions between nature's many species also leads to another significant difference between evolution and capitalism: Evolution breeds diversity. A rich and healthy ecosystem is populated by a wide variety of interconnected species. Mother Nature tends to seek a sustainable balance in an ecosystem that finds a large number of plants and animals working together in a complex, symbiotic manner. As capitalism grows, however, the number of players dwindles. Monopolies emerge and grow ever larger—think Walmart or Microsoft. Since a monopoly can afford to be abusive (it has few effective checks and balances), it tends to care little for anything other than its quarterly economic bottom line.

It's interesting that scientists have come to see evolution as a “blind” process. That is, it has no intent, no design, and yet it has brought about a beautiful, complex, and effective process that has done extremely well for billions of years. In contrast, capitalism is very intentional and has a narrow and specific goal: maximization of profit. It works well in the short term (creating that quarterly profit), but often is not sustainable over the long run. Otherwise, would we pollute the planet as we do, or be causing the climate change we are? Greed—an inevitable part of capitalism—does not seem to play much of a role in evolution's game.

So, yes, capitalism and evolution do share some qualities... competition being the obvious one. “Survival of the fittest” plays a role in each system. It's useful to note, however, that Darwin, in presenting his elegant theory, never used the term “survival of the fittest.” He was really interested in the “natural selection” process of evolution, and realized that it is the cornerstone of nature's elegant and sustainable way. He also saw that nature's competition eventually even brought about cooperation.

And that factor of sustainability is crucial: evolution has worked beautifully for a few billion years now. Capitalism is an upstart that's been around for only a couple of hundred years. How much longer will it last?

Impatient

Hey! Quit hogging that flower. Leave me some nectar. (Click to enlarge)

Capitalism and Evolution: Alike? (Part 1)

Charles Darwin realized over 150 years ago that competition is the driving force behind evolution: similar species compete for limited resources and will duke it out until the “fittest” begins to dominate, while the less-fit may eventually become extinct. The process usually occurs when one species is better able to adapt to a particular environmental niche than another. The more-adaptable species will be more successful at reproduction and its offspring will dominate.

Most people in the business world see a similar situation playing out in a capitalist economy: competition between organizations or corporations winnows out the less-well functioning ones, leaving the successful ones to dominate. Similar to critters, corporations also compete for limited resources, with the “fittest” surviving, while the less-fit ones die off (or are bought up... a form of consumption?). In each case the argument is often made: leave the market or the natural world alone; this allows the competitive process to create an efficient and well-oiled world. The markets and nature will become well-tuned and balanced, if we don't mess with them. Just look at how splendidly nature has evolved! Capitalism, it is argued, is simply using the same principles as nature to become the most successful economic system, to the benefit of all.

So both nature and the marketplace operate in an atmosphere of competition, wherein limited resources promote rivalry. Here's another similarity: from time to time there is a variation introduced into the situation by one of the competitors—maybe a new marketing idea in a corporation or a genetic mutation in a plant or animal. If the idea or mutation is more suitable to the existing environment, those who posses it will do better. The modified corporation or critter can more effectively fill a niche. A similar situation occurs if the environment should change and one corporation or species is better able to adapt to that change.

I think we might take a closer look at the comparison between capitalism and evolution, however. How similar are they, really? Is the argument that capitalism is best—because it resembles evolution—a good argument? The resemblances described above may indeed seem to provide for some people a good argument to conclude that capitalism is the best economic system; and it indeed is the dominant one today. Mother Nature has done very well for billions of years with evolution, so maybe humans have come upon a similarly excellent system to govern their economy? There are a few significant differences to consider, however, before concluding that capitalism is so ideal. Let's look at some of them next time...

Mushrooms and Blossoms

Plentiful rain brings beautiful 'shrooms and blooms. Click to enlarge.

Bird Ruminations

I'm sitting in my outdoor tub as twilight approaches, listening to the unfolding of the bird sounds and activities, as dusk begins to come over the land. There is such a variable chorus of birdsong all through the day—from the first pre-dawn hesitant outbursts, to the glorious morning ensemble of messages, to the midday business announcements of daily bird goings-on, to the late afternoon showy serenades, to the evening sign-offs that precede their settling in for the night.

As dusk approaches the calls become more like individual solos, as some of the birds retire, while others can't resist a few last pronouncements. After awhile, I find myself listening to what at first seems to be the last two birds calling out, into the approaching gloom. As I tune into their songs, I begin to realize that they are far more in sync with each other than I first thought. How do they coordinate their songs so well? But I soon come to understand that what seemed to be two birds singing from two nearby locations is really one bird, with two distinct calls.

Then I realize that what is really going on is that this single bird has both a lower-pitched song that I can associate with its true location, and a second, higher-pitched song that is being scattered back to me from the leaves of trees up in the woods. My acoustics training helps me to understand that the lower frequency song travels through the woods, unmindful of the trees leaves, so I can discern the bird's true position: over there in the clearing. But the higher-pitched part of his song has much shorter wavelengths—wavelengths that I realize are about the size of the leaves, so these shorter waves “see” the leaves as much bigger than the low-frequency waves. They reflect off the leaves, back to me, making me think that the bird is somewhere up in the woods where the trees are, rather than over in the clearing.

It's similar to when you drive at night with your headlights on. On a clear night your beams penetrate into the distance, illuminating the road ahead. You can see far off, knowing where the road ahead is, and see the distant oncoming cars by their headlights. On a foggy night, however, the air is saturated with water droplets whose size is “seen” by the waves of light from your car's beams—just like the tree leaves for the high-frequency birdsong. The result: your headlights' glow is reflected back to you, dramatically altering your view. Your eyes are dazzled by your own headlight reflection and you lose perspective of where you really are, or even where those approaching cars are.

This phenomenon (for birdsong or headlights) is called “backscatter.” It can disorientate you—even make you think there are two birds out there, rather than one late caller who is about to retire for the evening. A closer listen helped me tune in to see what's really happening. “One bird in the ear is worth two in the tree.”