Checking Greed

Humans have a natural tendency to respond to their situation with greed, if conditions are allowable. I don't believe that we are naturally or genetically driven to be greedy—it's more that the conditions we experience can promote it. Western society in particular has become very materialistic. The predominant economic system—capitalism—literally cultivates greed. In a similar fashion, I do not believe that people are inherently violent, but put them in a threatening and uncontrolled environment and violence will emerge. In other words, we have to have greed and violence modeled for us or taught to us, for these insidious emotions to prevail.

There is an alternative to consumption and greed. There is a culture—the longest-lasting human culture on the planet—that successfully checks and limits greed. It is the people often referred to as the Bushmen of South Africa—residents of the austere Kalahari Desert of modern Namibia. The Bushmen consist of several different tribes—pretty much all of which have names that we Westerners find literally unpronounceable, due to their native tongue being what is often referred to as “click languages.”

Bushman society has endured for about 200,000 years—pretty much from when anatomically modern Homo sapiens first came upon the scene. They live extremely simply, in the manner of hunter-gatherers; foraging daily for what their tough environment offers them. It's a struggle for us high-tech, industrialized people to grasp what their culture is like. It's hard for us to grant that—just in terms of longevity—Bushmen societies are the most enduring, successful human civilization ever. Our more modern societies have survived for far less time. 
 
We transformed from hunter-gatherers to being farmers and/or herders only about 12,000 years ago. We are the new and out-of-control kid on the block. When humans settled into farming communities, we began for the first time to accumulate things. (The Bushmen—frequently on the move—could not afford to stockpile; they had to travel light.) Rather than gather or hunt from nature's offerings as the Bushmen do, farmers planted, harvested, stored, and planted again. This style of existence brought much more food—hence the population grew and crops could be stored and used in trade. But people were now completely dependent on their crops; they were far more vulnerable than the hunter-gatherers, who did not specialize.

Fear and greed surfaced and flourished in farming societies. Fear of crop failures pervaded those societies—along with fear of wild animals that would destroy or consume those crops. In abundant years fear decreased and greed blossomed, as farmers stored their harvests and began to trade them for various material goods.

Bushmen took a different road. They never had an abundance or tried to store it for the future. It never even occurred to them. Nature provided for today and if not tomorrow, they'd simply move on. Their diet consisted of a wide variety of food, so if one thing did poorly, they simply switched to something else. Farmers instead literally had all their agricultural eggs in one basket.

In addition, however, the Bushmen knew that greed had a way of insinuating itself into society, whenever any individuals were able to feel superior to others. Any hint of inequality encourages greed. So the Bushmen developed rituals that kept inequality, and thus greed, in check. For example, when a particularly skillful hunter returned to camp with a generous hunk of meat, it would be shared equally—but the hunter had no hand in deciding the apportioning. Others took over and divided up the gift. They didn't stop there, however. From the minute that the successful hunter returned, through the division of his trophy, the band kept up a banter of derogatory comments. The meat was criticized and belittled, as if it was unsatisfactory. The hunter's skill was deprecated, as if the group was ashamed of him.

This good-natured ribbing also occurred when any member of the band excelled in other ways, or threatened to grow a larger head. It has been a very successful technique to stifle greed and arrogance, and to promote equality within the group. It's worked for some 200,000 years. It seems doubtful that modern human culture—in which greed is encouraged—will persevere anywhere near as long.

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?

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...