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...

Capacity for Cooperation—Part 1

A battle has been raging in biology for a few decades, about the role of cooperation in evolution. Is evolution primarily driven by competition or cooperation? Darwin posited his theory of evolution on the basis that competition for life dominates in the natural world. He saw that far more offspring of any given species are born than can survive in any given situation and location, so there's an intense struggle for survival—which later came to be dubbed “survival of the fittest.” (That’s not Darwin’s term, but was coined by enthusiasts who followed him.) Those critters most fit will survive and those less so will perish...it's that simple and that brutal. 

Any tiny advantage—any favorable minuscule genetic mutation that pops up—may offer a critter a wee bit better chance of survival that its competitors. If the critter does have a better chance of staying alive, it has a better chance of reproducing and sending that advantage into the future. In contrast, a tiny disadvantage in a genetic mutation may see the critter die early and fail to send its genes into the future. It's the end of the line for that less favorable mutation.

So far, what I have described is no cause for the disagreement that prevails between the opposing biological camps. They both agree…thus far. The debate enters when we come to consider what's called “inclusiveness fitness”—when a critter sacrifices itself for others. Martyrdom prevents one's genes from continuing on, and since the propagation of one's genes into the future seems to be a driving factor, how can one explain the systematic willingness of some members of a species to sacrifice themselves for others, when that sacrifice terminates one's genes? If all critters are driven solely by the urge to send their genes into the future, how does one account for those who voluntarily give up that drive?

Richard Dawkins is a prominent leader of the camp that considers our genes to be firmly in control—that we are “driven” by our “selfish genes.” He writes that our behavior is literally determined by our self-seeking genes, simply to transport them into the future. Dawkins’s camp insists that inclusive fitness is the only way to explain why some members of a species will sacrifice themselves. All members of a bee colony, for example, share common genes (they are all sisters). Thus, if a sister sacrifices itself, it's doing so to protect the family—the family's genes will survive, even if the individual bee dies. Similarly, a human being may sacrifice himself for a close family member. By doing so, his genes will get terminated, but the family genes may go on.

That's all fine. There’s still no real argument among biologists. The debate comes in because there are a few situations where individuals will sacrifice themselves for others who are not family members. What's going on here? How do you explain why someone would willingly give up her chance to send her own genes into the future, just to help foreign genes to survive? Does this not seem to violate the principle that we are controlled by our selfish genes? This is the core of the disagreement between the biology camps.

More on our capacity to cooperate next time…

Be No Competition

It is accepted and even admired behavior in western capitalistic cultures to be competitive. Success and a healthy society, we are told, lean heavily on a struggle between contending people and organizations. Competition spawns innovation, hard work, and efficiency—the hallmarks of achievement. It’s the “American way.”

There certainly is truth to the belief in the power of honest competition to stimulate the best effort in people. It’s what has brought millions of immigrants to America—as they fled the stifling environment in their homelands, to have a chance to succeed here through hard work. (We’re all immigrants.) Those who have had the strength and fortitude to get here have helped this country be as successful as it is.

There is, of course, a shadow side to the doctrine of competition. Too often the playing field is not level for all participants and no matter how hard some may work, they stand little chance of succeeding. Those who’ve won a previous round of competition often have a way of stacking the deck so they can take refuge behind their gated communities and eliminate further competition.

Another problematic side to competitive behavior is that it fosters the belief that life is a zero-sum game. This thinking says that there are only so many resources to be had, and if I don’t grab first and win, I’ll lose. One side wins, one side loses—that’s the essence of the zero-sum game. If we buy into this thinking, it fosters greedy behavior. We never think that there is enough for everybody, so we constantly contend for more and more—denying someone their needs.

If we can come to see that life can be a positive-sum game, however, we come to see that win-win situations abound. Rather than automatically falling into competition with others, we can see the benefits of cooperation. Homo sapiens has become as successful a creature as it is, because we’ve cooperated with each other more often than we have competed. How did the pyramids get built? How did the Romans build their aqueducts? How did we become such accomplished farmers? These past successes demanded cooperation.

We can become involved in some pretty fantastic things if we put effort into cooperating with others, rather than compete. If I can interact with others in a way that we engage in a positive-sum game, we’ll find ourselves working together for the benefit of us all. It’s not easy to do. It takes practice and vision. It also means taking a risk.