Capitalism and Evolution

[Ryadn]

There is a parallel - namely, that they're both about competition (for resources/genetic dominance), both are fundamentally normative but amoral (ie; not focused essentially on the well-being of individuals and competitors), neither seems to be won by the more talented or interesting participants (bankers earn more than engineers, Tigers die out while Sheep thrive), and both seem to still be around, despite the fact that technological innovation should have rendered them both redundant by now.

I like this one.

[NotnotgnimmiJymmiJ]

Survival of the fittest is a shite analogy for natural selection. That's the problem.

Yeah, but survival of the survivors sounds redundant.

[Underdark Drow]

In theory, it makes sense. Firms that are unable to adapt to the market and societies demands efficiently enough die out, and are replaced by other more efficient (or 'fitter') firms. Why is this so controversial?

When a species is on the brink of failure due to natural forces, the government does not fork over money to save it. This only happens when it was humans that threatened it in the first place. And even then not very often, because there are more people in favor of giving bail outs to corporations that fail than there are who want to save endangered species.

[Natapoc]

Depends on what they want to say whit this statement. If it has the meaning of "both are widely accepted theories in their field, but no the only idea", then they are right.
If they mean "Capitalism is the way a market evolves", then they are wrong. Capitalism is a system we use to explain and control the economy, not something natural.
Just to clarify, I don't think there are any other really feasible theories other than evolution and capitalism.

Even that is not really true. Capitalism is just a system of distributing resources: One of many. Evolution is the means by which living things adapt and change from generation to generation to be more "fit" for their environment by means of natural selection.

It could be a valid statement for a particular type of evolution but not evolution as a whole.

Also the comparison made between "anti-capitalists" and "anti-evolutionists" is equally fallacious.

The anti evolutionists don't believe that the biological process of evolution ever occurred.

I've never heard of an anti-capitalist who thinks capitalism can't happen, did not happen, or never will happen. They just prefer another system for managing the economy.

[Ryadn]

More Lamarckian, rather than Darwinian, evolution.

And we should all know by now what a hack Lamarck was, but I hear his ideas so frequently here that it's obvious we all don't.

[Maurepas]

Its a theory as old as both, see: Social Darwinism...

And, yes, its bullshit,

[Ryadn]

Capitalism is to Economics as CREATIONISM is to Evolution -- a received dogma which a lot of people adhere to as religious credo without either facts or examination to back them up; the product of a prior age when conditions and observations were much more limited.

You are actually right about the first part, but your analysis is horribly simplistic. Staying with the topic, capitalism is a meme that has perpetuated itself the same manner in which a gene would. Unlike genes, however, a key force in memetic change or lack there of is human values.

If you want to know the truth, read Marx's "Capital" over at Guttenburg -- what he said, NOT what somebody else said about him. His prescriptions were naive, but his analysis was spot-on.

Telling someone to read Das Kapital is like telling someone to read Origin of Species. All you are doing is referring them to an artifact.

On the Origin of Species is still a pretty good resource.

[Ryadn]

Personally, knowing about Pandas, I don't think survival of the fittest encompasses all of evolution, it's an aspect of competition but it can just as much accelerate disaster for a species as it improves.

Actually it can explain that perfectly. Natural selection does not select for long term problems. It is solely based on short-term survivability.

Well, I suppose 'fittest' can be misleading, it can just mean 'fits the environment' rather than what we commonly associate with the word.

In my opinion, evolution is 'survival of the just-about-arsed-to-get-by'.

Pandas are going extinct because they're extremely unfit. They're ridiculous animals. If we didn't intervene so much they'd be gone by now. Sounds like natural selection to me.

[Ryadn]

Its a theory as old as both, see: Social Darwinism...

And, yes, its bullshit,

Ugh, don't even put those two words together! The asshats who came up with that are only marginally less repugnant than the asshats who are perpetuating the myth today.

*shakes small, angry fist*

[Barringtonia]

Personally, knowing about Pandas, I don't think survival of the fittest encompasses all of evolution, it's an aspect of competition but it can just as much accelerate disaster for a species as it improves.

Actually it can explain that perfectly. Natural selection does not select for long term problems. It is solely based on short-term survivability.

Well, I suppose 'fittest' can be misleading, it can just mean 'fits the environment' rather than what we commonly associate with the word.

In my opinion, evolution is 'survival of the just-about-arsed-to-get-by'.

Pandas are going extinct because they're extremely unfit. They're ridiculous animals. If we didn't intervene so much they'd be gone by now. Sounds like natural selection to me.

Well every species seems 'unfit' where human involvement is concerned, as much as we're intervening to allow them to survive, we're essentially at fault for their nearing extinction, otherwise they'd happily remain useless lumps in a forest.

[Maurepas]

Its a theory as old as both, see: Social Darwinism...

And, yes, its bullshit,

Ugh, don't even put those two words together! The asshats who came up with that are only marginally less repugnant than the asshats who are perpetuating the myth today.

*shakes small, angry fist*

True, but, that would seem to me to be what the OP is talking about...As stupid, wrong, and repugnant as it is...

[Imperial Domtopia]

I think everybody here is overthinking the analogy. The way I see it is somebody merely saying that capitalism is an accepted part of economics and the latter wouldn't exist without the former, in the same way evolution is an accepted fact in biology and, of course, without it, there really is no biology to speak of.

I disagree with it, but that's the way I see it.

[The Black Forrest]

I can't remember where I saw it. However, we can compare the two when people can show animals actively screwing each other for a percentage.....

[The Black Forrest]

Personally, knowing about Pandas, I don't think survival of the fittest encompasses all of evolution, it's an aspect of competition but it can just as much accelerate disaster for a species as it improves.

Actually it can explain that perfectly. Natural selection does not select for long term problems. It is solely based on short-term survivability.

Well, I suppose 'fittest' can be misleading, it can just mean 'fits the environment' rather than what we commonly associate with the word.

In my opinion, evolution is 'survival of the just-about-arsed-to-get-by'.

Pandas are going extinct because they're extremely unfit. They're ridiculous animals. If we didn't intervene so much they'd be gone by now. Sounds like natural selection to me.

Well every species seems 'unfit' where human involvement is concerned, as much as we're intervening to allow them to survive, we're essentially at fault for their nearing extinction, otherwise they'd happily remain useless lumps in a forest.

Indeed. Human encroachment is not exactly "natural selection" Well unless of course we start eating bamboo.

[HC Eredivisie]

True, evolution plays a major role in biology, just like capitalism does in economic matters.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

And we should all know by now what a hack Lamarck was, but I hear his ideas so frequently here that it's obvious we all don't.

He was no more of a hack than Ptolemy for his model of the universe or Aristotle for his four elements theory.

[Xsyne]

In theory, it makes sense. Firms that are unable to adapt to the market and societies demands efficiently enough die out, and are replaced by other more efficient (or 'fitter') firms. Why is this so controversial?

Because that's neither the definition of capitalism or evolution. That'd be the definition of concepts within the concepts of capitalism and evolution.

[You-Gi-Owe]

Yesterday, both my government teacher and my biology teacher said that Capitalism is to Economics as Evolution is to Biology. I thought it was interesting that they both said this without any prompting.

My question is, is it true?

I have to go to school now, otherwise I would debate this all day. It will be interesting to see where this goes when I get back.

More like evolution may be the process that developed both homo sapiens and capitalism.

[Panzerjaeger]

Why is there not a lolwut option?

I know I was hoping at least one option such as this if not a whole poll with options such as that.

[Ryadn]

Personally, knowing about Pandas, I don't think survival of the fittest encompasses all of evolution, it's an aspect of competition but it can just as much accelerate disaster for a species as it improves.

Actually it can explain that perfectly. Natural selection does not select for long term problems. It is solely based on short-term survivability.

Well, I suppose 'fittest' can be misleading, it can just mean 'fits the environment' rather than what we commonly associate with the word.

In my opinion, evolution is 'survival of the just-about-arsed-to-get-by'.

Pandas are going extinct because they're extremely unfit. They're ridiculous animals. If we didn't intervene so much they'd be gone by now. Sounds like natural selection to me.

Well every species seems 'unfit' where human involvement is concerned, as much as we're intervening to allow them to survive, we're essentially at fault for their nearing extinction, otherwise they'd happily remain useless lumps in a forest.

Indeed. Human encroachment is not exactly "natural selection" Well unless of course we start eating bamboo.

Human encroachment is as much natural selection as the encroachment of any other animal would be. There are plenty of creatures that thrive in the midst of human developments. Pandas aren't one of them because they spend like 27 hours a day eating.

[The Black Forrest]

Personally, knowing about Pandas, I don't think survival of the fittest encompasses all of evolution, it's an aspect of competition but it can just as much accelerate disaster for a species as it improves.

Actually it can explain that perfectly. Natural selection does not select for long term problems. It is solely based on short-term survivability.

Well, I suppose 'fittest' can be misleading, it can just mean 'fits the environment' rather than what we commonly associate with the word.

In my opinion, evolution is 'survival of the just-about-arsed-to-get-by'.

Pandas are going extinct because they're extremely unfit. They're ridiculous animals. If we didn't intervene so much they'd be gone by now. Sounds like natural selection to me.

Well every species seems 'unfit' where human involvement is concerned, as much as we're intervening to allow them to survive, we're essentially at fault for their nearing extinction, otherwise they'd happily remain useless lumps in a forest.

Indeed. Human encroachment is not exactly "natural selection" Well unless of course we start eating bamboo.

Human encroachment is as much natural selection as the encroachment of any other animal would be. There are plenty of creatures that thrive in the midst of human developments. Pandas aren't one of them because they spend like 27 hours a day eating.

Sure little creatures can adapt. As due ones with religious value.

Large creatures are all doomed to extinction due to man's survival of the fittest financial needs.

[Lysanders]

I can't remember where I saw it. However, we can compare the two when people can show animals actively screwing each other for a percentage.....

I can show a cat torturing and killing a mouse for sheer enjoyment, although I don't know what your criteria or my example have to do with the comparison whatsoever.

[The Black Forrest]

I can't remember where I saw it. However, we can compare the two when people can show animals actively screwing each other for a percentage.....

I can show a cat torturing and killing a mouse for sheer enjoyment, although I don't know what your criteria or my example have to do with the comparison whatsoever.

The comparison is ludicrous.

People who talk about it being the same tend to be ones that want to justify people being assholes in the efforts to make a great deal of money.

I have never figured that one out. There are those that are ruthless and don't care what people think of them and then there are those that take offense. Difference usually being the ruthless ones don't compare their actions to Evolution.....

[Lysanders]

The comparison is ludicrous.

As I said, I didn't see how it was relevant, but neither was your criteria. Free market economics are spontaneous, random (not directed), and value-free, just as is evolution, and therein lies the similarity.

Do mention one side screwing over another misses the point and is not exclusive to economic systems.

People who talk about it being the same tend to be ones that want to justify people being assholes in the efforts to make a great deal of money.

Absolutely untrue. The people who bring up the similarities tend to be the ones that show that free systems can produce order and continued progression.

Espousing free market political solutions no more condones unethical businessmen than interventionist political solutions condones dictators. To act like it does applies a double standard.

I have never figured that one out. There are those that are ruthless and don't care what people think of them and then there are those that take offense. Difference usually being the ruthless ones don't compare their actions to Evolution.....

I am not sure what you are talking about in this portion.