You know what's really interesting about Evolution?

[WCGreen]

Ruthless capitalist swear by the evolutionary tenant of adaptation to change in order to survive and that success in the market place is really nothing more than Darwin's ideas come to life. They firmly believe that, through this economic Darwinism they live by, success is equal to being right. Since the winner takes the prize; they were meant to win.

So wealth is a reward for surviving the battle of the market place. Never mind that the GOP intervenes in the market anytime it will please a donor. To point that little detail out is like bringing up the whole idea of Christ and his radical turn the other check outlook on life. It's okay when talking about biblical values for that 45 minutes every Sunday morning, but keep that crap in the churches where it belongs. Sort of like the crazy aunt that Ross PErot always talked about, you know she's there you just don't want to talk about her. You don't want to bring her up in mixed company.

This worshiping of the so-called free marketplace is, after all, a main tenant of the Republican party. Simply put, the market should be left to reward those who deserve to win. That, I firmly believe, is more important to these captains of industry and their political lackey's than any of that religious mumbo gumbo the other wing of the republican party pretends to abide. Hell, they would even turn that around and say since we have the ability to manipulate the masses into believing in some kind of cosmic code of honor, we can and should use that very belief to distract them from what we are really all about. Survival of the fittest. Masters of the Universe. Another tool to use in order to win and thus prove superiority.

Yea, so how is that adaptation to a changing environment working out for GM and Ford and Citibank? Oh yea, they are waiting for that divine intervention to save the day. Can anyone say withering on the vine?

It's interesting that if you apply the same theory to biology, that same party that swears that the market place works best without the divine intervention of a higher Deity; the government, swears up and down that divine intervention is the only way to explain why we are here. And we wonder why ruthless capitalists can sit side by side with so-called religious and morally upright people.

Curious, isn't it?

[MonkeyFunk]

1. I think people usually make a mistake when they try to apply

a scientific concept like evolution to social phenomena. It just doesn't work, and few people even understand evolution well enough.

"Survival of the fittest" does not mean survival of the strongest. It just means "that which is most fit" to its environment. And nothing about evolution requires the notion of "adapt or die". Some of the oldest life forms on earth haven't changed appreciably in hundreds of millions of years - they're just extraordinarily "fit" for their environment.

[WCGreen]

2. Adapt to fit your circumstance, your niche, so to speak, in order to survive...

[MonkeyFunk]

3. In regards to evolution

if your niche changes drastically and quickly, you're probably gonna die.

But some of the most successful species, speaking in terms of longevity, haven't changed appreciably in hundreds of millions of years. Evolution could just as well be used to justify not changing.

But then, as I've said, it's usually a mistake to try to apply evolution to any other area outside of biology.

[WCGreen]

4. And that, is my point...

[RainDog]

19. in fact you have no point

because evolution has nothing to do with economics.

economics does not claim "darwinism" as a idea - and hasn't for decades and decades.

monkey funk stated clearly that there is no "direction" or "intent" with the idea of survival of one organism over another. to claim evolution has anything to say about economics is silly in this day and age.

[pnorman]

8. "Survival Of The Fittest"

That phrase wasn't used by Darwin, who regarded himself as a Christian and maintained a social conscience. Instead, it was coined by Herbert Spenser, advocate of so-called "Social Darwinism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Not surprisingly, many of the most strident "anti-Darwinists" are blatant "Social Darwinists"! a more balanced approach to Evolution can be found in the writings of the anarchist scientist, Peter Kropotkin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kropotkin Here's one of his more famous books: "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution". Here it is online: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html Here's the Gutenberg.org version to be downloaded: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/4341

pnorman

[BlooInBloo]

22. Yup, on various fronts.

[chknltl]

5. Aren't the free marketeers against government bailouts?

What would the likes of a Niel Boortz student say here? I am by far no student but I have tangled with a few of these types before. Not trying to speak for them but wouldn't they say that government is not supposed to be a welfare office for ANY corporation-that this upsets the ...um ...'natural process' of the free-market?

Although I agree that any self professed 'free-marketeering' captain of industry would be hard-pressed to turn down such a handout isn't that a 180 degree turnaround in their philosophy? Is it me or is this more of....help me out here, I am thinking of a word that fits...aha: HYPOCRISY!

Worse, those NOT getting an equal handout must truly have their shorts in a bunch! They would likely be the ones screaming foul the loudest!

One of these days I am gonna have to get brave and sit down online with a free-marketeer Boortz aficionado and pick his/her brain. Normally I just tell em to go away like a door bell ringin proselytizer. I generally ain't interested in their complicated bill of hogwash because I see no way for their system to work within a democracy without destroying it....same with the free-marketeer.
(edited to add: KnR)

[WCGreen]

6. Well, these guys seem to be hell bent on destroying democracy...

They are addicted to having it both ways. Always have been and always will be.

[provis99]

7. but Americans don't believe in Darwinism.

Besides, why would we need Darwinism to flatter the rich when good old fashioned Protestant Calvinism does a good job of telling rich people they are God's chosen people?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

9. I have witnessed the survival (for millenia) of those who care

for one another, work together, share what they have etc.

ants, bees, and other social insects that understand that the key to their survival is caring for the whole, not hoarding, not stockpiling, not "I got mine, now you get yours".

[TZ]

13. Not a good analogy

There are plenty of unsocial animals who do NOT help each other that have survived for millions of years..See alligators, crocodiles and sharks--all compete with each other (even consume each other) and have survived pretty much unchanged since the dinosaurs.

This is a pet peeve..you cannot apply biological/scientific theories to social/cultural behaviors..that leads to things like eugenics and "social Darwinism".

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. K&R

[exothermic]

11. tenets. tenants rent rooms.

:-)

[varkam]

12. Except you're not talking about evolution.

You're talking about social darwinism.

[mopinko]

14. evolutionary psychology, a fascinating field of SCIENCE says that we evolved

as social beings, supporting each other in small tribes. our hunter gatherer past sheds bright light on how we came to be the naked ape. the tribe guards members who may not be physically fit, but who bring other history and talents to the group. it also supports mothers and children. although war has also been a part of our evolution, cooperation has led to more stable and sustainable societies. i think we are about to take a leap in regard to the stupidity of war, as it has become unsupportable.
we learn a lot about our actual nature, the actual history of humans, when we look at our evolutionary past. thanks to jane goodall and diane fossey and their groundbreaking studies of our nearest relatives for the foundation of this field, we have something to base our societies on besides invisible cloud people talking to unbalanced hermits. i think the coming environmental calamities will favor the peaceful, and be very hard on the warriors.

[many a good man]

15. Dominance in the marketplace, dominance over government

They let the philosophers debate while they laugh all the way to the bank, with bags full of our money.

[WCGreen]

17. Good point...

[struggle4progress]

16. Their theories and philosophies are "mystifications," which they do not take seriously themselves

There is no point in arguing with them about their theories and philosophies, because they do not really care whether those theories and philosophies are cogent or correct: instead, they hope to confuse us with empty blather

Their theories and philosophies are diversions, intended to distract us from material issues and lead us into a swamp of meaningless noise and opinion

They don't want us to engage in engaging in dull but effective nuts-and-bolts organizing: they prefer that we waste time and energy pondering and blabbering about abstract nonsense

[RainDog]

18. Capitalist don't swear by economic darwinism

I don't know why this sort of labeling has taken hold here this weekend. Social darwinism, etc. was current in the late Victorian and early 20th century.

However, capitalists who gained power during Reagan, Thatcher, etc. were hugely influenced by Milton Friedman's work and his idea that govt. intervention was worse than non-intervention (even tho he started out supporting the New Deal.) It's hypocrisy, not a belief in social or economic darwinism, that makes their ideas such a joke... get corporations off of welfare, that sort of thing, since they get bailed out all the time - corporations get too big to be allowed to fail b/c of the consequences.

Another big deal for economics was game theory. Again, to talk about economic darwinism at this time sounds archaic - it sounds like someone who hasn't taken the time to at least look at what economists say, but rather simply parrots what someone else has said because it sounds like what you see.

Game Theory was imp. for economics and for govt in general because of the Nash equilibrium. This is that idea that ppl will always be egotistical and always try to only do what is best for themselves. The theory, when first tested, was rebuked by those who were the first subjects -- secretaries -- because they helped each other. Rather than deciding the theory was flawed, they decided the secretaries were flawed. But it's so much easier to set up an idea when it can be presented in such black and white terms. This is diff. than economic darwinism b/c it is an idea that ALL benefit by this selfishness.... even tho that's not true. There is a difference, however.

As someone else has mentioned here, in primate studies, as well, ppl have seen, via DNA tests, that ppl will share with others but they will share most with others with whom they feel affliated - either by dna or group -- it gets looser the further away from any sort of identification b/t two parties that you go. Maybe those secretaries felt affliated with one another and felt that their success was strengthened by the success of their fellow secretaries, in other words.

Karl Popper has been hugely important in the last century in all areas of thought - including economics. He rejected fundamentalism of any form (marxist, christian, economic) because this idea of a predetermined course of history was the basis for all totalitarianisms. I think he's so right on that one. Fatalists of any kind are enemies of freedom.

Hayek was more imp. to economic theory. Hayek and Friedman, etc. are what would be called classical liberals - liberals who believed that free markets (those which did not exclude mere working people and only include aristocrats - this was again in the era of Queen Victoria, Disraeli, etc.) as a way to overcome totalitarianism and even aristocratic claims to this or that exception.

Joseph Stiglitz is an imp. economist now. He won a Nobel Prize a few years ago and he calls Friedman's approach (neoclassical economics) a form of fundamentalism. Stiglitz is famous for noting that Friedman's view (that markets are self-correcting and the most efficient) is wrong. Stiglitz has major issues with globalization b/c of this view that markets do not produce their own best outcomes when left to the selfish to work for the selfish - to put it simply - Stiglitz says that the "invisible hand" that corrects the market is a myth.

He's very influential - but of course those in power right now believe they create their own reality so they can continue to claim "free markets" are free and the best way to go, when Stiglitz (and others) say that this is demonstrably not so.

That's where the current thought is in economics for the lay person like you or me, not social/economic darwinism.Those labels/ideas really aren't what ppl are working to overcome now. People are working to overcome neoclassical liberal beliefs that have, through every president or PM who has sworn by them, resulted in a worse economic situation for a majority of citizens in that nation.

[WCGreen]

21. No matter what Friendman said to gussy it up...

It was still the same shit the plutocrats Teddy went after were spouting...

[RainDog]

23. you could take that all the way back to Greek myths of gods and goddesses

and say they're all the same b/c they all deal with "haves" justifying their "haveness." But it's not all the same - the underpinnings.

but no mind.

except that understanding the underpinning of one thought or another is the only way you can realistically refute it. you cannot convince anyone that what you say matters if you use an idea that has had no one to uphold it for generations.

[eallen]

20. Anyone who derives an "ought" from a scientific theory is committing a fallacy.

There is nothing in biology that says evolution is good or bad. It's a theory of how things do in fact work. Not of how they ought to work. The leap from some theory of how things do work, to the conclusion that that is therefore how they ought to work is known as the naturalistic fallacy.

There is a fair analogy between biological and business evolution. Both are processes that lead to adaptation and information construction, in scope beyond the intent of any of the actors involved. But someone evaluating that is free to praise both, to curse both, or to curse one and praise the other.

:hippie: