Is capitalism working against natural selection?
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Hello, Excon. Capitalism isn’t designed to work well with natural selection. I disagree. Companies (and those who run or work in them) must be able to survive by successfully competing for customers/revenue (food), and by )protecting themselves from environmental dangers like predators and natural disasters (competitors, new technology, resource scarcities). On the social level, capitalism is a human adaptation in social behavior that gives a huge survival advantage to people who do it well. Individuals who are fit enough to compete successfully within the capitalist structure thrive physically. This is why we see the inequality in economic success, and why wealth is such an advantage in attracting mates, getting better food and medical care, and more physical security. It is success in a naturally selective environment. The competence hierarchies that develop through capitalism correspond with success in meeting survival challenges. The higher in the hierarchy (richer) individuals are able to climb during their lifetimes, the more fit they have demonstrated themselves to be. Natural Sselection. Individuals who remain low in the competence hierarchy are there because they lack what is required to be able to successfully compete in the capitalist marketplace. Natural selection. Side: No
I dunno. Capitalism isn’t designed to work well with natural selection. That’s like asking is playing with a yo-yo compatible with a good sex life. Really now Water Boy do you not have natural selection as to what you purchase ? You spew from a computer was that selection not natural for you ??????? Side: No
It is, mostly because people getting rich or powerful depends more on who you were born to, than your own merit. Which means we're caught in a cycle where the rich families stay rich, no matter how incompetent, and the poor families stay poor, no matter how hard working. It is rare to find someone from a poor family and neighborhood to become the head of a successful company or become a millionaire. Side: Yes
|
1
point
0
points
It depends on what sort of capitalism we are talking about. The more governments interfere (beyond protecting persons and property ownership) the less like natural selection capitalism is. Free market capitalism works in accordance with natural selection, and according to the same rules. Enterprises must adapt to deal with market constraints and demands in order to compete successfully. Businesses that cannot compete successfully are naturally eliminated. Laissez faire capitalism is a pure meritocracy, just like nature. On the far other end of the spectrum are command economies, socialism, communism, and fascism, all of which circumvent the freedom that enables people to be their best, and compete in the marketplace. These sorts of economies control (or attempt to control) marketplaces and production mechanisms in order to support enterprises that would otherwise not be viable, which circumvents natural selection. In between are the various levels of regulated economies. In these economies governments use regulatory mechanisms that prevent many of the extinctions necessary to selecting out for the most fit. Simultaneously, governments apply regulations that prevent adaptations needed to survive. Just as this range applies to natural selection of business enterprises, it applies equally to selection of the people affected by those enterprises. Side: No
@Marcusmoon It depends on what sort of capitalism we are talking about. No it doesn't. The more governments interfere (beyond protecting persons and property ownership) the less like natural selection capitalism is. I agree, but no form of capitalism is actually in line with natural selection. Free market capitalism works in accordance with natural selection, No it doesn't. Enterprises must adapt to deal with market constraints and demands in order to compete successfully. Just because you have to adapt to something doesn't make it natural selection. You can adapt to sitting on the couch eating dorito's by becoming obese and lazy. Businesses that cannot compete successfully are naturally eliminated. Compete at what though? producing fidget spinners and gay pop music? To compete in the market you must meet the demands of your consumers, and if what they demand is stupid and there is less of a market for things that aren't stupid then what gets "naturally eliminated" is things that aren't stupid, which is the opposite of natural selection. Many things which are very stupid are also very lucrative and many things which are far less stupid are less lucrative because the average consumer is stupid, which means that it's the opposite of natural selection in many cases. Laissez faire capitalism is a pure meritocracy, just like nature. It's not meritocracy, because success isn't based on strength or intelligence or usefulness in capitalism but rather mass appeal. On the far other end of the spectrum are command economies, socialism, communism, and fascism, all of which circumvent the freedom that enables people to be their best, and compete in the marketplace. Command economies and fascism have nothing to do with socialism (communism is a form of socialism) Fascism is right wing and authoritarian, command economies can be right wing or left wing and socialism/communism can be either authoritarian or libertarian. You are stereotyping socialism and communism as something they are not and lumping them in with completely separate ideologies. These sorts of economies control (or attempt to control) marketplaces and production mechanisms in order to support enterprises that would otherwise not be viable, which circumvents natural selection. It depends if they are authoritarian or libertarian versions of collectivism. In the authoritarian version the state centralizes the means of production and exchange in it's own hands, in the libertarian versions the producers control production and the exchangers control exchange democratically. Side: Yes
1
point
It's not meritocracy, because success isn't based on strength or intelligence or usefulness in capitalism but rather mass appeal. Despite the fact that the values are different, the structure of the mechanism is the same. Strength, intelligence, and usefulness are not the primary discriminators in survival. Tardigrades have none of these characteristics, but they are over 500 million years. Side: Yes
1
point
Command economies and fascism have nothing to do with socialism (communism is a form of socialism) Fascism is right wing and authoritarian, command economies can be right wing or left wing and socialism/communism can be either authoritarian or libertarian. You are stereotyping socialism and communism as something they are not and lumping them in with completely separate ideologies. The only similarity I am discussing is that the economic aspects of these systems are all antithetical to lezzes faire principles. I am not saying that socialism is like the others in any way other than the presence of pervasive and strict limits on economic activities, including pricing. I am not saying fascism is like communism in any way other than the degree of control government exerts on the economic players within the country Side: No
0
points
|
