Custom Search

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Parralels Between Natural Selection and Capitalism

Throughout the history of the world, economic systems have ruled the lives of the citizens of a civilization in one way or another. None has been more of a reflection of natural selection than capitalism. In nature, the strong survive until the earth changes and they are displaced by strong creatures that are able to survive in the new environment. So to with companies in capitalism. The strong companies survive until the time and culture around them changes, and either they adapt or die and are displaced by a new company that can survive in the new environment. Through this process, as within nature, progress is made in the world for humans because they have selections to fit their needs in the present.

On the opposite side of capitalism lies socialism. Socialism, unlike capitalism, is an economical ideology that decides who gets what based on the governments judgment. This is the opposite of progress because it leaves the government to play god. If a person seen a rat in a pond that was drowning, and seen that it couldn't breathe, it would be foolish for that person to tell a fish to give the rat it's gills because it needed it more than it did, this would be considered extremely foolish. It is up to the natural world to decide who gets what from displacement and natural selection, not the person. If however, said rat was drowning but survived, and over the course of time it's offspring had evolved to adapt to aquatic conditions, this wouldn't be considered foolish because it was an act of nature that decided the rat should have it. Likewise, it is foolish for the government to see a drowning business and take away from a more successful business in order for it to survive. If however, this business survived and adapted to the evolving needs of the public, this also would not be wrong because it had developed it through the needs of the people.

One may argue that capitalism is nothing more than the abuse and exploit the people under the rich for the gain of the rich. As cruel as this sounds, it's a statement with no ground, for in capitalism it is the rich that are supplying those under them with money through work, moreover the rich work just as well as the poor. Like in nature, capitalism also allows the weaker and poorer to rise above their class and become something greater. This is unlike socialism, in which it's much harder for one to grow and evolve without governmental consent. Mammals are the dominant creature on the earth today, though millions of years ago they were at the thumb of dinosaurs as the earths top creature. Since then, dinosaurs are extinct and mammals are the dominant species. As too in capitalism, people may be born into poverty and rise above those they see as stronger than them and displace them as the apex member of society.


  1. Seriously, brah... copy editor -- what's up with the repeated use of "seen"? Maybe just rewrite things entirely after giving your thoughts a once-over. These posts really read as if they were put out in a frenzy.

    For economic posts, please try to base your ideas on numbers or past examples. Take an economics class in Microeconomics and then one in Macroeconomics. Read The Communist Manifesto and realize that Marx wrote several volumes detailing the economic principles within it.

    What do you mean by "the rich work just as well as the poor"? This could be taken several ways. If one is extremely wealthy you can easily live by capital gains and dividends, how is that work?

    Anyway, please rewrite, educate yourself, and continue to be interested in politics and economics.

  2. I'm trying to write in a style that doesn't allow me to use the word "I" "You" or "Us," and I'm avoiding any words like them.

    Also, 60% of all of a rich person, that is to say a rich person who inherited their fortune, is earned by working.

    That's what I meant.

    I'm not frustrated about this, in fact I'm happy to hear any kind of feed back and criticism.