Is Capitalism a Game of the Survival of the Fittest?
It is quite common to be in a discussion about economics and proposing a capitalist solution when someone pipes-in “that’s just survival of the fittest.” What they are talking about is “Social Darwinism” and the image they mean to conjure up is that capitalism is like a bunch of gladiators fighting it out to the death until there is just one winner. Unfortunately, this tends to trip many of us because we often say that capitalism is about competition and that competition is what makes America great.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
"When the great English scientist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), was asked why nobody else had invented incandescent lighting, he replied tersely: 'The only answer I can think of is that no one else is named Edison'."
Some one else may or may not have invented it or they may have found a way to domesticate and farm producers of spermaceti.
down the page a bit a quote from Edison "Observation based reality rather than faith in the supernatural or slavish obedience to emotional desires is the method by which men learn."
'Edison learned from Newton and Faraday but never forgot they might be mired in preconceived dogma and associated errors. he proved all things to himself through his own methods of objective examination and among other things learned the received opinion of electrical opinion that light required high voltage and low resistance the opposite was true low voltage and high resistance. He then invented the incandescent light, a power plant, and a full lighting system.' that part paraphrased for brevity.
Those semantics will getcha every time.
That's why I shudder when economics is proclaimed as a science.
2) Several other people have made the connection, although I do not think they have taken it as far. For instance, Ray Kurzweil. has said this as well as some others.
Insofar as philosophy is concerned, Wm has already responded...but I was going to answer, "I suspect that you are more certain that you know Wm's philosophy than Wm is." I guess that is what working with someone for 20 years or more will do.
Per mamaemma, I probably should term my philosophy 'individualistic' while I am in the Gulch. The people here have more of my attitudes and perspectives that folks outside the Gulch generally do, but I have not found anything a perfect fit.
Jan
I've read more about philosophy since I joined this site than I have before -- frequently in response to one of your references. Even Rand I only read the novels until recently. I have worked with Jan for over 20 years and know some other objectivists who I generally agree with.
Of course someone invents the first example of a kind of object. And they use other inventions and materials to do that. Once that's done, the vast majority of invention goes into creating an enhancing the object. Modern incandescent bulbs are far different from what Edison invented but are only improvements.
DB - you're making me insane.
We're doing more theme & variations than a Beethoven quartet.
I still think of 'Social Darwinism' as an oxymoron, or at least a badly misused term by social 'scientist'(also an oxymoron). The application of the term has always been as a criticism of Capitalism, even the free-market. And it's intent has always been to convince others of the evilness of the free-market and property rights, making use of the religious antipathy towards the theory and study of evolution. At the time the term was coined, religious belief was strongly opposed to evolution, and socialist were attempting to establish themselves and their work as credible 'science' on par with physical sciences.
I can easily see the comparison of inventions and evolution and I like that idea. I don't know that I've run into it anywhere else. I wonder if there might also be a similar argument made between the results of evolution (invention) in all of nature (that being a balance of life forms filling available niches (specialization)) and mankind's unique abilities to manipulate his environment with Capitalism being that overall balance with man's innovation (separate from invention) being that manipulation.
If you think of Otis's elevator safety latch and brake, the hoist in mining and hundreds of other applications had been utilized for centuries and so had latches and safety brakes on mill wheels and gearings, but it's application in safely conveying people was the driver of multi-story buildings. That was an innovation of existing ideas, that made safe use of lifting devices that increased the value of property and made the work necessary of man, less.
But invention, I think of as being similar to the change in the birds' beaks (noted by Darwin on Galapagos) accomplished by evolution that opens up a new resource. In the case of man, I think of wireless communication brought about by radio.
Just thoughts. I need to think more on it.
What creates the appearance of a "survival of the fittest" atmosphere in the market is crony capitalism, and government picking winners and losers. As Heinlein said (through Lazarus Long) "Of course the game is fixed, but you can't win if you don't play."
Load more comments...