|
This is kinda long. A better writer could express the idea in fewer words, and probably with greater clarity.
The right wing, which attacks the scientific theories of evolution in our schools, nonetheless has long conducted a pseudo-intellectual love affair with the idea of natural selection.
One of the problems we face in debating the right wing is the concept of "Social Darwinism" ... survival of the fittest adapted to the market place in a simplistic conceptual model. The problem with that analogy, of course, is that is based on a piss poor and incomplete notion of evolutionary theory. Individuals as such do not "evolve" in a biological sense ... their genetic character being established at birth. Rather, population grounps evolve. While the fitness of the individual certainly plays a factor in the ability of the group to survive, it is certainly not the only factor. Even more significant is the ability of the group to organize individuals effectively.
The ability to organize, to cooperate, to care for each other was key to the survival of our ancestor species.
The point is, while primitive man certainly engaged in competition he also invented ever increasingly sophisticated methods of cooperation. That competitive drive married to an ability (and instinct) to cooperate is what got our ancestors through the Pleistocene. The dynamic tension between the principles of competition and cooperation produced the phenomenon we call "civilization".
Social/population groups are most successful when the needs individuals are well served by the operation of the group. One tangible measurement of that success criteria is distribution of wealth. When too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands, the health of the group is imperiled. The relative "fitness" of the individuals is irrelevant to the situation. As individuals feel less invested in the group, the ability of the group to compete with other groups and adapt to changing conditions is inevitably impaired.
Conversely, when wealth is too uniformly distributed it becomes difficult to get anything done. The competitive instinct, every bit as valid and necessary as the cooperative instrinct, becomes frustrated and the group becomes stagnant, rigid, and dominated by tabooes.
Neither situation is stabile, of course. The interest of the individual and the group are best served when the proper balance between the competitive and cooperative urges is maintained. Now, exactly where is that point of balance? How does one find it? That is a difficult matter to assess ... but one thing is certain. The optimal point of balance between the two principles of competition and cooperation is likely to shift as conditions change. It cannot, therefore, be identified purely through ideological first principles. It must be determined empirically, through trial, error, and adjustment.
If you accept this concept, then the policies of the past few years have clearly put our social group in a massively out of balance condition. Wealth and power have become far too concentrated, and the trend itself is accelerating. In the Clinton years, characterized by a swelling middle class achieving gradually increasing prosperity, I think we were closer to a point of optimal balance.
As we encounter the effects of global warming and resource crunches, the point of optimal balance will probably shift towards the principle of cooperation.
|