MLM Directory

Is the growth of the fabulously wealthy in free market economies a sign that evolution is at work?

Or are "Spencerist" free market ideas and evolution completely separate spheres of activity? I mean the idea that we evolve is often opposed by those who believe in a winner take all free market economy. So it's OK to believe in "survival of the fittest" when it benefits one's pocket, but not in church or in the teaching of science.

Public Comments

1. Yes, it is called Market Evolution. Books have been written on the subject.
2. no simply put, its called "greed" the more you have, the more you want, there for, you business gets bigger :)
3. Anything that goes forward and prospers in life is God, evolution is man made, God is divine.
4. Maybe the wealth of the "fabulously wealthy" is growing, but is the number of these people increasing? I can't say it is, can you?
5. That would mean the wealthy are the "most fit". You only need to live for 3 years to know that's false.
6. Most freemarket fundamentalists like to think of the economics as a game of Monopoly. They never like to think about what happens when somebody wins the game though.
7. And here, all along I thought it was "survival of the fattest". On the other hand, maybe I was right after all.
8. If we are to judge by their behavior, religion is completely utilitarian to the fabulously wealthy, so don't worry about that. Everything is smoke and lights to attract the gullible and stir up emotions so they can get support for their wars and debt schemes. Are they the fittest? Only as long as the rest of us are stupid enough to fall for their shenanigans.
9. You do love the use of dogma.
10. On the contrary, above-posted folks, this is quite an excellent question about social darwinism. In my opinion, an excellent point. If you are poor, a free market libertarian says that you deserve lower or no access to health care and food. Imlpicitly, this person would say that wealth is a sign one has worked for survival and luxury and poverty a sign of laziness. And thus the less fit should be left to suffer and die because they did not have the discipline and wherewithall to make it. More interesting than the fact that most of those people do seem to disbelievei n the process of evolution is the philosophical conflict between Adam Smith's predictions and Marx's observations. Smith believed humans are naturally empathetic and that this instinct toward selflessness would check unfettered greed and cause people to act kindly in a free market of their own free will. Marx argued that the free market constructs rewards and punishments that revoke our selflessness and draw out our selfishness and thus make us act like and become greedy people. In other words, the social and compassionate disposition which has served man in the past to be the fittest has been and is being modified into an individualist and greedy disposition - and thus it remains to be seen whether even the wealthy individuals at the top will in the end actually survive. Incidentally, for someone who literally rejects the process of evolution, simply ask them what people did about wisdom teeth in the 17th century. (Answer - They did nothing, our jaws have become smaller because we no longer need the extra chewing capacity with processed foods and cooking technology so widely available. Having no room for wisdom teeth is a recent spontaneous change in human genetics.)