"It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism, and to find it hard to believe."
-Richard Dawkins
This is part 1 of a series, which will probably go to three parts. Part 2 can be found here, part 3 will be linked when written. A thought occurred to me the other week, and I thought to myself "where better to articulate this idea than my blog that nobody reads and I haven't updated in ages?" So, here I am. The thought that occurred to me is this: democracy, free-market capitalism and evolution are the same. Obviously, they apply to different areas of the world, but the main principles that underlie their operation are the same. This lends itself to a shared appeal and shared risks, and I think that if we observe the way things work in one area, we can often draw useful parallels to the others.
To keep this organised, because I think it might go a little long for a single post, I'm going to break this up into three areas. The first (this one) is going to be an outline of my hypothesis, and an explanation on why I feel this is the case. My intent is that by the end of this post, you will agree with my overall idea. The second post will discuss the benefits that this can bring, and also why this symmetry is inherently appealing to us. Finally, in the third post I will discuss the often-overlooked dangers and risks that arise as a result of this, especially in economics; I will also posit some potential solutions, if I'm feeling bold enough.
Evolution, capitalism and democracy are ultimately three forms of natural selection, each applies to different areas of life, obviously, but to address their similarities, there are are a few areas that stand out. If we examine the progress of the entire ecosystem, we see trends emerge in the complexity of individual species, species differentiation and species selection (the manner in which species thrive in certain environments or falter and die out). It is these areas that parallel one another in the three areas of life.
Species Selection: In every case, a variety of new "species" enter into the field of interest over time. In the case of evolution, these are different plant, animal and microbe species, introduced by random genetic variations on existing species; in capitalism, they are new business ideas and products, introduced by individuals out to make a profit; in democracy they are both new political ideas and entirely new political parties. In each case the new species is often a minor twist on an existing one, but is sometimes a radically different entity. In each case, myriad species throughout the biosphere/marketplace/political landscape compete, and over time each species will succeed or fail to differing degrees. The process by which this happens is through competition, and through a large number of small, externally influenced choices. A new biological species will compete for limited resources such as food and water with the existing species. Whatever trait makes them different from their predecessors will allow them to either out-compete the other species, or they will suffer as a result of it. Humankind's opposable thumbs allowed us to use tools in a way that gave us an advantage over those species lacking such a trait-this gave us greater access to food. In the marketplace, a product will either appeal to a wide range of people (the iPod, for example) or will sink miserably (the Ford Edsel). Individual transactions are each very small-one iPod purchase doesn't markedly change Apple's fortunes. But it is the aggregate advantages or disadvantages that allow them to compete. Similarly, in politics, a party's popularity depends on how it differentiates itself from its competitors; if you come out strongly against taxes, and that is an issue of great importance to people, your party will thrive through the aggregate of millions of individual votes.
In each case, it is the sum of a vast number of minute actions that allows a change to propagate throughout the landscape. If many individuals buy a product based on a specific feature, that feature will often spread to other products; at the same time, the progenitor of that feature will prosper. A party's politics garner it more or fewer votes, and this,taken at large, is the instrument of their success. As a new biological feature provides a benefit to a specific arena, it will become more common, or even omnipresent within that locale. However, in each case, what works in one place often doesn't translate elsewhere. Camels are biologically well-suited to desserts and have thrived there; however the trade-offs made to survive there make them poorly suited to colder climes. The politics of one country would be perpetually ill-suited to the different culture of another, and those same ideas will forever fail to take root. And products on the marketplace are often popular in only one region, as adhering to the tastes and preferences of that culture. Thriving in one area often requires trade-offs that make a species ill-suited to another climate.
Furthermore, the process of evolution involves the flaring up and dying out of different species. Many lines of animals and plants have gone completely extinct (dinosaurs, etc.). In this case, an external event changed the environment such that the unique attributes of that species made them ill-suited to their habitat. In the political world, ideologies come and go depending on the changing needs of its people. Communism and fascism, though both still in existence, lack the sway they once had. Feudalism is almost completely extinct in much of the world. These ideas-once more-are not inherently terrible; it's just that the environment changed such that they were no longer good fits. The marketplace is littered with dead products-when was the last time you bought a manual loom, a suit of plate mail armour or an eight-track player? As new products have arisen and been better suited to the then-current zeitgeist, entire lineages of products have fallen by the wayside.
An offshoot to this is the niche species. In each venue, niche species can exist. There exist certain animals that thrive in a very specific part of the world, or under very specific conditions. In that domain, they are king; outside of that domain, they rarely exist; the aforementioned camels are a perfect example of this. In products, companies will often target specific niches: Apple has gone after the home and consumer market with its computers, largely ignoring the enterprise/large business market. Again, they have been successful by doing this one thing well, which contrasts to Microsoft's strategy which is to spread Windows far and wide: business, home, Xbox, phone, cars, battleships, televisions, and more. The fact that Microsoft has obtained success in these myriad arenas shouldn't detract from Apple's success: though their overall size and finances are dwarfed by Microsoft, they make billions of dollars every year by targeting their niche, and doing it well. In the political arena, fringe political parties and ideas, and single-issue candidates can often achieve a measure of success by focusing, with pinpoint accuracy on a specific niche.
Species Complexity: It is a common misconception that in evolution, later ideas are somehow intrinsically "better". This implies a value judgment that's simply impossible to make in each case, as there is no universal indicator of "good" vs. "bad". Furthermore it implies a morality that doesn't make sense on a biological scale. However, there is an overall trend that can be observed throughout the history of biological evolution: increasing complexity. From basic protein chains and amino acids to single-celled creatures such as paramecia and bacteria, on up through multi-cellular microbes, to invertebrates, then vertebrates, through to today's multi-system, intelligent, blog-writing organisms. There are exceptions of course, and simple unicellular organisms obviously still exist, but the overall trend has been towards an increase in complexity.
The same is true of politics and commercial products. Three hundred years ago, there was no electricity, no computers; everything could be made by a small team of people or even individual blacksmiths, etc. Modern products are much more complex on average-they require teams with scores of people to design and build them; factories that cost billions of dollars. More and more products are unrepairable due to their complexity. This doesn't necessarily mean that the products are better than the old ones, but nobody can contest that an iPod is more complex than a gramophone. Simple products still exist-a fork today isn't terribly different than a fork 100 years ago, but the overall trend is clearly one of increasing complexity. Politics were a little faster, but the further back you go, the more simplistic the political platforms: taxes have always been an issue, but recent events such as internationalisation, terrorism, and the issues of race, religion and more have lent an importance and complexity to political platforms that simply didn't exist hundreds of years ago. It's not enough to have a view on local issues, taxes and whether slavery is a good thing or not (hint: no, it isn't); you now need to be well-versed in global issues, the effects of free trade and economic deregulation, international conflicts between nations big and small. Again, there are single-issues political parties that still exist (e.g. the
Marijuana Party of Canada), but the overall trend has been towards increasingly-complex political platforms.
In every case, successive generations are modified versions of their predecessors. As a result, new features and designs have been incorporated into the existing motif. As a result, the trend is to increasingly complex and feature-rich products, political theories and species. Each betrays the history of its lineage: our history is written into our DNA, showing the fingerprints of our ancestors; modern products' complexity is due to their past advancements and the platform of a modern political party is a testament to those who came before.
Species Differentiation: In all three arenas, differentiation between species can happen in a myriad of ways. The first creatures to leave the oceans prospered because of their ability to breathe oxygen and survive outside water. Some species develop traits that allow then to eat foods others cannot access (e.g. giraffes) while others develop more predatory or defensive mechanisms (lions and armadillos, respectively). In politics, parties will choose single issues in which to plant their flag, or will target specific audiences that others ignore. Differentiation is even more pronounced in the marketplace. Apple, for example, has placed its bets on style and panache: the iPod lacks features such as an FM tuner, Windows Media support and built-in voice recording that other products have; yet Apple's style, fashionability and slick marketing have differentiated them in a way that other music players have been unable to match, to great success.
This links back to the first point, in that species selection happens based on the overall picture of a given species. However, it's important to note that whether the change happens from a product planning meeting, a genetic mutation or a new political strategy, that each species can differentiate itself in myriad ways. Some will be advantageous to the current climate, and the species will prosper, maintaining that trait. In other cases, they will have picked a trait that hurts them or gives no advantage, and the change will not take root.
End Result: At the end of the day, the goal of any species is survival-to expand, to prosper and to pass its genes on. A company wants to increase its profits. A political party wants to get more votses, and thus obtain more power. Richard Dawkins speaks of the "Selfish Gene", the idea that we are but vessels for our genes. Any trait that can be passed on will propagate if it is beneficial for the current situation and will fade away if not. This same idea exists in other forms in the other two arenas. Adam smith spoke of the "unseen hand" of the market place: that economic forces would naturally push the better-adapted ideas to the top and subvert those poorly adapted to the current consumer climate. Politically, this is the entire concept of democracy: that votes represent individual endorsements, and that the ideas with the most pertinence to the wider society will prosper.
And this, then, is the crux of my argument. A vote is like a purchase which is like the survival of an individual member of a species. Each contributes only a little to the grander picture. Nobody can look at a single vote, or a single product sold, or an individual animal or plant that survives and see what will come in the future. But the sum total of the individuals that survive, over time, will dictate the nature of any and all future species; products that sell well give indications of the public's wants and needs and companies will respond in kind, creating more products with those features, ensuring that the successful and well-adapted features spread across the market; political forces respond not to single votes, but to the overall feeling of the nation. If an idea is insanely popular with 20% of the public, the party that espouses that idea should get 20% of the votes. The result is a government comprised in equal parts of the wishes and desires of the public (in theory-obviously other factors can and do influence this). Similarly the public receives exactly the products they most desire because any company releasing a product ill-suited to common desires will be ignominiously shunted from the marketplace. It's a vicious world in many ways, but one in which each individual matters. Though our contributions may be small, we vote-whether at the ballot box or the cash register. And just as a species' future is dictated by how well it responds to nature's votes (the lives or deaths of individuals of that species) so too do our products and our political representation evolve, adapt and grow ever more complex to meet the demands of the public. The selfish gene, the invisible hand and the "one man, one vote" policy all give a system where small, seemingly insignificant pushes and prods add up to powerful forces, capable of swaying the fates of entire species.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill
