The winter birds are coming back to the Resaca. No, I don't mean the Winter Texans (Snow Birds they're called elsewhere). I mean the herons, egrets, anhingas, whistling ducks and coots are starting to show up in abundance and the sea gulls are only a desultory few skulking over the water. The parrots migrated through a few weeks ago, shrieking and flashing in the afternoons. Before that it seemed the days were filled with gulls and the mornings with twittering fly catchers. Now it's all pijejes' whistle calls and the oddly discordant complaint of the snowy egret getting bullied by the great (strictly a matter of opinion) egret.
The butterflies have come along with the shore birds. There are monarchs, of course but also a dazzling array of small brilliances fluttering through all levels of the sky column. Soon of course, all too soon, this all means that grim winter, or as grim as winter gets along the Rio Bravo, will be upon us. I'll have to start wearing shoes and socks to go outside and even a sweater! Will this nightmare never end?
Saturday, November 01, 2014
Why Capitalist Selection is not Natural
Ever since Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection social scientists and crackpots have been trying to find the same mechanisms in non-biological processes mostly under the rubric of "social Darwinism". Although largely discredited in general, there is still a tendency among capitalism's ardent supporters to use arguments of natural selection when describing the (nearly mythical) power of the market and the intrinsic degeneracy of regulation. The market, they argue, exercises a neutral determination, picking winners and losers by their inherent value to consumers. Any intervention in the esoteric peristalsis of the market would throw the whole economy into an un-natural state of imbalance where value is no longer distilled from the supply and demand stochasticism of pure capitalism. It would become "bad". Here's why that's bullshit.
The key word in "natural selection" is "natural". When Darwin was sailing aboard the Beagle he observed species diversity in a setting that none of those species controlled. Indeed, the forces of nature, while influenced cumulatively by the aggregation of the behaviors of all of the living and non-living elements of the system (you know, nature), the natural environment is more like a heat sink, a massive, pervasive presence, than a local condition, like a nest or a pond. Within the cauldron of the natural environment, species scramble around to find food, shelter, and mates. Those that are trying to find those things in the same place compete in the sense that when any resource is scarce, those individuals who have some means to increase their access to that resource, or adapt to an alternative resource, are more likely to thrive. Those who cannot, succumb to the cruel indifference of the environment. Species or individuals are unable to conspire with the environment to create barriers to other species' or individuals' access to resources, or to favor their own access. Predators generally, much less a locally important pride of lions, cannot control nature to rig the selection game. If the wildebeest go elsewhere, the lions die. Not so the market.
When capitalist enterprises compete in the marketplace, they are competing in an artificial arena constructed by capitalists. In the case of huge financial constructs, they can define what the conditions are to even get in the game. That would be like sparrows getting to decide that scrub jays couldn't fly. The environment in which the competition takes place is not natural and so the competitive advantage is in no way related to anything like "natural" superiority, much less any inherent strength. The idea that "market-chosen" winners deserve success and losers deserve destruction is wrong in every way. Suggesting that companies' success or failure in a system whose constraints are created by the instantaneously largest competitor is in any way "natural", or even "selective" is absurd. The vaguely religious notion that the profitability of a company (short term return on investment) is an indication of its worth, its "goodness" is an assertion, not a logical conclusion. Rather, the value of a company to me, to society, to nature I venture to say, is measured by its contribution to the fabric of the community: the jobs it creates, the pollution it does not. To suggest that the market will cull bad actors would be laughable if it weren't so plainly sinister. The game is rigged. That's undeniable. It might as well be rigged by us, not them.
The key word in "natural selection" is "natural". When Darwin was sailing aboard the Beagle he observed species diversity in a setting that none of those species controlled. Indeed, the forces of nature, while influenced cumulatively by the aggregation of the behaviors of all of the living and non-living elements of the system (you know, nature), the natural environment is more like a heat sink, a massive, pervasive presence, than a local condition, like a nest or a pond. Within the cauldron of the natural environment, species scramble around to find food, shelter, and mates. Those that are trying to find those things in the same place compete in the sense that when any resource is scarce, those individuals who have some means to increase their access to that resource, or adapt to an alternative resource, are more likely to thrive. Those who cannot, succumb to the cruel indifference of the environment. Species or individuals are unable to conspire with the environment to create barriers to other species' or individuals' access to resources, or to favor their own access. Predators generally, much less a locally important pride of lions, cannot control nature to rig the selection game. If the wildebeest go elsewhere, the lions die. Not so the market.
When capitalist enterprises compete in the marketplace, they are competing in an artificial arena constructed by capitalists. In the case of huge financial constructs, they can define what the conditions are to even get in the game. That would be like sparrows getting to decide that scrub jays couldn't fly. The environment in which the competition takes place is not natural and so the competitive advantage is in no way related to anything like "natural" superiority, much less any inherent strength. The idea that "market-chosen" winners deserve success and losers deserve destruction is wrong in every way. Suggesting that companies' success or failure in a system whose constraints are created by the instantaneously largest competitor is in any way "natural", or even "selective" is absurd. The vaguely religious notion that the profitability of a company (short term return on investment) is an indication of its worth, its "goodness" is an assertion, not a logical conclusion. Rather, the value of a company to me, to society, to nature I venture to say, is measured by its contribution to the fabric of the community: the jobs it creates, the pollution it does not. To suggest that the market will cull bad actors would be laughable if it weren't so plainly sinister. The game is rigged. That's undeniable. It might as well be rigged by us, not them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)