Adam Smith And Darwin

[tomandlu]

I've been re-reading Gould's The Panda's Thumb and I've just finished "Darwin's Middle Road", which deals with, amongst other things, the oddity that the main inspirations for Darwin's eureka moment was Malthus and Adam Smith, rather than anything directly associated with the theory.

That aside, it was the references to Smith that I found most interesting and perhaps worthy of discussion:

The essence of Smith's argument is a paradox of sorts: if you want an ordered economy providing maximal benefits to all, then let individuals compete and struggle for their own advantages. The result, after appropriate sorting and elimination of the inefficient, will be a stable and harmonious polity. apparent order arises naturally, from the struggle among individuals, not from predestined principles or higher control. Dugald Stewart epitomized Smith's system in the book Darwin read:

The most effective plan for advancing a people... is by allowing every man, as long as he observes the rules of justice, to pursue his own interest in his own way, and to bring both his industry and his capital into the freest competition with those of his fellow citizens. Every system of policy which endeavours... to draw towards a particular species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society than would naturally go to it... is, in reality, subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote.

and

The theory of natural selection is a creative transfer to biology of Adam Smith's basic argument for a rational economy: the balance and order of nature does not arise from a higher, external (divine) control, or from the existence of laws operating directly upon the whole, but from struggle among individuals for their own benefits.

and (finally)

In this case it is ironic that Adam Smith's system of laissez faire does not work in his own domain of economics, for it leads to oligopoly and revolution, rather than to order and harmony.

So, is Gould 'right' in that final analysis? If so, how can a theory that works so well in the natural world fail when applied to the field for which it was devised?

[LiveinHope]

So, is Gould 'right' in that final analysis? If so, how can a theory that works so well in the natural world fail when applied to the field for which it was devised?

It doesn't fail, it's just not been given sufficient time to run its course

oligopoly and revolution AND extinction is a part of evolution

Edited February 22, 2013 by LiveinHope

[tomandlu]

It doesn't fail

oligopoly and revolution AND extinction is a part of evolution

Yes - this occurred to me. I guess the point Gould is making is that's not the outcome Smith sought.

[LiveinHope]

Adam Smith, like most humans, thought on human timescales.

A few generations is not enough time to let evolution run its course

In a few thousand or so years time we¹ someone(thing) will see the outcome of Tulip mania and today's credit bubble

¹Even I fell into the trap.

Edited February 22, 2013 by LiveinHope

[tomandlu]

Adam Smith, like most humans, thought on human timescales.

A few generations is not enough time to let evolution run its course

In a few thousand or so years time we will see the outcome of Tulip mania and today's credit bubble

Well, Smith wasn't proposing a theory of evolution - he was proposing a theory of optimal economics, and the time-scales for that are much shorter than for evolution (although not as short as our politicians seem to think...).

[LiveinHope]

Well, Smith wasn't proposing a theory of evolution - he was proposing a theory of optimal economics, and the time-scales for that are much shorter than for evolution (although not as short as our politicians seem to think...).

It's all about survival of the fittest,

we, as social animals, make decisions which play out through competition, and the fittest survive¹

I agree Smith wasn't describing Evolution, Darwin did that.

But it all comes down to the same laws of nature.

¹In lower organisms the winners are those who accumulate most resources and reproduce the most. The losers die from resource starvation or by being eaten. We have the ability to blow each other up as a part of this process.

Edited February 22, 2013 by LiveinHope

[fluffy666]

So, is Gould 'right' in that final analysis? If so, how can a theory that works so well in the natural world fail when applied to the field for which it was devised?

First, define 'works well'.

The natural world may *appear* harmonious, but as Darwin noted, even the most peaceful countryside scene hides a constant struggle against starvation, against rivals, against the predator's teeth closing around your windpipe.. Harmony is in the eyes of the disinterested observer, not the participant.

Even then, we can see species self destructing through the remorseless logic of individuals trying to survive, chaotic predator-prey dynamics, super-selfish genes, environmental destruction, etc.. and vast periods of stasis. In a constant environment, evolution will often 'stick' which a stable species assemblage for as long as that environment persists, often leading to great specialisation.

So when we apply the same principles to the organisation of our economy we should be surprised when the outcomes are not harmonious - indeed, I believe that Adam Smith said as much. After all, the ultimate problem is that if a surplus of labour exists, for example, those who cannot sell their labour for enough to feed themselves should simply starve to death, and those who cannot afford medicine should die of curable illnesses. The fact is, of course, that under these conditions the best approach for the individual is to cease lassiez faire activity - which means anything from basic stealing food to political organisation - or, for those of the lunatic-libertarian disposition, using force to obtain the means of survival.

It's also worth noting that such systems can - given no outside interference - evolve to a stable, zero-growth, zero-innovation state. Feudalism lasted for hundreds of years, for example. Dinosaurs lasted for over a hundred million years.

[easy2012]

So, is Gould 'right' in that final analysis? If so, how can a theory that works so well in the natural world fail when applied to the field for which it was devised?

Because natural selection relies on one thing that we rather not talk about - the non survival of one who does not fit in with the environment at a particular time. The Quant Geek born into stone age probably would not have survived.

We also don't have ideological (e.g. everything labour did was good) and religious (everything in the book is the universal law) indoctrination in the natural world.

And then, the problem highlighted such as oligopoly existed in the natural world such as when the alpha male exert his will on the flock, the beast take what he wants by force etc.

[LiveinHope]

We also don't have ideological (e.g. everything labour did was good) and religious (everything in the book is the universal law) indoctrination in the natural world.

Are we unnatural ?

[okaycuckoo]

The OP doesn't quote Smith at all, just people's interpretations of him.

Gould is wrong because he misses the point that Smith required justice, therefore it wasn't a struggle for survival of the fittest.

Here's a good blog on Smith - he keeps making the point that "the invisible hand" is just a metaphor used by Smith a couple of times, which has been given exaggerated importance by neoliberals to twist Smith's theory to their own ends:

http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.co.uk/

[LiveinHope]

Gould is wrong because he misses the point that Smith required justice, therefore it wasn't a struggle for survival of the fittest.

Non sequiter ?

Edited February 22, 2013 by LiveinHope

[tomandlu]

Gould is wrong because he misses the point that Smith required justice, therefore it wasn't a struggle for survival of the fittest.

I don't think Gould misses that, but his contention is that, even with justice, you still get oligopoly, etc.

In other words, Smith is wrong because his theory won't produce the outcome he wants (although the outcome may be what he asked for - as in 'be careful what you wish for').

Justice cannot prevent oligopolies - you need legislation for that.

[okaycuckoo]

Non sequiter ?

If you mean justice is part of the struggle, I disagree. Justice is agreed on collectively.

Smith sees three orders - rent, wages, profit - and says they have to be kept in balance:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [profit], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. "

So that "precaution" comes from us, not from me struggling for survival. At the moment we seem to have really screwed up our precautions, because we allow subsidies and privileges to the few against the interests of the many.

[erranta]

First, define 'works well'.

The natural world may *appear* harmonious, but as Darwin noted, even the most peaceful countryside scene hides a constant struggle against starvation, against rivals, against the predator's teeth closing around your windpipe.. Harmony is in the eyes of the disinterested observer, not the participant.

Even then, we can see species self destructing through the remorseless logic of individuals trying to survive, chaotic predator-prey dynamics, super-selfish genes, environmental destruction, etc.. and vast periods of stasis. In a constant environment, evolution will often 'stick' which a stable species assemblage for as long as that environment persists, often leading to great specialisation.

So when we apply the same principles to the organisation of our economy we should be surprised when the outcomes are not harmonious - indeed, I believe that Adam Smith said as much. After all, the ultimate problem is that if a surplus of labour exists, for example, those who cannot sell their labour for enough to feed themselves should simply starve to death, and those who cannot afford medicine should die of curable illnesses. The fact is, of course, that under these conditions the best approach for the individual is to cease lassiez faire activity - which means anything from basic stealing food to political organisation - or, for those of the lunatic-libertarian disposition, using force to obtain the means of survival.

It's also worth noting that such systems can - given no outside interference - evolve to a stable, zero-growth, zero-innovation state. Feudalism lasted for hundreds of years, for example. Dinosaurs lasted for over a hundred million years.

Fluffer

Your Scientific b'stard friends are spraying Dioxins over all our crops & crop land thru Monsanto Monster weedkiller.

It's make up is one half of Agent Orange they sprayed all over Sarf Asia leaving tens of thousands with nerve and other non-specific body damage!

Edited February 22, 2013 by erranta

[LiveinHope]

If you mean justice is part of the struggle, I disagree. Justice is agreed on collectively.

Smith sees three orders - rent, wages, profit - and says they have to be kept in balance:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [profit], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. "

So that "precaution" comes from us, not from me struggling for survival. At the moment we seem to have really screwed up our precautions, because we allow subsidies and privileges to the few against the interests of the many.

Justice, social behaviour, collective decisions all part of the great panoply of life and of evolutionary biology.

[CrashedOutAndBurned]

Social Darwinism appeals to fascists and right-libertarians or anyone else who think they are part of some sort of genetic/intellectual elite. But evolution is all about species adapting to their surroundings - some species thrive much better than others in a environment that's suffered a nuclear blast, for example. Present ruling classes only exist due to a highly complex apparatus of social privilege and control not because of much innate ability.

Chavs have adapted brilliantly to modern society while the working and middle classes are barely passing on their genes at all, for example.

If we are to make the crude biological-reductionist arguments of the social darwinist we could say it's harder to wring the neck of a bare-knuckle brawler than bankster weasel in a fist-fight if modern advanced capitalism collapses.

[LiveinHope]

Chavs have adapted brilliantly to modern society while the working and middle classes are barely passing on their genes at all, for example.

Evolution in action, perhaps

[okaycuckoo]

Justice, social behaviour, collective decisions all part of the great panoply of life and of evolutionary biology.

I don't disagree with that, but it's not a helpful observation.

Maybe awareness is the crucial thing. If people are aware of at least the possibility of a process, like evolution or free markets, they can agree to try and manage the process. I suppose you'd then say the awareness itself is part of the great panoply of ...

[LiveinHope]

I don't disagree with that, but it's not a helpful observation.

Maybe awareness is the crucial thing. If people are aware of at least the possibility of a process, like evolution or free markets, they can agree to try and manage the process. I suppose you'd then say the awareness itself is part of the great panoply of ...

:-)

We are a part of nature, not apart from it

I think understanding that is quite useful, as you suggest

[fluffy666]

Social Darwinism appeals to fascists and right-libertarians or anyone else who think they are part of some sort of genetic/intellectual elite. But evolution is all about species adapting to their surroundings - some species thrive much better than others in a environment that's suffered a nuclear blast, for example. Present ruling classes only exist due to a highly complex apparatus of social privilege and control not because of much innate ability.

Chavs have adapted brilliantly to modern society while the working and middle classes are barely passing on their genes at all, for example.

If we are to make the crude biological-reductionist arguments of the social darwinist we could say it's harder to wring the neck of a bare-knuckle brawler than bankster weasel in a fist-fight if modern advanced capitalism collapses.

There's an interesting issue here..

Innovation, intelligence and originality are only selected in evolution when the environment is highly changeable, where an organism may need to adapt rapidly (i.e. in less than a few generations). In the analogy with economics, there are the startups/small businesses/entrepreneurs. They ONLY thrive in 'unstable' conditions (bearing mind that technological change can give this kind of instability).

When you have stability (environmental/technological) you rapidly evolve to wards a low-intelligence/high specialization condition.

[wonderpup]

So, is Gould 'right' in that final analysis? If so, how can a theory that works so well in the natural world fail when applied to the field for which it was devised?

To be consistent any advocate of a darwinian model of economics will be forced to admit that the most efficient way to 'win' is to cheat-to corrupt the system itself, which leads in the long run to systemic collapse as trust evaporates.

So the deep irony of the neo liberal model is that it unconsciously assumes that it's totally self interested agents will not break the rules to win the game- but is this not precisely what such ruthless agents would do?

Why would a totally self interested individual not cheat to win?

Hence Alan Greenspan's confusion when he realised that the Bankers had placed their own self interest ahead of the best interests of the institutions they worked for- yet were they not behaving exactly as his own belief system predicted they would?

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

I've been re-reading Gould's The Panda's Thumb and I've just finished "Darwin's Middle Road", which deals with, amongst other things, the oddity that the main inspirations for Darwin's eureka moment was Malthus and Adam Smith, rather than anything directly associated with the theory.

That aside, it was the references to Smith that I found most interesting and perhaps worthy of discussion:

and

and (finally)

So, is Gould 'right' in that final analysis? If so, how can a theory that works so well in the natural world fail when applied to the field for which it was devised?

laissez faire cant lead to oligopoly, its free trade, oligopolies are a function of force, completely diametric to free trade, as are states, they couldnt exist in a laissez faire environment

I think what he means is force leads to oligopolies and people will always accept force, (destroying laissez faire)

Adam Smith , the father of economics (as long as you ignore the same economic writings that had been happening for the previous 5000 years)

Edited February 22, 2013 by Tamara De Lempicka

[bigkid]

It's all about survival of the fittest,

we, as social animals, make decisions which play out through competition, and the fittest survive¹

I agree Smith wasn't describing Evolution, Darwin did that.

But it all comes down to the same laws of nature.

¹In lower organisms the winners are those who accumulate most resources and reproduce the most. The losers die from resource starvation or by being eaten. We have the ability to blow each other up as a part of this process.

But benefits ruin natural selection. That woman in Gloucester wouldn't have had 11 surviving kids without benefits. Her genes would not survive 11 times over as some would have died without welfare.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

But benefits ruin natural selection. That woman in Gloucester wouldn't have had 11 surviving kids without benefits. Her genes would not survive 11 times over as some would have died without welfare.

no they dont, natural selection is about adaptation to your environment, seems this person adapted better than you at the time, if welfare is the environment adapt to it, whingers sitting on the sideline is hardly natural selection because its clearly not adapting to the environment, its whingeing that the environment isnt fair

Edited February 22, 2013 by Tamara De Lempicka

[LiveinHope]

no they dont, natural selection is about adaptation to your environment, seems this person adapted better than you at the time, if welfare is the environment adapt to it, whingers sitting on the sideline is hardly natural selection because its clearly not adapting to the environment, its whingeing that the environment isnt fair

Yep, but

I'm going to get all pedantic here.

The person didn't adapt to the environment. Her genetic composition makes her fitted to the welfare environment at this time as she is reproducing well. Her good genes will therefore get passed on in greater numbers and so Homo sapiens may adapt better and better to the conditions through her lineages - until conditions change, when she or her offspring may no longer be adapted...which is soon, I hope.

Edited February 22, 2013 by LiveinHope