You guys know how efficient nature is, and that efficiency is what made market capitalism such a magnificent system to carry humanity through industrialization.
Also consider how fucking disgusting and depraved nature is. Consider the Coot, which is a duck-like waterbird. Coots will lay far more eggs than they could ever possibly feed, under the assumption that predators will eat some of them. Oftentimes, that doesn't happen, and 10-12 little coots will hatch that the parents can't feed. Over the next few weeks, when some of the coots ask for food, the parents will peck them. The weakest coots get pecked with increasing aggression until their parents either peck them to death, or they stop asking for food and slowly starve to death. This will occur until only enough young coots remain for the parents to feed, sometimes as little as 2-3.
This sickening brutality is universal in nature. Primates will team up and murder social outcasts and the weak. Baby birds will push their weaker siblings out of the nest. Starving bears will eat their extra cubs. Male ruminants will spar for a mate to the point of exhaustion or injury. The winner mates, the vulnerable loser is eaten by a predator.
This system facilitated biological evolution, which is ultimately an efficient and necessary process. But when you start applying human morality and utilitarianism to this, it begins to unravel a little. Humans have the capacity and the impetus to minimize harm at the cost of some of nature's depravity, and also some of its efficiency. Consider this:
The free market approach to the case of coots is business as usual; the natural, efficient order of things. Lay a surplus of eggs to hedge against predation, and cull the weak in order to survive. Sacrifice no growth or competitiveness for the sake of "humanity".
But the miracle of humanity is the capacity for abstract thought, and therefore abstract policy, providing a new approach, government. It brings the ability to make a rule: Coots may now only incubate as many eggs as they have the capacity to feed. Now, yes, you have a higher chance of any given coot losing all of their eggs to predators. Evolution and growth are now moderately less efficient. However, you no longer commit wanton murder and savagery at the opening of every new generation.
I would contend that while capitalism was a necessary and beneficial medium for the conveyance of civilization from primitive civilization to industrialization, its usefulness has diminished. As technology makes society exponentially more productive, and scarcity of resources becomes less an issue, we have the luxury of protecting human life from being ground to pulp by the economic machine. I think many places have already realized this (Denmark, Germany, Australia, etc), as their functional and highly effective governments create policy that make human life safer and more enjoyable, sometimes at the cost of efficiency.
And guess what? Does their entire society implode? Does everybody stop working and stay home and live off neetbux? No. They continue to pull ahead of places like the USA that are stuck in the industrial age with an industrial mindset. In many ways, the United States is, therefore, still a developing nation. Consider a world where we've managed to automate resource production and the vast majority of our services. Do you still think every human still needs to work 40 hours a week to drive consumption, profits, and capitalist machinery? What happens when artificial intelligence exists, and scarcity is no longer a thing? Is the free market still relevant? If so, how can you say that it's just as relevant now, as it was 100 years ago, with how productive we are? Can you even consider that maybe it's time to begin the transition and rethink the way we do things?
Of course, all of this depends on a sophisticated culture with respect for the rule of law, hard work, etc etc, and culture goes a long way toward explaining differences between denmark / USA / nigeria etc, but that's another discussion.
|