Rational Philosophy

(My computer erased my first attempt at this post. A circumstance I’m trying not to take to heart.)

In writing yesterday’s post (”The Joy of Sexual Reproduction“) I came across the work of Herbert Spencer, who apparently first coined the phrase “the survival of the fittest” after reading about Darwin’s theory of “natural selection.” While Herbert Spencer’s ideas seem to have much soundness in some respects (that all organic and inorganic stuff must exist according to the principles of space and time, for instance) they are run through with an idealistic belief that evolution has an end point, at which life will have reached a state of perfect equilibrium. A thrust that comes across implicitly in his spin on Darwin’s theory of natural selection in his misleading use of the absolute term “fittest.”

(I love Wikipedia’s choice of this marvelously sinister-looking photograph of Spencer.)

I didn’t set out to write about Spencer. It occurred to me though that a parallel may exist between the Spencer-like utopia of a perfect evolutionary end point, and the common belief that markets should be left to freely find their form; that a theoretically perfectly free market (which is impossible) would ultimately most benefit society. I don’t want to get stuck in attacking or defending absolutes, just examine whether flawed idealism might be doing us a disservice.

It’s easy to pick on George Bush, but in this case (as in so many others) he serves as a great example of what may be wrong with freely advocating a free market. While it’s hard to imagine that he ever had anything to do with actually writing a book, he did put his name as Author to one called “A Charge to Keep.” Herein we find a quote that will be perfect for our discussion: “A free market promotes dreams and individuality.” (I must add that I found this quote elsewhere; I didn’t read the book. But I can readily imagine Bush subscribing to this perspective.)

It’s easy to point to failures in the market — for instance the recent shakiness caused by subprime loans. But it’s also easy for a free market proponent to point out that poor choices cause these problems and that they are actually examples that indicate that the market isn’t yet operating transparently or efficiently enough. As Alan Greenspan argued: “the securitization of home loans for people with poor credit - not the loans themselves - were to blame for the current global credit crisis.”

If we get into debates between free market advocacy and free market opposition, we’ll never get anywhere (that’s just politics as usual).

Instead, I’m wondering whether there may be a philosophical basis for understanding whether a free market is necessarily good or bad. I’ll try to explain what I mean. If we consider the free market as a concept it must rest on the two concepts of impulse and friction. Market changes require impulse or friction. An impulse initiates a market motion or activity based on an expectation of return or profit. A friction or counter-impulse provides inhibition to the momentum of the market in a particular direction. I’m being deliberately abstract. But we quickly determine that nowhere in the concepts for a free market do we come across any concept of virtue or goodness, other than the reflexive concept that freeness is virtue.

To be more specific. Let’s say a person engaging in commerce spies an opportunity for profit. He or she pursues that opportunity freely, responding to the impulse to benefit from the profit. And let’s say that in a perfectly free and transparent market, another person or group responds to that action by providing friction, thereby reducing or sharing in the profit, or generating an alternate profit for themselves.

A free and transparent market consists of a multitude of such transactions. Each person operates always according to impulse or friction. Never, in free market terms, does any subjective desire to act virtuously enter the equation.

Now, if we look again at Adam Smith (the father of the free market concept?) we find that he firmly believed that selfishness was immoral and that the individual would a act in accordance with the good of themselves and the good of all, since society is required for the market to exist.

But I go back to this idea of impulse and friction. People have coopted the concept of the free market as a virtuous mechanism. But a perfectly free market just “is.” People act and it responds, not according to any virtue, but according to its internal structure (which can never be perfect).

As the real market (synonymous in some ways with the stock market) becomes more abstract and more remote from the worldly barter and trade that Adam Smith witnessed, we lose the very connection to humanity that transforms a morally neutral market into a socially responsible market.

People love to tout the idea of the free market because it notionally frees them from worrying about the fiscal responsibility of the government in ensuring that markets operate responsibly and sensibly. Bush may be right in saying that a free market promotes dreams and individuality, but if we think that’s a good thing, we should perhaps think again.

Why sex makes sense.

Yesterday I posted a piece on new or renewed questions about why organisms reproduce sexually (as opposed to asexually). In short, no current theory can explain why organisms have evolved to reproduce sexually. Theories have been proposed — such as the desirabilty of high gene mutation rates to aid adaptation and resistance to parasites — but these theories haven’t been borne out through scientific analysis.

VS.

As I tried to clear my mind for meditation this morning on my subway ride to work, it occurred to me that perhaps we are asking the wrong question. Instead of asking why evolution led to such a broad and successful range of sexual reproducers, would it make sense instead to ask “why not”?

I’ll try to explain what I mean.

Darwin’s theory of natural selection is often misparaphrased as “survival of the fittest.” (I almost did it myself, before I researched the origin of that phrase; Herbert Spencer coined it after he adopted, adapted and misused Darwin’s theory for his own purposes). If we look around us we see that the world is far from filled with absolutes. Instead, the various paths that life and evolution have taken have led to an enormous and bewildering array of living things. The number of types and subtypes of plants, animals, insects, etc., is dizzying.

Bdelloid Rotifers do very nicely without sex, but that doesn’t mean that we all need to. We’re not competing with Bdelloid Rotifers, we’re all just doing what we do until something comes along to stop us.

To couch this in more scientific terms, theories of gene mutation don’t need to explain why sexual reproduction is better than asexual reproduction as an evolutionary fork in the road. They just need to explain how it is that sexual reproduction is a viable evolutionary fork.

Mathematically, a new species will only fail to survive if the threats to its survival outweigh its ability to adapt and thrive. When the number of threats is low, the species doesn’t need to be a super-survivor, it just needs to be good enough.

The same is true within human society. We can’t all be superstars, supremely attractive, incredibly smart, strong, mature, creative, resourceful. But that doesn’t mean we can’t survive and lead a fruitful life, reproduce, create a genetic legacy. Just one clear look at the world around us demonstrates the futility in seeking to understand why, from an evolutionary perspective, a particular trait has survived. Why not? What was the force that would have stopped it from being perpetuated?

And given the amount of time most people spend thinking about sex and participating in it or wanting to participate, there would have to a fairly major turn of events to stop us continuing down this particular alley.

For a rational, science-based explanation of life’s meaning and purpose, please refer to my book: LIFE! Why We Exist… And What We Must Do To Survive.

In what was perhaps a slip-up, perhaps not, the picture that accompanies the NY Times article “House Panel Raises Furor on Armenian Genocide” comes with the caption “Survivors of the Armenian Genocide.”

Although perhaps the matter is not whether the Turks committed genocide, but whether America now officially uses the genocide label.

Parsing the furor I’m left wondering how to sift through the sea of conflicting emotions and motives to reach some kind of reasoned analysis. Modern Turkey seems attached to the idea that labeling the killings genocide offends Turkey. The motives of the house panel seem to be perhaps politically reactive (responding to the press from the Armenian community,) perhaps genuinely well-intentioned (aiming to let the world know that genocide won’t be swept under the mass killings rug,) perhaps a little of both. And the motives of the White House and other home-grown opponents of the genocide label seem to be strategic — to avoid risking the loss of Turkey’s support in Iraq.

On Tuesday, the Science Times section of the NY Times published a fascinating piece on the thinking processes of baboons. One aspect of the story pointed to the terrible statistic that more infant baboons die from infanticide than from anything else. The reason being that the dominant male in the troop changes every seven or eight months. The new alpha male (usually from another troop) kills the infant baboons in an effort to force the females back into a new reproductive cycle so that he can mate with them before he is ousted.

What do these two disjointed stories have to do with one another?

I expect that if one were to be able to ask a baboon whether killing rival offspring is infanticide, he would balk at the label. I think the Turks don’t want the genocide label in part because they are attached to the idea that the killing of Armenians necessarily furthered the Turkish cause. Just as America balks at the label of aggressor or warmonger in the invasion of Iraq.

Whether it is expedient for America to apply to events that began in 1915 the genocide label is mostly, if not entirely, a matter of politics. The furor over the issue has done more to raise consciousness about the events themselves than a quiet and emphatic resolution. But, ultimately, there is an excellent reason to worry about the label and to be sure that we apply the appropriate label.

The Times quotes Rep. Brad Sherman as saying “if we hope to stop future genocides we need to admit to those horrific acts of the past.”

The right label is important not for America, nor for the Armenian survivors, but for modern Turkey and for others who would cling to the idea that killing to secure ethnic goals contradicts human goals. Contrasting genocide in humans with infanticide in baboons, humans have a critically important conceptual capacity — to distill and apply abstract concepts such as genocide. Male alpha baboons have evolved to feel a natural impulse to kill the weaning offspring of their rivals. Human beings evolved to feel fear of and protectiveness against other groups and tribes — for as long as humans have existed, they have killed one another in alarming numbers. But, unlike baboons, we have the capacity to understand that ultimately we do not want to continue to kill one another en mass, and, with the right will, we have the capacity to stop it, and to prevent one another from committing such crimes. We can have the will to be human and respect the rights of all people to share the world. If we refuse to apply the concept and shape the will, we will fail.

(Charles Darwin, as the Science Times article mentions, wrote this in his notebook of 1838 - “He who understands baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke.”)