Selfish economist and altruistic animal

(W.D.Hamilton)





There seems to be an obvious parallel between darwinism and classical market economy. Both are about survival of the fittest in the face of fierce competition. One is about the evolution of species, while the other is about the rise and decline of enterprises in the market place. But the principle of competition seems to underlie both.

But this is wrong. According to Adam Smith the economic agent is basically egoistic, but the egoism of mutually competing enterprises can lead to socially responsible results. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”.

Not so darwinism, at least according to some of its interpretations, like Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and D.W. Hamilton. People and other animals can and do behave altruistically. Where the real evolutionary fight goes on is the level of genes. The latter certainly do not care for anything other than themselves.

So, on the one hand we have A.Smith, who starts from egoistic premises but ends with non-egoistical conclusions and some darwinist biologists who start with altruistic premises but end with non-altruistic conclusions. Looks like swapping places, doesn't it?

Mad to Red

Your science may impeccable, but you will not be trusted, because you have a dubious political agenda. This is the attitude taken towards environmentalists by Justin Rowland in the BBC's Analysis broadcast on 25.01.2010.

He came to the conclusion that cutting carbon emissions is not the top priority for all green campaigners, that certain political objectives seem to overshadow their interest in fighting global warming.

Environmentalists do not just want to change the world, they want to change poeple, change their hearts and attitudes. They do not trust technology and indeed some of the motivation for the precautionary principle (which has very conservative consequences) may result from technophobia. Their opposition to the idea of unrelentless growth may lead them to certain postulates of romantic lifestyle, in order to make our society less unhappy and more fulfilling. Finally, some of them tend to oppose unconstrained free market economy, very individualistic, with high levels of consumption, everybody out for themselves, etc. Perhaps some kind of socialism is in the horizon, although many are willing to admit that socialist societies were among the heavist polluters. But is China socialist or capitalist, I got confused?

This is how far you can go starting from the premise that carbon is noxious, resources are scarce and technology is hazardous. You start as a climatologist and end up as political philosopher (you may have been one from the start). But after all your motivation is not important for your scientific argument, if you are right. You may even join the environmental movement for fun, but if your climate change predictions are accurate, we better listen to you.

See you

Marek