(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?
No comments:
Post a Comment