No, creatures have no purpose, unless some human comes along and say’s “he’s a sheepdog”.
Or they can just steal, or beg, or become dictator and take what they like. All of which are just as “natural”. And all of which can be as successful in a evolutionary sense. All that matters when it comes to evolutionary success is propagating your genes.
Exactly. Our larger society is highly unnatural, simply because we didn’t evolve in a society of millions. We had to invent it, we had to construct it like any other artifact.
I think it’s a mistake to use the word “purpose” like this. It makes it sound like there’s an intention behind nature, and there isn’t. If you can find a niche, you survive, but that’s the result of your actions, not of a grand design.
No, this is ridiculous. People do kill each other, but that’s true of lots of animals. As far as that goes it’s part of nature and competition. There’s no separation between people and nature. And besides, most people die of one disease or another, not because someone kills them, so even if we pretend that deaths caused by people are in some separate category, it doesn’t account for all deaths.
Either you slept through environmental science, or your professor needs to be fired. All creatures in nature have specific needs (nutrition, water, heat, etc.) that they meet through specific means (eating meat, drinking from cacti, blubber, etc.). That’s their niche. It has nothing to do with “purpose.” A theoretical creature that benefited no other organism in the ecosystem would, if it survived, still have a niche.
In human society, whatever way you get food into your belly is analogous to your niche. Some people manage to start companies and exploit workers. That’s their niche. Some people rob banks. That’s their niche. Some people wander the streets in a drugged stupor, digging through trash cans for dinner. That’s their niche. Some people protect current wealth arrangements through law enforcement. That’s their niche. Some people arrange for wealth redistribution through social services. That’s their niche. Some people live off redistributed wealth. That’s their niche.
If you’re understanding your ecology correctly, there’s no moral judgments inherent in it.
Yes and no. In the lay sense, yes. Our larger society is thought of as being “unnatural”. But environments change and populations go from being solitary to social and vice versa, so no. We live in a society of millions and we are still evolving in response to that environment. Think of it as the “new natural”. 
BTW, David Brooks, the conservative NYT pundit, has a new book out called something like “The Social Animal” in which he talks about how the social aspect of our natures have to be taken into account when setting public policy. I don’t think it’s getting very good reviews, but it does put him in an odd place among his fellow conservative pundits.
Actually, I understand that in the most primitive societies, most adults do die of murder. But that doesn’t make them more “capitalistic”, it just means that the spoils go to the most ruthless killers.
Actually a major difference between us and animals when it comes to violence is that we are actually much less violent towards each other than most social animals, but much, much better at it. It’s simply easy for us to kill, and too dangerous to leave mortal enemies alive, so disputes that would lead to bruises for an animal lead to corpses with humans.
I don’t know if that’s true or not. But humanafterall was talking makes it sound like the only way humans die these days is when they kill each other, which is just ridiculous. Heart disease, cancer, and infectious diseases kill WAY more people than violence does. In some cases those diseases have a lifestyle component, but even so, it’s not true that natural selection somehow no longer applies to people and we’re just randomly killing each other without any “natural” factors coming into play.
Capitalism nature? Not really. Nature selects for sustainable paradigms. The unsustainable die. Both egocentric capital & anthropocentric socialism are insufficient paradigms to sustain society indefinitely.
The most selected-for paradigm is probably some kind of managed economy, maybe with a putatively divine ruling body: pharaohs, theocracies, kings with divine right, etc.
That’s not really capitalism as such, which is a sort of liberal propertarianism invented at various points but tending toward collapse. Were the Roman republicans capitalists? Not exactly. In any case, their republicanism was completely overtaken by rule by god-emperors. Modern capitalism got started in liberalized Britain, after much war and rebelling against the divine right of kings. It’s gone on to grab as much of the world’s resources as possible, enslaved nations, & finally run out of resources. Not sure whether it will be destroyed first by an extinction event, a winner to all this “competition” who invents a new word for god-emperor, or a popular revolt against wealth inequality & environmental degradation.
Gentlemen, gentlemen.
I wasn’t using “capitalism” in its formalized economics definition. I don’t think the OP was either. You can reread the OP with the looser definition deliberately in mind and it changes nothing about the debate. Adding a layer of academic rigor doesn’t really clarify anything for this type of discussion.
Almost every time we (as non-economists) discuss “capitalism”, it’s a loose synonym for a system that’s based on “this is mine” (as Marley23 so eloquently stated.)
All the back and forth about exacting definitions of “capitalism” and “socialism” would be missing the point. The underlying idea is actually a debate about whether humans tend towards self-interests or cooperation as the priority for organizing non-family members numbering into the millions.
Why not? Isn’t civilization itself a constant struggle to go against nature?
Capitalism and socialism are not necessarily at odds. Socialism is usually equated with regulation of capitalism and with public investments in infrastructure, social safety nets and long range planning. All of which are running in most capitalist societies.
Communist thinkers like Marx and Lenin felt capitalism was the opposite of a sustainable system. Unless heavily regulated, it leads to such wanton abuse, inequality and frustration that the people overthrow the system sooner or later. The frustration over inequality is starting to get serious in places like India, China and the US. In Latin America frustration over the abuses and ineptitudes of capitalism led to a leftist revolution in politics over the last 10 years.
If anything, the ‘natural’ economic system seems to be regulated capitalism combined with democratic socialism. That is the system most functioning nations seem to either have or be pursuing, at least in contemporary times. No idea about 100 years from now.
My understanding of evolution is that cooperation with strings attached (with concepts like reciprocation for good and bad behavior as an example) tends to win out over individualism. And that is what socialism is, pooling resources for the benefit of all.
So again, I think that the ‘natural’ (meaning the system most nations strive to achieve once they have the resources to do so) is regulated capitalism and democratic socialism. The capitalism the OP references has been under assault and regulation by reformers for the last 200 years.
The OP hasn’t said that. If we’re boiling the discussion down to “people like having stuff,” I guess we can agree and call it a day.
It clarifies what people mean, and some of that is definitely needed in this discussion.
There is more than that in the OP.
Nope it doesn’t. There’s been 30+ posts and I can’t see any of them being interpreted any differently if we use the academic definition vs the casual one. Can you point me to one where it really matters?
Pedantics over definitions is a diversion from the real underlying debate.
As a shining example, I contend that Der Trihs actually knows the formal definition of “capitalism” in the back of his/her mind. He’s participated in hundreds of threads on capitalism – and yet even he brings in this notion of “money” as part of “capitalism” when no such medium of exchange is needed even in “formalized capitalism.” You see, it doesn’t matter because we usually discuss this topic CAPITALISM as an emotional issue.
Right, that’s what I read too so I interpreted it as an analysis of human behavior corresponding with what economic system we have.
(Haven’t read the thread yet, just saw capitalism in the title and felt like taking a dump)
I think that if we could ever set up the perfect capitalism, we’d quickly find hidden socialism all over the place. The basic family unit represents that element of socialism/communism. Each person contributing what they can, but getting what they need.
As much as we’re programed for capitalism, we are still social creatures.
The OP has offered a series of opinions about capitalism, socialism, evolution, nature, and other things. I think he’s talking about the economic idea of capitalism (but I don’t think he has a handle on what that is) and not the broader notion you are talking about. Either way I’d rather find out from the OP instead of going off on a tangent.
if some people get together, arm themselves to make their competitors “stop evolving” (and then they cremate their bodies afterwards) would that be the “right” outcome “in nature”?
Nature is amoral. I don’t like Socialists either, especially the folks who go under this name in this day and age, but “do it the raw, natural way” is not a good argument for establishing just social systems. Which is why proponents of capitalism traditionally focused on the justice of systems based on personal property and responsibility and not on “the last SOB left standing upon the ruins is a worthy man indeed” type of argument.
Already totally agree there. The trick is engineering such a government and economics structure on a large scale for millions of citizens. Even the Scandinavian countries haven’t figured it out.
Capitalism (loosely) works over long distances across friends and strangers. Socialism doesn’t. I don’t see USA or Scandinavia sharing their wealth equally with the poor in Africa.
That’s because Africa isn’t willing to share in the risk.
Wait, what thread am I in?
I had a guy tell me this once. He was about 5’2", 97lbs, wore glasses, had severe psoriasis and sported a hearing aid.
Good luck in the jungle guy.
Ok, the OP hasn’t chimed in yet and I may embarrass myself by being totally wrong but I think his post looks incoherent because you’re using the academic magnifying glasses instead of casual reading glasses.
The OP inserts a bunch of phrases like “Natural Selection”, “compete or die”, etc and so you tee off on his “evolution theory” that’s screwing up the pure definition of “capitalism.”
Ha ha that’s funny. I actually think it’s the laboring over precision definitions that is the real tangent.
It’s as if an OP offered this thesis: “When it’s raining cats & dogs outside, people tend to be sadder.”
…and then a whole army of academics pounce on that sentence, parse it piece by piece and then admonish the OP: “I think you’re mixing up precipitation with organic matter such as canines and felines. You need to get a handle on that before we can continue.”
I guess it makes people feel better to engage in that sort of the thing than the actual underlying question. As I said in the “risk” debates, I think people would rather discuss terminology to death even though it has ZERO effect on the underlying REAL debate.