Our Capitalism & The Natural World: A Mirror Image
By Ben Carton, Edited by Greg Hunt
When I was first introduced to the idea of capitalism, I was told that the competition within
capitalism models nature. In the natural world, competition encourages evolution. Species
must compete for food, water, and other goods provided by the environment for survival.
This competition fuels evolution, as animals constantly need to change and adapt to keep
up with other species. In a capitalist economy, businesses must compete with each other to
keep up profits. To prosper, a business needs to strive to provide better goods and services
at lower prices. If it doesn't, other businesses will outcompete it. This encourages the
"evolution" of human society. More and more is made available to the masses by the
competing businesses. The untouched natural world has always continued to evolve itself,
and has done so while remaining ingeniously self-sustainable. So in theory, a system of
economics which models the processes of nature should be a sustainable, self-evolving
system.
No one can deny capitalism has encouraged the development of many advanced
technologies and effort-saving conveniences. But I wonder how much we've actually
improved our quality of life? In the capitalist nations of the world, it seems most people are
provided with basic necessities, and usually a good deal more. Yet, there are still many in
these nations left without enough material wealth to survive. And it seems that most of the
people with enough material wealth have little to no wealth in other parts of life. No
happiness, no passion: no spiritual wealth.
If capitalism models nature, why isn't it yielding positive results? Shouldn't this model, in
mimicking nature, provide incentive for the "evolution" of the human condition? Shouldn't it
also sustain itself? I would say capitalism models nature so completely that if you violate
certain laws you throw the system out of balance.
As just one example, a basic ecological principle is that diversity supports survival. When an
environment contains a wide variety of species then the system as a whole can handle
shifts in balance. But, if an ecosystem has limited diversity then even a small shift in
balance can have drastic effects. The lack or excess of one species could eventually
destroy the entire ecosystem. The less diverse an ecosystem, the more vulnerable the
species within it.
Humans violate this through species genocide. Plenty of animals kill for food. But they kill
only enough needed for survival. The human is the only animal that kills other species
entirely; sometimes we wipe out whole ecosystems. We do this directly when we kill a
certain animal. We also do this indirectly by taking resources from the environment so
rapidly that the system is thrown out of balance, killing animals in the process.
This rule, and how we violate it, can be applied analogously to capitalism. If there is a large
diversity of owners with means of production then the system will be able to weather
something happening to a few of them. Now, I feel this picture does justice to what we do
instead:
Imagine found on http://wildtreemeals.wordpress.com/ Check out Wildtree for delicious nutritious food
& recipes!
There are still some small brands left; between mom-n-pop stores, farmers’ markets, and
starving-artist types. But how much profit goes to them compared to the brands in this
picture? I'd be concerned about the answer to that question. It’s no wonder our system is so
unstable! By buying so much from, and in doing so giving so much power & support to, so
few companies, we make our entire system dependent on these companies! Low diversity,
high vulnerability.
And it gets worse! What do businesses have in common with houses, cars, weddings, and a
college education? They're expensive. More importantly, they're so expensive that most
people take out loans to get them. We make our economy incredibly dependent on banks.
So much money, and thereby so much power, goes to so few places. The fate of our
economy then rests on a small number of powerhouses.
Lastly, a diversity of flourishing businesses would encourage creativity. In turn, this
promotes innovation, and inherently more of an evolution in our material condition! Instead
we use our money to support economic genocide. These huge brands squash, or simply
buy out, any smaller business that has a chance at competition with the big players.
So where do we go from here? First of all, we must make ourselves less and less
dependent on these economic powers-that-be. When we become independent of these
brands for what we need to survive, we no longer have to buy from (in other words, support)
them and the perpetuation of an unsustainable economy. Even buying from the farmers’
market, as opposed to feeding from the hand of Nestle, is a step forward. An even bigger
step, which eventually we will have to take, is the ability to provide all of our own
necessities. I think it's needless to say adopting the lifestyle Valhalla aspires to is one way
of accomplishing this.
I believe humans could flourish under capitalism. But collectively we have proven ourselves
far too immature to do so in the present. Imagine if the majority of humans were to start
making purchases consciously - that is with an awareness of which companies practice
ethics toward environment, labor, economy, et cetera. Eventually a capitalist economy
would make the ethical companies rich and leave unethical ones bankrupt. Also, for a
capitalist system to be truly sustainable, economies would need to be more localized (but
still connected!) to prevent the current lack-of-diversity predicament.
Unfortunately, we are so deep in, this option seems to be a hope for the far future.
Regardless, it would be intelligent for us to acknowledge how much sway capitalism and the
companies on top have. If we acknowledge this we can see the importance of working both
from within and without this system. At first, by taking ourselves out of this system as much
as possible - either through communities such as Valhalla or through other methods - we
can escape our dependence on this system. After our independence is established we can
start working within the system to transform it. I envision a time when Valhalla-esque
communities and like-thinkers can selectively boycott the businesses doing the most harm
to our environment and our humanity, and support businesses doing the most good. We
can both "create our own grid" economically, while transforming capitalism from within with
the intent of molding it into a new, more benign capitalism!
Ultimately, I don't pretend to know what the "best" system is. Humanity will always be
evolving and progressing, and I am sure our idea of how an economy should be run will
change along with us. I don't think there is as much of a "best" system as there are systems
which are relevant to the time period and culture. What I am sure of is that if we are to tell
ourselves capitalism is good because it models nature, then we need to start
acknowledging that how we use capitalism, just as how we use nature, produces results
corresponding to how responsible and respectful we have been to the system. I am sure
that it is time to start using the capitalism we have built more responsibly, and I am sure that
it is time to start experimenting with new economies which might be a more complete
representation of nature.