Part 1: Biology and Capitalism

In the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin wrote, “a plant on the edge of a desert is said to struggle for life against the drought …”. This is a fitting description of the struggle for survival in the present structures of political and economic alienation that most humans face confronting late (or neo-liberal) capitalism. I think this metaphor works better than the “nature, red in tooth and claw” evolutionary imagery (animal against animal) that has become the center of evolutionary and capitalist economic theory for over 200 years. We have been taught that capitalism is rooted in natural selection–by this I mean that the relations necessary for the functioning of capitalism are the same relations that are central in the evolutionary process.

Dendrites merging credit: neurollero

Thus, I argue there is a biology of capitalism. In this three part serial I hope to explore the connection between biology and capitalism; the rise of this theoretical connection; and then the political and policy implications of this connection.

We are taught about this connection when we read biology and economic textbooks; watch the Discovery Channel, the Animal Channel, Nova or CNN, Fox News, listen to NPR, or go to natural history museums. This connection, offered as a lesson in biology, can be found in the teaching of biologists such as Richard Hawkins, E. O. Wilson, Paul Ehrlich and Garrett Hardin (whom I will address in more detail in part 3); the theories about hunter/gatherer subsistence strategies argued by archeologists like Lewis Binford; and in the arguments of gendered differences in mate selection, reproductive strategies and genetic fitness ingrained the theories of evolutionary psychology propagated by Steven Pinker and Robert Wright. This biology of capitalism got its staying power and strength by the powerhouse writings of Charles Darwin, but its roots are in the philosophy of 19^th century British cleric and economist Thomas Malthus. To understand issues ranging from contemporary capitalist practices to large-scale humanitarian aid, it is important to revisit and discuss the works of Malthus.

But wait!

Before your eye begins to wander across the webpage, preparing to click onto a different article, I ask for your patience. What follows is not an exploration of the philosophical wanderings of some obscure 19^th century personality. It is an investigation of the ways in which biological theory and economics have collided each informing the other in very tangible ways, which affects our lives today some 200 years after the fact.
The interweaving of biological and capitalist theory has a long history, and this interweaving is more than just metaphor-it has very real material effects. The result of these interweavings has been a set of ideas that naturalize capitalism, so as to justify exploitation and eliminate the ability to think beyond capitalism. But these ideas do more than just naturalize capitalism, they are a justification for poverty; they propagate the myth that overpopulation is the central cause of issues in the global south; they justify arguments against AIDS and famine relief in Africa; they justify forced sterilization and propagate funding that pays poor women (exclusively) to become sterile; they justify and legitimize the portion of the Sierra Club that argued for anti-immigration policy, against poverty relief and against issues of environmental justice; and they rationalize the recent controversy over Professor Watson’s statement on Africa. The combined effect of these incidents has had a devastating effect on billions of lives.
So, let’s go back to the biology.

Darwin based his theory of natural selection on Malthus’s theory that population growth will always outstrip food supply and lead to the overt (bloody) battles leading to disappearing resources. This view of population (and biology) mirrored the view on the emerging industrial capitalist cities that Malthus saw-mass migration from the countryside lead to polluted and crowded cities as a result of such acts as the enclosures (which I will discuss in part 2.) Darwin moved from this imagery and maintained a view of ecology centered on a world stuffed full of competing species-so balanced and crowded that a new species could only gain entry into the world by literally replacing-destroying-a former inhabitant.

Both Darwin and Alfred Wallace independently developed the theory of natural selection-each credited theoretical foundation and inspiration from Malthus. Both theories were based on their experiences with natural history in the tropics. It was in the tropics that they evoked Malthus’s crowed slums of the industrial city and articulated it ecologically-the biological density of the islands offered this same competition of body against body. Darwin acknowledged in Origin of Species that both forms of struggle mentioned in the opening (the plant in the desert and the animal versus animal) existed, but due to the influence of Malthus, he chose to emphasize the competition between species after his field experiences in the tropics. Indeed today if you ask someone to explain evolutionary theory they are likely to say it about competition between species for survival.

If one of the most influential theories of our time and the founding of our present understanding of biology is based on the work of this 19^th century economist, what was his theory?

In Part Two, I will investigate Malthus’ theories while historically situating his ideas about carrying capacity and population in relation to the rise of capitalism. Then, in Part Three (appearing Thursday the 27th), I will explore the direct effects his theory has had on ideas of genetics, ecology, humanitarian aid and public policy.

The Biology of Capitalism: Part 2
The Biology of Capitalism: Part 3 (Goes live Thursday, March 27)