Does Biology Justify Capitalism?
Written by Nicole
After an impromptu surgery, medical school applications, and a week’s worth of invigorating myself in existential philosophy whilst fighting against the effects of recovery-necessitated hydrocodone, I return to the Groundswell “podium” to postulate upon the naturalistic fallacy—particularly, how it is used to justify our social institutions and systems. I’m sure you’ve all yearned for my unsolicited commentary.
We are first introduced to Darwinism in our elementary school curriculums; we invigorate ourselves in discussions of organismal competition, natural selection, and the general concept of “survival of the fittest”. Before I continue, I feel it is necessary to preface my commentary with a disclaimer: please do not conflate my forthcoming critiques as a refutation of Darwinist principles. I have a degree in Biology. If you’re in search of creationist arguments, I fear you’re in the wrong place. However, I’d like to shed light on how our conceptualization of biology bleeds into our social ideations, and offer two particular arguments—one of which I rarely see in formal literature.
Our understanding of biology foundationally hinges on Darwinist arguments, and I believe that is appropriate. But, I think one must also consider how we imbue our teachings of biology with our own social paradigms, and by extension, how our biological understandings bleed into our interpretations of society. An example I often see cited is how biology courses frame sexual reproduction as a competitive race: the heroic sperm whipping their tails with vigor, dashing past one another to inevitably fertilize the egg, who sits patiently and passively awaiting her “winner” (and future biological partner). Yet, in more foundational academic settings, we omit the presence of chemoattractants and the egg’s chemical preferences; although sperm and eggs lack a gendered connotation, we’ve historically relied on a “romantic” narrative for conception, where the egg takes on “feminine” characteristics, while the sperm takes on “masculine” traits. As such, our conceptualization of biology becomes imbued with human social paradigms that, in reality, are inaccurate to the concrete scientific mechanisms occurring.
This phenomenon occurs bidirectionally—take capitalism, for example. I hear this particular argument frequently: because competition is ingrained in our biology, our systems necessarily reflect competitive dynamics, and we humans could never dream to live in a system that conflicts with our inherent wiring. Of course, my first response to this involves the naturalistic fallacy: just because something is biological does not mean our social constructions have to parallel that particular phenomenon, and it doesn’t make it any more “correct” simply because we observe that particular pattern in nature. But, while postulating upon this argument (admittedly hazily as I recovered from my surgery), I asked myself: what if I wanted to argue this perspective from a biological lens?
Now, although I’d like to be wary of deeply human-centric framing (see anthropocentrism), I’d like to introduce a reality I deem underdiscussed: empathy and critical thinking are in fact biological phenomena. Although these may be (presumably) uniquely human traits, human beings are in fact—wait for it—biological creatures themselves. As such, traits that arise naturally within our species are inherently biological. Of course, a level of competition can allow for innovation, but those of us who witness the impacts of late-stage capitalism would argue that this particular level of competition— when extensive competition and “survival of the fittest” leads to questionable priorities—is in fact a detriment to human progress. By extension, one may argue that a collectivist approach, one foundationally based in radical empathy and critical thought, would be significantly more beneficial for our future. And this idea does not conflict with what we consider natural—on the contrary, I feel that these ideals are the epitome and essence of what it means to be human. To be human means to feel, to think—to utilize our abstract and critical thought in the pursuit of problem-solving and progression.
Of course, this is one small argument that is part of a much larger conversation that necessitates multifaceted inquiry. But, I hope that this short idea may spark thoughts in us all that further our dissection of society, and the world around us at large.
Sincerely,
Nicole
A girl with not enough time on her hands but somehow enough time to constantly question everything
No AI was used in the creation of this post.
