Social Evolution

What do you think about the general concept of social evolution and do you think that it has implications for economics and libertarianism? It seems to be that the idea of social evolution and spontaneous order (and by extension, the free market) are tied together. And I've always been rather infatuated with Herbert Spencer.

Could you define the term, perhaps? Are you referring to institutional darwinism of Hayek's brand?

-Jon

 

Jon Irenicus:

Could you define the term, perhaps? Are you referring to institutional darwinism of Hayek's brand?

-Jon

That's certainly related, but I'm refering more to Spencer's thought, which is actually more Lamarkian than Darwinian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociocultural_evolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

"The evolutionary progression from simple, undifferentiated homogeneity to complex, differentiated, heterogeneity was exemplified, Spencer argued, by the development of society. He developed a theory of two types of society, the militant and the industrial, which corresponded to this evolutionary progression. Militant society, structured around relationships of hierarchy and obedience, was simple and undifferentiated; industrial society, based on voluntary, contractually assumed social obligations, was complex and differentiated. Society, which Spencer conceptualized as a 'social organism' evolved from the simpler state to the more complex according to the universal law of evolution. Moreover, industrial society was the direct descendant of the ideal society developed in Social Statics, although Spencer now equivocated over whether the evolution of society would result in anarchism (as he had first believed) or whether it pointed to a continued role for the state, albeit one reduced to the minimal functions of the enforcement of contracts and external defence."

Brainpolice:

more Lamarkian than Darwinian.

That's an excellent point.  "Social Darwinism" is a deeply flawed analogy.  Social Lamarckianism is much closer.  Though I'm not sure where or if the key misrepresentation in the term Social Darwinism - the idea that "failed" resources are destroyed (analogous to failed organisms dying without reproducing), where in reality they aren't destroyed but reallocated - fits into Lamarckianism.

 

Brainpolice:

What do you think about the general concept of social evolution and do you think that it has implications for economics and libertarianism? It seems to be that the idea of social evolution and spontaneous order (and by extension, the free market) are tied together. 

Now that you've clarified it...

One of my pet hypotheses is that we are approaching a technological threshhold beyond which we cannot pass under our current social and government organization.  The basic idea is that more advanced technologies require a more specialized division of labor.  This in turn requires a increasingly efficient methods of coordination, distribution, and valuation for the more finely divided tasks.  I believe we are reaching or have already passed a scaling limit where the inefficiencies of heirarchal methods outweigh the efficiencies by so much that further advancement comes at a cost that outweighs its benefits.  We already see signs of this all around us. 

Markets are a far more efficient and responsive mechanisms than heirarchies at coordination, distribution, and valuation, and so I believe that we will move to a polycentric market organization in social, legal, and business organization as technology progresses further.

The flip side of that is that if we are prevented from making that transition, we won't advance technologically.  Technological stagnation is a real possibility. The internet, and to a slightly lesser extent the entire software industry, has operated under a largely polycentric market organization from the start.   I don't think the industry would exist if it hadn't.  And it may all but cease to exist if centralized control is imposed on it.

 

One of the fundamental premises for Spencer's social/biological evolution is that :

"....there are few if any amongst civilized people who do not agree that human well-being is in accordance with the Divine will. The doctrine is taught by all our religious teachers; it is assumed by every writer on morality: we may therefore safely consider it as an admitted truth."
(Social Statics is online)

So Spencer was a deist, or even some sort of theist. However, I think that Spencer turned into an agnostic later in life, so I'm not sure how he regarded his earlier theories then.

histhasthai:

Brainpolice:

What do you think about the general concept of social evolution and do you think that it has implications for economics and libertarianism? It seems to be that the idea of social evolution and spontaneous order (and by extension, the free market) are tied together. 

Now that you've clarified it...

One of my pet hypotheses is that we are approaching a technological threshhold beyond which we cannot pass under our current social and government organization.  The basic idea is that more advanced technologies require a more specialized division of labor.  This in turn requires a increasingly efficient methods of coordination, distribution, and valuation for the more finely divided tasks.  I believe we are reaching or have already passed a scaling limit where the inefficiencies of heirarchal methods outweigh the efficiencies by so much that further advancement comes at a cost that outweighs its benefits.  We already see signs of this all around us. 

Markets are a far more efficient and responsive mechanisms than heirarchies at coordination, distribution, and valuation, and so I believe that we will move to a polycentric market organization in social, legal, and business organization as technology progresses further.

The flip side of that is that if we are prevented from making that transition, we won't advance technologically.  Technological stagnation is a real possibility. The internet, and to a slightly lesser extent the entire software industry, has operated under a largely polycentric market organization from the start.   I don't think the industry would exist if it hadn't.  And it may all but cease to exist if centralized control is imposed on it.

 

This actually a much more in-depth explanation of what I've recently been thinking about concerning my past technorealist learnings (particularly douglas rushkoff) & recent market-anarchist preferences. 

I think it's fascinating that the prospect of technological advancement would eventually "package" (to those previously unaware of, unwilling to look, disagreed, etc.) the market as more effiecient than heirarchies, and political posturing might become less relevant in light of what is more efficient & solves many old problems.       

OK. So what happens when the gov't finally gets hold of some kind of mind-reading device ?

Juan:

OK. So what happens when the gov't finally gets hold of some kind of mind-reading device ?

Tin-Foil Hats?  Your premise is a bit absurd; more likley doctors (psychologists) or police officers possibly getting a hold of something remotley like that, but good luck in getting that thing past the (for better or worse) political hail storms.

Sooner or later there will be a brain-computer interface. Is that a nutty idea ? I don't think so.

Juan:

Sooner or later there will be a brain-computer interface. Is that a nutty idea ? I don't think so.

No, but the implication of mind-control is a bit of an exaggeration at this point.