By J. D. Alt
In his recent book The Social Conquest of Earth, Edward O. Wilson lifts a corner of human history and reveals what appears to be a hidden mechanism of its intricately complex guidance system. It shouldn’t be a surprise this inner clock-work is genetics. What is surprising is to see the relationship between this genetic mechanism and the monetary debate that is unfolding as we speak.
In (extremely) simplified form, the guidance system described by Wilson is this: Human societies are composed of individuals who are dominated (at any given moment) by one or the other of two genetic traits—the “selfish gene” or the “altruistic gene”. The selfish gene leads individuals to take actions benefitting their personal selves. The altruistic gene leads individuals to take actions benefitting the social group to which they belong.
The interplay between these two genetic traits creates the following dynamic of social evolution: Within a given social group, the selfish gene will always competitively dominate (and defeat) the altruistic gene. However, when there is competition between two social groups, the group with the most active altruistic genes will always dominate and defeat the group with the most active selfish genes. In terms of reproductive success then, natural selection is continuously choosing the selfish gene of individuals within any group while, at the same time, it is choosing the altruistic gene in groups that out-compete other groups. The tension and interplay between these two competitive dynamics is what guides the course of human history.
What is fascinating to contemplate (and in some cases observe) is how the altruistic gene—so vulnerable to domination and defeat within every social group to which it belongs—nevertheless has succeeded in driving and organizing a level of social cooperation that is unprecedented in the history of the earth. Human history thus shows that, in spite of overwhelming setbacks to individuals, in the long run the altruistic gene is the more powerful trait. The election we are about to have in the U.S. appears to be an operational moment of this genetic guidance system. The change in course will be nuanced, but it will be interesting to see which gene, at this particular juncture of our evolution, will be selected.
Even more interesting, I think, is the question of what role Modern Money (once the mainstream politicians and economists begin to understand and accept it) will begin to play in this social guidance mechanism. The impact, I think, could be huge for several reasons:
First, it seems clear that the concept of limited “dollar” resources—which has been an implicit theme in human endeavors for most of history—drives and motivates the selfish gene in extraordinary ways. The quest for control of a limited and finite wealth almost defines its dominating posture and obsession. At the same time, the theme of limited “dollar” resources shackles the altruistic gene with a narrative that continuously deflates every effort it puts forth: we cannot afford to ___(fill in the blank). We cannot afford to build quality housing for every family. We cannot afford to provide a public or community college education for every qualified citizen. We cannot afford to provide universal health care. We cannot afford to build and operate high-efficiency public transit. We cannot afford the research and development necessary to create alternatives to fossil fuels. We cannot afford to build sewage systems that won’t dump raw effluent into our waterways when rains become torrential (as just occurred, by the way, in our nation’s capitol). We cannot afford low pesticide farming, or comprehensive food-safety inspections, or neighborhood daycare centers, or co-housing retirement villages for anyone who is too old to take care of themselves but too young to be finished with their life. We cannot afford any of it.
When MMT begins to take root in the mainstream minds of economic thinking, its message that the concept of limited dollar resources is a false premise (that, in fact, a sovereign nation issuing its own fiat currency has unlimited dollars available to spend as it chooses) this message is clearly a potential tool of enormous power for the altruistic gene. Not only does it remove the divisive and false choices the limited dollar argument foists upon society, denying the selfish-gene one its most effective and clever gambits, it places the opportunity for great deeds and actions clearly in the hands of those who wish to benefit society as a whole.
Yes, this also creates the likelihood of great corruption. But Edward O. Wilson seems to be saying to us that the corruption—no matter how insidious or painful it may be—will, in the larger scheme of things, be merely an incidental cost of great social achievement. It is better to undertake great projects, even though they my be milked by cheats and villains, than to undertake no projects at all.
I like this post
To look at it in a slightly different manner, I think its also valuable to redefine selfishness. We always think of the perjorative sense of it, mainly because it is the grossest act of selfishness, but if we take a more nuanced view of selfishness we might simply call it looking first to make sure you thrive. After all how much help are you to someone else when you arent thriving? Think about the airlines reminding parents to make sure they have oxygen before trying to help their child.
I think a great case can be made that radical selflessness can be the best way to be selfish! I think of this in purely mathematical terms. If everyone is simply looking out for themselves we all have one person looking out for us, but if we never look inward and only look outward we have literally millions looking out for us.
The problem of free riders is a concern in all social groups, but by definition they can never exceed a certain level and cannot dominate a group. I see one difference between modern liberals and conservatives as the amount of energy they wish to devote to stopping free riders. Personally I think we shouldnt waste too much effort controlling something that is pretty self limiting, simply figure the worst case cost the best you can and accept it. Many of my conservative brethren find great joy in spending enormous energy in uncovering “moochers” or “cheaters”. Obviously cheating at some things has very negative consequences but this mindset spills over into everything and becomes quite destructive all consuming.
It is perfectly obvious that whatever the outcome of the election the “selfish” gene has been selected because politicians and electorate fail to understand that true democracy can only exist in a country when government and non-government money is created without debt. In Western economies money is only created by allowing a parasitical elite to attach debt as a condition of its creation. This effectively imposes a hidden tax which is inflationary. Only the Chinese Communist Party understands this principle although it is inherently undemocratic and therefore corrupt. However, its state banks issue money at zero or near zero interest rates and this money is often rolled-over or cancelled by the state banks thereby keeping debt based inflation to a minimum. Allowing private banks to issue inflationary home mortgages has marred this process but for business investment it has worked remarkably well and dramatic Chinese growth rates leave it poised to decimate Western economies and became the world’s super-power within the next two decades.
Greg said:-
“The problem of free riders is a concern in all social groups, but by definition they can never exceed a certain level and cannot dominate a group.”
This is clearly not true. A great deal of our problems in Western societies is because a parasitical elite has persuaded the majority in those societies that money cannot be created without debt attached that will benefit that elite.
The American Constitution was an exercise in restraining the abuse of power. It did not, however, effectively deal with the issue of how the new nation could create money without a parasitical moocher’s elite enslaving the People through debt. As such the United States cannot call itself a true democracy.
Schofield
I agree with you and I was unclear in my statement.
I meant they cant dominate a group in terms of numbers. You are correct about a small group gaining power but I wouldnt call all the current elite free riders. Yes they are demanding (and capable of obtaining) an outsized share relative to their efforts but they are not complete moochers.
I was referring to the fact that in any group there is a limit to how many people get something for nothing, someone must produce something for there to be something. Obviously there are many ways to define the “somethings” so while I might be a free rider in some sphere I am a producer in another, but true free riders will be small in number relative to the whole group.
It would be more profitable from a progressive point of view to steer well clear of socio-biology & its evolutionary pyschology offspring. There are plenty of critiques out there.
I consider that the progressive movement’s fatal flaw, to move away from considering what humans actually are.
I think you’re taking me up all wrong. So here- Socio-biology & Evolutionary Psychology are fatally flawed ‘disciplines’. Check it out. Just because what’s written above sounds pleasing to a progressive ear doesn’t mean that its premises aren’t a cock of s&!t. What’s more, this article is in the vast minority in that it attempts to use Socio-biology & Evolutionary Psychology for progressive purposes. Typically these disciplines lend themselves wholeheartedly to explanations as to why the rich are so much better than you, it and everything else is in the genes see.
the fly is in the neuroplasticity
Try people like Stephen J Gould, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Rose & many, many other evolutionary scientists for a lowdown.
Just because you say they are fatally flawed disciplines does not make it so. The only explanation you offer is that you find genetic determinism distasteful. See brain stem and basic impulses of survival. We still have not seen the “neuroplasticity” that is generally capable of stopping many Americans to over consume junk food to obesity.
What stake do you have in evolutionary pychology? Its just your first comment in this thread expresses a great, great deal of confidence in the school/discipline as a window o what human beings are. Anyway, I dont really have the time to brush up on old arguments & go into a disquisition on evolutionary psychology, so I pointed you in the direction of people who can tell you far more about why evolutionary psychology/sociobiology are fatally flawed disciplines. That’s more than just saying they are flawed. Now, as far as I can remember about the whole debate, evolutionary psychologists never overcame the charge that their contentions were ideologically inflected ‘just so’ stories. I suspect they carried on as if nothing happened much in the same way as neoclassicals do.
Look, neuroplasticity is simply a fact of human existence, at one point you seemd very concerned with not straying too far from what humans actually are. It means that the whole of your experience, be it personal, social, political etc actually affects the way your brain wires up, affecting in turn the way you react to oncoming stimuli. It’s possibly why humans are so adaptable. & despite the claims of Sociobiology/EP there isn’t much hardwiring of anything in the brain, still less altruism or selfishness.
On the obesity quip, compare US levels of obesity with those in other advanced Western countries & genetic explanations become at best thin gruel. You could say the same about test results & what have you.
Look, sociobiology & Evolutionary Psychology were attempts to monopolise the focus of inquiry into all human social experience for genetic explanations. Think of how many co-determining variables this misses out on& who that benefits from being able to tell such stories (+ the added benefit of retiring all those subjects that liberals and commies vastly dominate). In any case, despite all the hullaballo over the human genome project it wasn’t the great big panacea it was thought, from what I’ve read it’s hit a plateau. Remember all the talk about how there were genes for this & genes for that? Criminality, you name it, they were the outlandish claims of EP. Turns out they couldn’t isolate those genes or even groups of determining genes for any likewise complex behaviours. Just like this here altruistic & selfish gene parable. There’s the anthropological critique of EP, which basically accuses it of transposing something like the flintstones back to the stone age. There’s a thicket of theoretical objections, most EP studies don’t seem to stand much of a cold epistemoogical hosing….
I really don’t have time for thisv right now, so as I’ve said google is your friend
& genetic determinism is also pretty distasteful. Gotta go
You are the one that seems to have a great stake in this and your accusation of confidence applies very much to you. It is exactly your kind of perspective that has tend to make progressivism an anathema to me. Its positively Hegelian. Consider my position Schopenhauerian. Our rapid advancements for now out run the natural selection process. We being social creatures contribute to selfish altruism dilemma since either action contributes to the great bulk of humanity. However as resources become scarce the selective pressure reality becomes more apparent. I was on the ground floor some years ago in sociology departments where nurture was all the rage and it was proposed that boys loved baby dolls just as much as the girls. What complete and utter rubbish. It was that position which tried to monopolize the debate and evolutionary psychology was the backlash. We are not a prefrontal cortex in the absence of hardwired sensory appetites.
…..neuroplasticity among many, many other facts of human nature/existence
An interesting thesis from Mr. Wilson, it would be interesting to hear some historical examples laid out regarding the 3rd paragraph here.. the explanation was (purposely I suppose) pretty vague. It seems intuitive enough when you think about a social group such as a sports team or two businesses competing against each other, teamwork and collaboration generally yield better results. Let’s hope the MMT approach can galvanize the people around a desire for the common good.
Re “It would be more profitable from a progressive point of view to steer well clear of socio-biology & its evolutionary pyschology offspring. There are plenty of critiques out there.”
Of course there are. All such theories are works in progress. For good theories, it takes years to explore the vistas opened up by them, and critiques are an important part of the exploration process.
What all good theories do have is the ring of truth and the power to explain. I think Wilson’s theory has both, and BTW has important analogies in game theory. I will here add my own corollary: groups successful in competition with other groups will be led by Selfish Genes who have a large group of Altruistic Genes at their command. For every General, there are ten Colonels, a hundred Majors, a thousand captains, and a million foot soldiers. Altruism only leads by example. Selfishness leads by command. In a competition for survival, a command society is going to prevail.
“Yes, this also creates the likelihood of great corruption. But Edward O. Wilson seems to be saying to us that the corruption—no matter how insidious or painful it may be—will, in the larger scheme of things, be merely an incidental cost of great social achievement. It is better to undertake great projects, even though they my be milked by cheats and villains, than to undertake no projects at all.”
I’d only postulate that we are in fact, NOW in a very corrupt non-democratic environment, vis-a-vis the elite “free-riders” that are using their power to stifle whatever remains of the 99%’s Constitutionally mandated democratic power (ie using Social Safety Net destruction, ALEC laws, wholesale policy of elite tax evasion, Citizens United, etc.) To do nothing, but continue the anti-democratic trend we are on, is to submit to an elite “free-rider” tyranny over the 99% of the earth’s inhabitants, something that society has been trending against for at least 500 years in Western Civilization (two steps forward, one step back kinda thing.)
No, MMT is the reality today, not tomorrow; and the elite “free-riders” know and bank on that reality already, but are merciless in their efforts to thwart/hide/obfuscate the 99% from knowing about it, understanding it, or even acting on it. That stops now. The line in the sand has been drawn by the elite “free-riders” by their own actions. I’ll quote Michael Moore, despite his not understanding MMT nor the elite’s real “end game” in all of it:
“WE HAVE HAD IT! We reject anyone who tells us America is broke and broken. It’s just the opposite! We are rich with talent and ideas and hard work and, yes, love. Love and compassion toward those who have, through no fault of their own, ended up as the least among us. But they still crave what we all crave: Our country back! Our democracy back! Our good name back! The United States of America. NOT the Corporate States of America. The United States of America!” […]
The smug rich have overplayed their hand. They couldn’t have just been content with the money they raided from the treasury. They couldn’t be satiated by simply removing millions of jobs and shipping them overseas to exploit the poor elsewhere. No, they had to have more — something more than all the riches in the world. They had to have our soul. They had to strip us of our dignity. They had to shut us up and shut us down so that we could not even sit at a table with them and bargain about simple things like classroom size or bulletproof vests for everyone on the police force or letting a pilot just get a few extra hours sleep so he or she can do their job — their $19,000 a year job. That’s how much some rookie pilots on commuter airlines make, maybe even the rookie pilot who flew me here to Madison today. He told me he’s stopped hoping for a pay increase. All he’s asking for now is enough down time so that he doesn’t have to sleep in his car between shifts at O’Hare airport. That’s how despicably low we have sunk! The wealthy couldn’t be content with just paying this man $19,000 a year. They had to take away his sleep. They had to demean him and dehumanize him and rub his face in it. After all, he’s just another slob, isn’t he?
And that, my friends, is Corporate America’s fatal mistake.”
(Michael Moore http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-is-not-broke)
Follow up comment to above (don’t see it yet to post it there:)
Recently (9/25/12,) Warren Mosler, along with Professor Stephanie Kelton, gave a presentation to Columbia Law School as part of the “Modern Money and Public Purpose Series.” (http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/10/modern-money-and-public-purpose-2-governments-are-not-households.html) At the beginning of Mosler’s talk, he gave the following statement:
“Let me give you a little background. I’ve been in, what you might call an insider in monetary operations for 40 years now. I started banking in 1973. I grew up on the Money Desk at Bankers Trust in the 70’s, back when that was Main Dealer Operations. I’ve been trading Money, you might say, for a long time. I visit The Fed regularly.
What I tell you is known by all the senior staffers at The Fed, Treasury. It is not known by the political appointees, the headline members you’ll see at The Fed Market Committee, and Treasury Secretary, people at that level. The political appointees are the ones that don’t understand what the operations people understand implicitly.”
What I ascertain from that statement is that the elite “free-riders,” who also employ the “monetary operations people” for their elite investment purposes, like Mosler once was at Bankers Trust in the 70’s, actually get MMT “implicitly,” whilst those who politically represent the 99%, do not. That must change now.
Helix said:-
“Altruism only leads by example. Selfishness leads by command. In a competition for survival, a command society is going to prevail.”
I don’t think it’s that clear cut. In the example I gave above the Chinese Communist Party clearly decided that part of their mandate in adopting free market capitalism was for the state to continue to create money without allowing a parasitic elite to attach debt to that creating process. They were continuing this process for altruistic reasons. They wanted to rapidly grow their economy after the terrible economic failure of Maoism.
If altruism is something you do for the benefit of your group, what is it called when you do something for the benefit of one other person, without regard for what effect it may have on the group? For instance, giving money to the guy on the corner holding a sign telling of his woes. Depending on what he does with the money, it could be quite harmful to the society. You hope it won’t be, you hope he’s honest, and you feel sorry for his plight, so you give. But just for him, not for society.
Like a batter making a sacrifice bunt, actions for the benefit of one’s own “team” are self-interest, not altruism.
Golfer1john asks:-
“If altruism is something you do for the benefit of your group, what is it called when you do something for the benefit of one other person, without regard for what effect it may have on the group? For instance, giving money to the guy on the corner holding a sign telling of his woes. Depending on what he does with the money, it could be quite harmful to the society. You hope it won’t be, you hope he’s honest, and you feel sorry for his plight, so you give. But just for him, not for society.
Like a batter making a sacrifice bunt, actions for the benefit of one’s own “team” are self-interest, not altruism.”
This is related to asking whether it’s “selfish genes” or “altruism genes” that make us blush. It maybe self-defense and therefore selfish that we do it but it can also be viewed as serving the common purpose in the sense that it’s usually caused by breaking your society’s rules or conventions. It’s also an indicator to both ourselves and others that the “wrong call” was made.
I think you hit on an important insight when you say:
“Not only does [the MMT message] remove the divisive and false choices the limited dollar argument foists upon society, denying the selfish-gene one its most effective and clever gambits, it places the opportunity for great deeds and actions clearly in the hands of those who wish to benefit society as a whole.”
Every time I hear a politician or economist harp on “the deficit problem” (i.e., we can’t afford to…), I can almost feel the “selfish gene” triggered–for those on both sides of the issue—while, at the same time, expression of the “altruistic gene” is stifled in the face of what is presented as a competitive-scarcity “reality” (and an intensely polarized one at that).
Reading your post and seeing yesterday’s election results reminds me of a train of thought I’ve been playing with for awhile. The gist of it is that theorists and advocates should form and strengthen alliances with individuals and organizations advocating the kind of progressive policies you cite in your post.
One specific form this might take is to create one or more publications (e.g., books, e-books, articles, papers, etc.) that are, in essence, MMT-enabled progressive manifestos. As I see it, these would combine a clear, concise, easy-to-grasp yet powerful explanation of MMT and its implications for public purpose-driven spending, followed by discussion of MMT’s implications for moving forward aggressively on one or more specific progressive issue (e.g., climate change, renewable energy).
Yesterday’s election results and related polling and demographic trends suggests to me that the reactionary right is contracting as a political force in the U.S. (though it can and probably will retain the ability to obstruct, at least in the near-term). It also points to significant steps forward for progressive candidates and causes around the country. And, whatever criticisms one might have of Obama (and, yes, I have my own list, his embrace of deficit hawks being one of them), he at least seems to be an intelligent person able to learn as he moves forward, as well as a gifted orator who I suspect really does believe in some version of his “hope and change” message.
This suggests to me that the timing is good for alliance building and co-messaging by proponents of MMT and progressive issue advocates. It also makes me wonder whether such alliances have already been discussed and how those discussions have fared. My suggestion is that these kinds of initiatives be given a high priority among the community of MMT experts and advocates. I believe linking MMT directly to urgent and high profile policy issues as well as the general “deficit” debate will help clarify and strengthen it’s real-world relevance and significance. And to do so at the start of Obama’s second term seems like pretty good timing.
And one last thought related to the likelihood of corruption, which your address in your last paragraph. In addition to agreeing strongly with your final sentence, I’d also suggest that, in the Internet era, it will be easier to implement systems that are transparent and therefore harder to abuse. As they say, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
To fix a typo in my comment: In my third paragraph I was referring to “MMT theorists and advocates.”
Mitch, what you have just written here is absolutely wonderful, I think! “…linking MMT directly to urgent and high profile policy issues” is exactly what I believe will get the mainstream listening. A good example is the $40 billion dollar storm-surge barrier they’re now discussing for NY city! Also, the fact that the average U.S. college student now begins his or her career with over $26,000 in debt! These are REAL problems we could solve if we only believed we could afford the solutions.
J.D.,
I’m glad we seem to agree on this. To put my suggestion in a somewhat broader context, I’m going to repeat here part of a comment I posted the other day in response to a recent post by Joe Firestone:
I’d suggest creating a volunteer working group focused specifically on refining and expanding MMT’s set of public communication content and tools. The goal would be to more effectively get the message out to citizens, public policymakers, and advocates of progressive policies whose efforts and arguments would be strengthened by an understanding and integration of MMT principles (and, yes, maybe even some more economists).
This might include multiple subgroups (e.g., overall communication/outreach strategies; written content development/editing; audio/video content development/editing; graphics development; alliance building, etc), to reflect the range of needs and community-members’ skills and interests.
Joe’s response to my comment was: I think this is a fine idea. We need all the help we can get! I wonder what you think about it.
If both you and Joe like the idea, I’d encourage you to raise it with other NEP contributors to see how we might get some further discussion of it going. Perhaps something like this already exists within the MMT community at UMKC. If that’s the case, then it makes sense to me that we focus on finding ways that “the rest of us” out here can contribute whatever time, expertise and connections we can.
As I said in several earlier comments, I’m increasingly impressed with the amount and quality of “MMT advocacy” material being produced by some of its founding thinkers (e.g., Stephanie K on Le Show and her co-presentation at Columbia Law School with Warren Mosler), and also by folks like you, who understand enough about MMT to appreciate its broader implications and potential impacts. The time seems right to build on this foundation of MMT content and expertise in ways that clarify its implications for addressing a broad range of issues…and to do so in cooperation with those already working on those issues. My “working group” suggestion is offered as one approach that might help the NEP community focus our collective resources on making that happen.
Huh, leave genetics to the social darwinists a.k.a. far right people
They support elimination of “unfit genetic material” by economic deprivation and poverty
All these left-right battles are not about money. Money is just a cover story
For example this NAIRU doctrine, that we have to maintain some rate of unemployment. No doubt product of a hateful far-right mind. They are the most motivated people to push all kinds of doctrines.
They are not social Darwinists. That’s the problem. They are social engineers, and there are plenty on both sides of the political spectrum. There is no absolute superiority because there is no absolutely defined environment to measure fitness against. Its absurd to speak of a saguaro cactus as being superior to anything in the boreal forest. That is the reason to have market systems in the first place. I say market systems because there is no such thing as a so called free market.
I strongly agree with Mitch Shapiro’s proposal to broaden advocacy for MMT. It’s the first economic theory of money that makes sense to my ‘gut’. I think it needs expansion into regard of the areas that Warren Mosler tended to push off as ‘political’ questions in his talk. Economics and politics are not remote from each other. I haven’t the background to be much of a contributor but I can work to remedy that.
As for the discussion about E.O. Wilson’s ideas — I believe that worries about the nature of man and building theories of economics and politics on them are fun and interesting — reminds me of undergraduate philosophy discussions — but for right now I’m more concerned about the present economy, having a good job, and my children being able to find good jobs. For the future, I’m watching the North Pole to see when we have a Northwest Passage and I’m worried about what will happen to my climate in the next twenty years+ hoping to live that long. Regardless of the nature of man, the world has its own nature that is becoming more and more hostile towards our kind. So, sophomores argue on, and others can worry about the greater concerns of our economy and world.
Jeremy,
I too agree with Mitch Shapiro’s suggestions. So far as I’ve been able to determine there is no centrally “organized” group working to put together an effort like he is proposing. Closest to it seems to be Stephanie Kelton’s program at University of Missouri-Kansas City. Am not sure what’s happening at the Levy Institute. We all seem to be scattered around.
I also agree with your concerns “about the present economy, having a good job, and my children being able to find good jobs. For the future, I’m watching the North Pole to see when we have a Northwest Passage and I’m worried about what will happen to my climate in the next twenty years…” And that is the point, I think, of Mitch’s suggestion: solving climate change problems is going to require the federal government to spend a lot of dollars; spending those dollars will create a lot of very good, important and satisfying jobs. But as long as we believe that we have to “borrow” those dollars, or collect them in taxes, before we can spend them, we’ll never succeed in accomplishing what needs to be done.
As a student of both history and the psychology of groups and populations, I am deeply fascinated by this article. It seems to make almost perfect sense. When I say that, it is simply my internal reaction to an idea that fits a pattern which I have noticed, but simply can’t explain. It seems that this concept can be applied on both a macro and micro level, and, most of all, is generally optimistic for human survival, since the Altruistic gene is the dominent gene in social development. Doubters will point out folks like Hitler and Assad, but Hitler was defeated, and Assad seems certain not to succeed in the long run. Even things like climate change will, in the long run, be won by those who are listening to science, and those who are anti-science will be defeated because they are dominated by the greed gene. The only remaining question is the issue of timing. Like, will the climate change supporters win in time to save the planets environment, or will it take so long that the peril tips us over the edge to extinction? Who knows. The answer will tell us if our species actually has a genetic balance sufficient for long terms survival.