Buckminster Fuller has a few theories. He rambles a lot with sentences that continue on for paragraphs, and he's got this very interesting perspective of the world-- not unlike an academic. The essential thesis behind Chapter 6 entitled “World Game” of his book, Critical Path, is this supposition that reads almost like a conspiracy theory regarding people in power. The basic premise is that he believes that the reason rich people are greedy is because they were influenced by Thomas Malthus and the theory of over-population (basically Malthus was an economist that in the early 1800's made a projection that based on the population growth vs. food production humanity would run out of food). Then Darwin, as someone influenced by Malthus, proceeded to talk about the evolutionary "fitness" and "survival of the fittest", and these ideas are somehow the reason current humanity (I would assume we're mostly talking about the west) has set up an economic system that is based on keeping the strong in power. With the basic assumption: Darwin’s theory of the “survival of the fittest” plus Malthus’ theory of scarcity-- people have set up a system that favors the strong without a conscience for the weak.
Fuller, being an idealist and a humanist, is concerned that these theories have steered humanity in the wrong direction. He is also arguing that due to these theories, the concept of wealth (i.e. resources, labor, or intelligence) is now separated from monetary economy due to things like the stock exchange-- where people make money without actually adding value to the economy and are thus only harboring and depleting society’s real wealth. This means much of the market systems and economic systems are artificial and a means of stealing and controlling the population by the elite.
I find this an interesting theory on so many levels. I seems pretty apparent that the rich and powerful want to stay that way. It also seems pretty apparent that wealth distribution is often unjust. I also adamantly agree that the concept of real wealth has been abstracted and divorced from monetary wealth and it is a big problem for society and for the environment. However there are a few assumptions in his argument that I question. 1. That people’s actions are significantly influenced by knowledge or scientific theory. 2. That our economic systems have become more elitist after Malthus and Darwin. 3. That people as a whole would ever even want to have power and wealth structured any other way.
My first observation is regarding the influence of Malthus and Darwin on contemporary economics. Sometimes I notice that academics and others like to think that academia and its theories have some profound affect on society. That correlation equals causality. What if that’s not true? What is most of the time the theories that most agree with popular belief or human-nature are the ones that become popularized.
On a related point, Darwin’s theories are often mis-used to affirm previously held beliefs. For example the belief that humans are constantly evolving and adapting to our changing environment. This is unrelated to what Darwin had to say. Darwin proved that creatures adapt to environmental changes in order to survive and create viable offspring. The famous example of a group of finches whose beak size changed from year to year depending on the size of the seeds that were available-- that’s micro-evolution. I’m not sure I would even call that “evolution”. It’s adaptation, sure. But the definition of evolution is that a new specie is created that cannot produce viable offspring with the previous specie. Evolution only happens when a gene pool is isolated long enough due to a physical barrier, a behavioral barrier, or mass reduction in the gene pool that would leave a subset of genes available that could produce a sufficiently different organism over time. Based on his definition, the human species has not evolved for over 200,000 years. So, to use the term "evolution" in the context of progress, technology, or just change of any sort is totally wrong. That is not what it Darwin was talking about. We could create a new term called "social evolution" and refer to it as simply... change or maybe change with a connotation of progress.
Also, I’m not as familiar with Malthus, but from what I have read of him I don't think he disagreed with the concept of progress. His essay in 1805 was simply a statement that at that point in time, if the population was to continue to grow at the same rate and the food production and resource availability was to continue to grow at the same rate, humans would run out of food/resources. I don’t think that’s such an irrational perspective, and in many ways he was actually a conservationist and environmentalist in the sense of thinking long-term and planning ahead.
My second point is simply, popular theories do not generally affect popular behavior and beliefs, rather the opposite: existing behavior and beliefs will often utilize new theories and knowledge to accurately or inaccurately self-validate. It is more likely that our current economies and social structures are based on our instincts and hierarchical social tendencies and not on what Darwin and Malthus may or may not have said. I would even argue that the concept that a theory could somehow affect how humans ultimately interact and live is some-what naive. Sure, we learn stuff, but I bet we have a lot of fundamental simplistic instinctual driving factors that actually determine the majority of our behavior most of the time.
The second point that Malthus and Darwin didn't affect society's power structure because things were actually worse before them came around... I don’t feel the need to go into at length, but suffice it to say there were rich and powerful people long before Malthus and Darwin. In fact the systems of power and wealth accumulation were much less egalitarian prior to 1800 if we think about feudal systems and monarchies. Pretty much as people started farming, and there was a notion of territory and material possession, society seemed to gravitate towards these hierarchical social structures.
Thirdly, we are naturally hierarchical. If you ask 100 people to line themselves up in terms of hierarchy, and then rate each other regarding where they think they fall in that line-- they will almost certainly be able to do both without asking very many questions around what that means. It's almost like a part of the human psyche to do this automatically all the time. Think about any group situation in your life. A classroom. A work situation. A clique. There’s usually this sense of hierarchy and you usually know where you fall in line based on attractiveness, intelligence, family reputation, wealth, “coolness”, etc.. We are a social animal, and like any pack mammal we like knowing where we stand-- and we also like having “a leader”. Without going on too much of a tangent, I’ve always wondered, ‘why do we even have “a president”. Almost every country of any size that I can think of has that one head figure and the role to a large extent is symbolic. Why can’t we have several people in charge? Why can’t we have everything run by a committee with maybe majority vote. Also, I always found it odd how we go about electing presidents. We gauge a leader on things like.. likability. Charm. Demeanor. “Oh, I didn’t like this president he was too stiff. ..She wasn’t decisive enough... He was too awkward, I couldn’t relate to him.” We sound like we’re picking out a new pet or a date to the prom. Shouldn’t qualities of a leader be: ability to make a good decision in the best interest of the common good? What does their stage presence have to do with it? Maybe I’m missing something.
Once in college I was talking with a young-woman who was my peer and one of the things she said really struck me. She said that in society there have to be poor people and rich people because that is just the way things are. I found that ridiculous because... any statement that ends with “that’s just how things are” is suspicious. However, she was completely right. That is exactly how we structure our society. The statement was ultimately profound-- except what she mean to say was: ‘that is how it is because that is how we are.’
We cannot live on principles and theories alone... reality is complex full of extenuating circumstance and detail. Malthus' point is correct--there are limitations to resources, time, energy, and food. These limitations may be reduced, but because we are living on a physical and finite planet, there will always ultimately be a limit to the life-sustaining resources we all utilize. Also, Buckminster is right. If we learn to be more efficient and use technology we can extend our resources much farther and bring a higher standard of living to a greater number of people. This is one of the fundamental environmentalists quandaries... are there too many people on the planet? or are we not using resources efficiently? Finally people are starting to say BOTH!! BOTH!! we need fewer people AND more efficient use of resources!!
