>It is precisely as a biologist that I use a class analysis. The point is
not
>the survival of the individual but the survival of the species. Capitalism
>selects the wrong folks.
I'm not sure we'd have much evidence for the notion that the spawn of the
successful acquisitive capitalist is genetically any the worse for its
origins. Mum and Dad were, like the rest of us, primarily the way they were
because of the relations in which they developed (rather than their genes).
And, even if that were not so, isn't it true that most of the world's
better-off have fewer offspring than their poorer countrparts?
Individualist acquisitiveness is effectively selected against because the
having of children represents a significant opportunity cost to homo
economicus, eh?
What's more, isn't the difference so profound that even the staggering
mortality rates among most 'undeveloped' communities are not enough to wipe
out that difference? I mean, you only have to live to see thirty-five to
rear a few live 'uns, eh? So I'd need a bit of convincing about this strain
of class-based biology.
That said, the few who do issue from the loins of the rich live lives which
cost disproportionately more in terms of the world-system's matter/energy (I
seem to remember a ratio in the hundreds between the environmental cost of
one of us compared to, say, a Togoan villager or an Ethiopian peasant).
Cheers,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
