We evolved in smallish groups, and when we can act outside that tight social circle we don't feel the constraints of mores and taboos, or exhibit naturally-selected altruism. Thus we need government to regulate what would otherwise be pure selfishness. So writes George Monbiot in the Guardian, about the hypocrisy exhibited by Northern Rock's chairman, Matt Ridley.
Competing visions of personal nature, from Ridley and Monbiot, both employ an evolutionary argument. Ridley used to write regularly in the Telegraph, arguing that since humans evolved to exhibit altruism, leaving them alone would allow it to occur. Therefore, don't get in the way with regulation by government.
Monbiot argues that Ridley misses the crucial point that that same evolutionary environment that called forth kin selection and altruism was small groups of hunter-gatherers. Social interaction was the main challenge, and our mores and ethics have roots there. If we can act economically at arbitrary distance from our social group, what mechanism exists to enforce social rules? Only government.
Monbiot reinforces his case with the fact of Ridley asking for government intervention to save his bank. But there is a paradox here: Wasn't it a conservative principle that people were inherently mean, selfish, and exploitative? That laws were always necessary to restrain human nature, which was unchanging? I guess in order to pursue the new conservatism all arguments are tried. So we get this:
He [Ridley] believes that modern humans are destined to behave well if left to their own devices; I believe that they are likely to behave badly.
Perhaps we should emphasize where conservatives and liberals now seem to agree--- we have an inherent, evolved character. Communism would not force our change into something else, so that was a bad idea to try. But evidence is mounting that we are not evolved for unrestrained capitalism.
Nobody can instinctively handle a billion dollars, or ten thousand employees. And no one can interact sensibly with a "family" of millions. The political unit that replaces clan becomes town, or high school, or university, or sometimes a modest business (my "clan" is a hundred musicians, an orchestra).
Maggie Thatcher disparaged talk of larger social structures by saying there was no "society", only families. She was wrong, in that while there is no cohesive nationwide society, perhaps, there is surely a congeries of local societies that blend smoothly into each other.
Any argument that says humans will always be some particular way will fail, though. It is wise, I've come to think, to acknowledge our tendencies, our evolved nature, but that is not the same as justifying rapacious commerce because of "Nature, red in tooth and claw." Our natures can equally be used to justify communitarian approaches, an a small scale---remember the kibbutzim?
As we grow more consious of our nature, we can begin to choose what works, as we decide what "working" means.
