The Scientific Shortfalls of Capitalism: An Empathetic Look at Offensive Realism in Society

Recently I have been having long periods of extended thought which come of a small observation I make, and snowball into tangential analyses about this and that subject which by the end really do not relate to the topic at hand. As I was reading Joseph Figura's post about the inability to question the morality of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, http://joeais.blogspot.com/2011/09/morality-of-consumption.html, I started to think about whether or not the basic assumptions of capitalism can remain valid. Having read a large amount of basic capitalist literature, I can surmise that all of the arguments in favor of a "free trade fixes all" type model really boil down to two basic tenants:

The human drive for a "free" capitalist system is one that is based in a framework of inevitable greed and biological competition based on instinct

At first, I feel compelled to believe that biologically we are wired to fight offensively against each other in order to gain an upper hand, from what the institutions that have previously developed our knowledge base always said was that natural selection is the rule of the law in relation to evolution. The problem with this theory is that the reasoning is completely circumstantial and not truly based in science, just a hypothesis never actually tested (although logically it does make sense - the logic being based on what we have been told by other inoculated beings). Up until this point, I felt trapped within the system, a single mind within 6 billion that understood that the current system where the rich are allowed free rain to push the poor through the gutter, disabling my prerogative to act in opposition to it. It just felt overwhelming. 

My friend Alex showed me this video, it is a scientific study done by the Royal Society for the Arts that highlights an assumption that people make about biological realism is inherently flawed. We are actually hardwired to be empathic, and understanding towards each other, and that a cosmopolitan and connected society are actually the next step in the development of society.

This came as a surprise to me.

I used to believe the stories I was told about the harsh and cold nature of evolution, but now that I have some evidence for comparison I see it as a slightly more subject theory. To somewhat tie it back to the original idea, I do think that good actions are somewhat not morally corrupt, but to assume that capitalism when used correctly cannot be questioned allows a slightly higher threshold for disagreement, I would encourage anyone who would like to contribute thoughts to this post to comment, as I am going to be writing about capitalism on a regular basis. I am sure of this.