Who has not heard of Charles Darwins (18091882) fateful doctrine of survival of the fittest? It is often emphasised that this dogma should not be understood as the survival of the fittest or most intelligent, but of the most adapted. <\/p>\n
Many are convinced that todays biology would be unthinkable without Darwins theory of evolution. Nevertheless, after more than 150 years of Darwinism, we should recognise this: transferring Darwinism as an essential attitude into the economy, management theories, politics and indeed into human life as a whole, was fatal and catastrophic. <\/p>\n
Darwins work, nature and evolution theories received acclaim as ground-breaking. But as a racist, he believed there were inferior and superior races of humans. <\/p>\n
He thought women were necessary for reproduction, but attributed intelligence, innovation and creativity only to men, as a man attains a higher eminence in whatever he takes up than a woman can attain. <\/p>\n
Another of Darwins fallacies was his belief that organisms can pass on characteristics which they have acquired in the course of their lives. Or that inheritance always runs vertically along the line of descent, i.e., from one generation to the next. <\/p>\n
In the age of genetics, scientists have discovered that Darwins idea of the family tree of life is wrong. Evolution cannot be depicted as a tree, but at best, as a complex network. <\/p>\n
Research has since established among countless other contradictions that Darwin, as a sexist, ignored the importance of female strategies or lust in sexual processes and overestimated beauty as a driving force in mate choice. This one-dimensional view meant Darwin preferred to sweep animal behaviour outside his preferences under the carpet. <\/p>\n
One of the fundamental theories in business is that competition stimulates business. In a healthy context, this is undoubtedly often the case. However, todays understanding of competition has long since followed the Darwinian survival of the fittest. It is disastrous that Darwins theories declared war a permanent state in nature and thus the standard model. This is utter nonsense. <\/p>\n
You must be the fittest because only then will you survive; only then will you prevail. The others, well, they wont make it; theyll be defeated, ousted, destroyed, disappear from the market and theyre out of luck. Its not enough to be committed and fit. You must be the fittest, the strongest and the best of all at the top of the pyramid. Only then will life give you a right to exist. The end justifies all means in the arduous struggle for survival. <\/p>\n
Darwins theory is hazardous because it destroys the foundations of human life and its dignity. It leads to an entirely false understanding of human power and ruinous behaviour. <\/p>\n
We are experiencing the extreme effects of Darwins theory more frequently in the digitalised business world. We see aggressive, almost belligerent disruptors appearing virtually out of nowhere, dominating new markets quickly, or driving long-established top dogs to ruin with radical business models without industry experience. <\/p>\n
The attractiveness of a digital platform increases with the number of users. Once there is a significant number of users, the platform becomes increasingly attractive for users due to the so-called network effect of neoclassical economics. There is then hardly any room left for potential competitors to gain a foothold with an alternative offering. Not even if they were technologically better, more user-friendly, secure or otherwise more suitable and therefore, fitter. <\/p>\n
Darwins survival of the fittest increasingly culminates in a ruthless market concentration by a few globally dominant players, the winner takes it all often more powerful than sovereign states. <\/p>\n
The principle of survival of the fittest unjustifiably justifies the naturalness of brutal competition. Yet at least three irrefutable realities speak ultimately against this: <\/p>\n
Firstly, at first glance, nature may resemble a theatre of war in places. But a closer, second look shows that nature is primarily a symbiotic system! Everything is interrelated because everything is connected to everything else: Every animal and plant also influences all other species and genera. Flora and fauna do not simply compete for habitat. On the contrary, they help and support each other, ensuring balance according to the principle together we are strong. <\/p>\n
Secondly, there is also competition in nature. The stronger male defeats the rival. There is a trial of strength; there are power and territory struggles. And yes, sometimes even to the death. But it is a game with rules that uses only as much violence as necessary and as little violence as possible. <\/p>\n
We are experiencing the extreme effects of Darwins theory more frequently <\/p>\n
The superior stag does not chase the inferior one until it has killed it. He is superior; that is enough for him. The inferior deer accepts this, moves on, and develops elsewhere because there are enough alternatives and enough space. Thats the end of the matter; the conflict is over. Taking revenge, ruthlessly destroying the other, that does not exist in nature. <\/p>\n
Thirdly, Darwins dogma completely contradicts human perception. If Darwins theory were correct, then war as a normal state would be a feel-good factor. But nobody feels comfortable in war. It is not experienced as a harmonious, natural state, but as a disruption of order, destructive and terrible. <\/p>\n
The more one studies Darwinism, the more one wonders how the well-educated Charles Darwin could create his theories with so many contradictions, errors of reasoning and inconsistencies. After all, Darwinism is not coherent; it takes all kinds of twists and turns to hold on to it. <\/p>\n
The answer to this crucial question lies in his CV. He had 10 children with his wife, Emma. The great stroke of fate came in 1851 when their 10-year-old daughter Anne died of tuberculosis. All prayers and hopes for a cure were in vain. Darwin was devastated and wrote in his notes: We have lost the joy of the household and the comfort of our old age. Annes death had also heralded the end of my Christianity. <\/p>\n
Until then, the Cambridge-studied theologian had seen himself as a devout Christian, not profoundly religious, but firmly rooted in theology. <\/p>\n
From then on, Darwin quarrelled with God and could not forgive him for not saving his favourite child. As a result, in his anger towards God, he became obsessed with the idea that there must be explanations for everything in life, in the universe, without God, without a spiritual authority. This can also be seen in the biography Annies Box, which was made into a film in 2009 under the title Creation and was written by Darwins great-great-grandson Randal Keynes (1948) based on old, original records. <\/p>\n
You dont have to believe in God to see through Darwins inconsistencies. It is enough to ask yourself the question of an order in elementary conditions and the universe. Like the laws of nature, physics or the teleological argument of the watchmaker analogy, according to William Paley (17431805), which other researchers have also advocated since the time of the scientific revolution, including Sir Isaac Newton (16421726). <\/p>\n
Darwins theories are neither conclusive nor fully provable. The Darwinian theory of evolution has by no means led to a definitive understanding of the world and nature. The opposite is the case. Darwins theory does not apply to nature, nor is it suitable as a general motto for entrepreneurship and the economy. <\/p>\n
Darwins theories are not the ultimate truth, even though we are still being led to them today. <\/p>\n
They should be banned from school textbooks, just as Turkey did in 2017 and India in 2023. <\/p>\n
We must adopt a new worldview to live and let live, of together we are strong. We need a model of cooperation, an intelligent symbiosis, requiring fair rules in competition. Through millions of years of evolution, nature sets an example for us. <\/p>\n
We should move away from the fittest mania. We should discard the greed for fast money and the unrestrained maximisation of profits that ignores a lot of collateral damage. Furthermore, we should abandon excessive competitive thinking, the permanent, excessive endeavour to outdo or eliminate competitors by any means necessary. <\/p>\n
Today, the goal is not winning but achieving balance! We require a new, post-Darwinian corporate and economic culture based on a symbiotic system. This culture should focus on sustainable success, foresight, prudence and consideration, aligning with the sustainability principle: as much as necessary and as little as possible. It should aim to ensure the survival of as many as possible, ideally all. The Japanese Keiretsus mechanisms provide plenty of inspiration for this. <\/p>\n
The most incredible fact about natures symbiosis is that our planet has no declared rubbish dump. In nature, everything cycles. Nothing remains leftover; nothing is useless or worthless. Everything recycles, reutilises and reuses. <\/p>\n
The selfish survival of the fittest mentality leads the world into an abyss. Ultimately, it becomes not survival of the fittest, but victory belongs to the strongest, the most ruthless. <\/p>\n
The dominance of the winner takes it all, and shareholder value, ultimately threatens our security, freedom and prosperity. <\/p>\n
The consequences are an (economic) dictatorship, exploitation at the expense of the majority and the environment, and immense wealth only for the kleptocracy or oligarchy, the top 10,000. <\/p>\n
Edzard Reuter, CEO of Daimler-Benz from 1987 to 1995, put it perfectly in a nutshell in a 2023 interview with the German business magazine Brand Eins: Stricter rules are the only way forward. It is unbearable if companies only pursue profit maximisation without regard for employees, the environment, the climate or tax justice. <\/p>\n
Even Peter F. Drucker, the founder of modern management, understood: None of our institutions exists by itself and is an end by itself. Everyone is an organ of society and exists for the sake of society. Business is no exception. Free enterprises cannot be justified as being good for business. They can be justified only as being good for society. <\/p>\n
Reinhold M. Karner, FRSA, is an entrepreneurship and start-up evangelist, multiple chairman (e.g. AP Valletta), corporate philosopher, entrepreneur, author, university lecturer and fellowship connector of the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) for Malta and Austria. This article is a summary of a subchapter of his book Wahre Werte statt schnelles Geld (true values over fast money), published by GABAL Verlag, Germany, 2023. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Original post:<\/p>\n
Darwin's fatal competition model - Times of Malta<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Who has not heard of Charles Darwins (18091882) fateful doctrine of survival of the fittest? It is often emphasised that this dogma should not be understood as the survival of the fittest or most intelligent, but of the most adapted. Many are convinced that todays biology would be unthinkable without Darwins theory of evolution. Continue reading