Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!clarke From: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Nationalization/Crown Corps. Message-ID: <1230@utcsri.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 16:56:53 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsri.1230 Posted: Fri Jul 5 16:56:53 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 17:27:07 EDT References: <1121@ubc-cs.UUCP> <1110@mnetor.UUCP> <1229@utcsri.UUCP> <1188@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) Distribution: can Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 34 Summary: In article <1188@mnetor.UUCP> fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) writes: >In article <1229@utcsri.UUCP> clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) writes: >> >>The problem is that "survival of the fittest" doesn't mean anything, as >>Bishop Wilberforce pointed out some time ago. >> > It was I who posted the article applying the term "survival of the >fittest" to companies. Oops... sorry if I've been confusing two of you. I ought to read names more carefully. Never mind, in the socialist paradise to come, no one will have a name of his/her own. (Or is that Bill Bennett who wants to do that? :-)) > Allow me to admit that I've no recollection of >a Bishop Wilberforce. Nevertheless, I stand by my original concept. >"fittest" in this context is some combination of productivity, service > economy of price, etc. It will no doubt vary from product to > product and defy description, but the final judge is the customer! > If the company is fit, it makes sales! If it makes sales and > manages to avoid doing anything really stupid, it survives. Hence > the conclusion. Bishop Wilberforce was the one who got laughed out of court by Thomas Huxley in the debates over evolution. Your paragraph above illustrates why "survival of the fittest" means nothing: "fittest" for what? Why, for survival, of course! The phrase is a tautology. What's more, the application from evolution is to species, not to individuals. The distinction is crucial. Please note that I am not claiming private firms are not more efficient than government-run organizations. I just think that this particular biological analogy has such an unfortunate history that it should be kept out of social and economic discussions.