The desire to obtain material wealth. How is this trait rooted in evolution?

You have to keep in mind that evolution doesn't have some goal. It just works on the basis that those who are more fit to survive, will. So the ones who have more ambition and drive are the ones who are going to be more prepared in times of famine or want. Evolution doesn't have a STOP button - it doesn't say "you've got enough, now you can chill out." Otherwise, why would people continue to have sex once they've had all the children they want? Those with weaker sex drives who didn't feel the urge to mate as often probably didn't pass along as many of their genes, so we we end up a species of beings that mates even when there is no reproductive value in doing so.

We've come to the point where it isn't always necessary to collect and hoard more just to survive. But if a person has a strong drive to do so, there is no reason why they would stop just because they have enough to make it for the rest of their life.

Of course, some people just enjoy the "game" of getting as much as they possibly can.

 

My understanding of it is similar to pyccku's, but I would add that a powerful force in evolution and cultural norms is sex selection. Clearly, rock stars can be ugly as, well, Mick Jagger, but still get the babes. Wealth and power attract females like youth and beauty attract males.

Evolution is stupid and mindless. It doesn't "choose" the right thing, as evidenced by the fact that the Neanderthal line completely died out. Nature's pressures don't "force evolution" to "create adaptations".

But this may not even be a part of evolution. There seems to be a camp in science that wants to define everything as stemming from evolution's influence. Some things are simply cultural, and the absence of accumulation of wealth in the animal world is a powerful bit of evidence that the "ownership urge" may not be tied to evolution at all. It probably is tied to getting the babes, though.

 

There are some examples of hoarding in the animal world - some animals do collect objects (certain birds do this), cats do it, dogs do it, squirrels and chipmunks do it. So I think there is some evolutionary basis.

But there is a lot of cultural involved - there are some cultures where vast wealth is admired, but others where it is more admirable to share and give away (potlatch).

I definitely agree with the sex selection theory. But sex selection comes right back to evolution - individuals who have the qualities to get the females (wealth, power, strength, physical attractiveness) are more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation. There are many species where the basis for attractiveness is not particularly practical or useful - peacock tails, for example - but that is what has been selected for by the species.

Sex selection characteristics can and do change over time. In humans, a good mate thousands of years ago may have been someone who was a little plump and able to resist famine, and someone who was physically strong. Now, plumpness is not seen as such a virtue, and intelligence can make up for a lack of physical strength. We've also attached attractiveness to the ownership of certain bits of paper, even though in nature they are pretty useless! Try buying your way out of a grizzly bear attack, or off the top of a mountain once you've fallen and broken your leg! Wealth may be a benefit in some situations, but not all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(pyccku @ Oct 7 2007, 04:38 AM) [snapback]522398[/snapback]</div>

I have never considered short-term sex selection choices as being part of evolution; certainly there's no evidence our desire for thinness has resulted in thin people (quite the opposite, in fact). If cultural pressures resulted in only thin people getting married and reproducing would any genetic predisposition to thinness be strengthened in the general population? It seems reasonable, but I don't think it would happen due to the enormous variation in our genetic make up. The "good breeding" efforts of the last century failed because the intellectuals pushing for forced sterilization of imbeciles didn't know that smart people could have dumb children (a fact they could have found by simply asking their parents).

Short term environmental pressures can have an effect in isolated populations ... sickle cell anemia is an example ... but I don't see a real case being made for the desire to accumulate wealth as part of our evolutionary make up. You are right about birds; I do remember hearing that magpies will collect some shiny objects to curry favor with a mate. But I think that they stop hoarding at a set number; I'll have to look it up and see. Man tends to be driven to accumulate much more than necessary. Why would Larry Ellison or Bill Gates continue to work to amass wealth when they cannot possibly spend what they have?

 

No, I don't think that thinness has led to short-term changes. But a selection for plumpness HAS occurred in more than one population. Look at the Pima Indians - their bodies have adapted to a certain diet over many years, now that the traditional diet has been set aside for more American customs, they are facing alarming rates of obesity and diabetes.

Sickle-cell anemia is an interesting example, as there is a benefit to having it. It confers a certain level of immunity to malaria. Malaria is a bigger problem as far as reproduction is concerned, as it can easily kill children before they live to the age of reproduction. Sickle cell anemia can be fatal, but usually not until later years - well past the age of reproduction. So in areas where malaria is an issue, as far as the genes are concerned, it's better to have sickle-cell anemia and a resistance to malaria than no SCA and no resistance to malaria.

I think the urge to hoard past what is "reasonable" is just a continuation of the drive to acquire - people who have that sort of ambition will continue to amass wealth so long as it is a challenge to them, or they will get to the point where wealth will continue to amass in spite of their actions. It doesn't really matter what Bill Gates does at this point, his wealth will continue to grow with or without him. He's been giving it away now for a while, so I don't think it's necessarily ambition in his case. It really isn't a challenge to amass more, but he's still an ambitious sort of person - so now he'll just turn his ambition toward another direction.

 

I think accumulation of material wealth has more to do with the ideals of capitalism than anything Darwin may have thought. Humanity is hardly the pinnacle - indeed, if evolution by natural selection works as proposed, then we're on our way out. It's not about being the biggest, meanest, or most heavily armed. It's about surviving by finding the best 'fit'. Living highest off the hog is quite the opposite, and will only hasten our ultimate demise as a species.

 

I think excessive greed is an obsessive compulsive illness.
Its condoned and even admired in our society,but that doesnt mean its not unhealthy .
Is it programed by evolution?
It probably is a matter of survival of the fittest .
But then again, maybe psycho killers and child molesters also have evolutionary survival programming.