Why Societies Develop Like Embryos
Just as Driesch could break off a branch of a sea squirt and see it become an entire, independent sea squirt, Spencer says that you can divide a primitive tribe, an indigenous tribe, and both halves will become complete tribes able to operate on their own. Why? Because
each of these contains every element which the whole did—is just as self- sufficing, and quickly assumes the simple organization constituting an independent tribe.
But you can’t just arbitrarily cut in two a modern society like the one Spencer lives in, a society with cities that depend on steamships, railroads, and telegraphs that tie together global meshes of trade.
Hence, on the contrary, it happens, that in a community like our own, no part can be cut off or injured without all parts suffering.
Just as Driesch will not be able to cut the heart out of a rabbit and see that heart become a complete bunny hopping with glee, and just as the poor rabbit will not be able regrow her missing heart, a complex society cannot simply regrow its equivalent of a blood pump. Says Spencer,
Annihilate the agency employed in distributing commodities, and much of the rest would die before another distributing agency could be developed.
Cut out the supply chain of meat and vegetables to Swindon and you starve the screw maker and his family. As Spencer puts it,
Suddenly sever the manufacturing portion from the agricultural portion, and the one would expire outright, while the other would long linger in grievous distress.
Great excerpt. Just to perhaps one can say be the antithesis of Spencer, you do have Victorians who become obsessed with the idea of devolution. One example, is Hardy’s “Tess of the d’Urbervilles” where the once aristocratic d’Urbervilles have devolved to the Durbeyfield’s.
Herbert Spencer’s landmark book was named Social Statics.
Get the details right if you want credibility.
http://www.amazon.com/Social-statistics-Order-abridged-revised/dp/1171907060/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344443679&sr=8-1&keywords=herbert+spencer+social+statistics
That must be the only edition ever to refer to it as “Social Statistics.” Every copy I’ve ever seen, including the original, is called “Social Statics.” Every reference I’ve seen to it in bibliographies and in authoritative works on Spencer refer to it as “Social Statics” also.
Hmm. If you Google “herbert spencer social statics” and “herbert spencer social statistics” you get pretty much the same number of responses.
But I think the authoritative one, in the Supreme Court decision Lochner v. New York, uses “statics.” (The court would be careful to cite its sources carefully.)
I wonder if our word “statistics” did not evolve from “statics”. Anyone know?
You don’t get the same number of results; you get at least 6 or 7 times more for “Social Statics.”
That said, I now see that “Social Statistics” has been used in reputable publications.
You just explained how SHTF won’t work. Another pernicious myth bites the dust, but I’m sorta glad for it……….