A curious idea espoused by Gregory Clark in his book A Farewell to Alms is the Darwinian idea of “Survival of the Richest”. He quotes Charles Darwin’s statement in The Descent of Man: “Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high position through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication,” and Clark argues that the struggle that shaped human nature continued right up to 1800.
Clark’s argument is that in England between the years 1250 and 1800 AD, there was a correlation between economic success and reproductive success; in other words, wealthier people had more children than poorer people. He says that this created a downwardly mobile society, and this in turn resulted in the diffusion of middle-class values and economic orientation throughout English society, creating the necessary cultural conditions for the Industrial Revolution.
Clark’s theories about fertility rates may or may not be right, but in my opinion he has effected a glaring misinterpretation of Darwinian theory. The “survival of the fittest” is a scientific theory relating to genetic changes which occur over very long periods of time, and not to behavioural changes which might occur over the course of a few lifetimes. It is nonsense to call a minor generational cultural change “natural selection”, and indeed it is offensive to suggest that the positive cultural values which lead to prosperity are genetically determined.