Human "Commensalism"

Many animals and plants live in what is called a "commensal" fashion. This is to say that some of them feed or otherwise gain benefits from the activities of others without depriving these of anything at all. Commensalism is, thus, distinguished from parasitism, whereby some animals feed off the bodies of others, thus depriving these others of something valuable.

A form of commensalism is evident in the market place, as when the establishment of one business gives rise to other, adjacent ones that take nothing from the first. Perhaps the best example is concessionaires at sports and entertainment events. Also, if some big firm opens a plant in a neighborhood, other, smaller, firms often start up around it. Nothing is taken from the big firm in the process.

This commensal relationship may be an alternative to what many see as a the allegedly zero sum relationship of the market place, whereby the gain of some must involve the loss of others. Indeed, a great many people see the market place as a kind of boxing ring so that for one to win another must lose. In fact, the market place is much more akin to an endless marathon race in which there is a long span of often changing positions, with some even attaching themselves to others, we might say "commensally," so as to follow the right pace at which to proceed or to shield oneself from head wind.

Maybe even the public goods problem can be understood a bit better by analogy to commensalism. If some folks pay for a service from which others can benefit, if the former were motivated to do so before others, these others can benefit without the former abandoning their pursuits. Thus if it is of value to me to give to a charity, others could just lay back, refusing to contribute or contribute as much as I do. Or in purchasing some goods or services, there is often what people call the free rider problem, namely, that others will gain from my investment. In the case of radio broadcasts by what are called listener supported stations, this is supposed to be the problem. Yet, in fact, I can and often do support such projects, knowing full well that others will benefit and that I could without making any contribution if they gave their support. But the value I gain is great enough for me not to care much about the fact that others, too, will benefit from my obtaining it. And this seems to be a widespread approach, nothing idiosyncratic.

The public goods and free rider problems seem to me to arise from a misconception of human motivation. It assumes that everyone is focused completely, exclusively on wringing every penny out of an opportunity, even if this obsessive pursuit kills of the chances of reaching the initial goal one was pursuing.

I don't know what to call this idea-homo economicus seems not to cover it since it is so self-defeating – but there are some people who fit the picture. Certainly not everyone does, however. Most folks do not mind commensal relationships so they do not feel the need to attempt to cash in on every benefit they confer upon others, so long as they do gain those benefits they had in mind to obtain in the first place. Good looking women might collect from men ogling them but don't. Architects might charge the members of a community for the beauty they confer upon a neighborhood but they do not.

It seems that the commensalism we find in the wild has an imperfect but useful version in society. We can, though because of certain human attributes such as jealousy and envy not shared with other animals, enjoy benefits from what others do even if indirectly, by piggy backing on their efforts and gaining opportunities in the meanwhile. But by failing to consider this as one of the ways human beings make out in a free society, there is a lot of nonsense going around about exploitation and free riding, casting aspersions on the market place instead of recognizing its superiority to alternative ways of organizing human economic affairs.

Underlying the suspicion of the market place is the view that only those human relations are worthwhile that have as their motivation to benefit others. If I merely benefit others inadvertently, indirectly, that is not good enough.

There may be something to this when it comes to close relationships, friendship, familial bonds and so forth. I am supposed to want to help my friends, not just accidentally benefit them.

Some people, however, have argued throughout human intellectual history that we owe it to everyone to help them. Some contemporary philosophers even argue that each Westerner owes at least 30% of his wealth to people in the Third World, as a matter of enforceable duty. Occasional generosity is insufficient.

But that is wrong. No one is responsible to help everyone, especially total strangers, except perhaps in clear cut emergencies. Even then one can have projects of one's own that trump such a duty of emergency. The idea that the human race is some kind of extended family and we must suffer when anyone suffers and help when anyone is in need implies that our energies may be sapped endlessly and that our own lives aren't as worthy as are those of others.

Fortunately, the old invisible hand of Adam Smith, the free market place, makes much of this consternation about helping people moot. We do it even when we do not think about it. The world of commerce, as of most other things, is not a zero sum arena.

May 8, 2000

Tibor Machan is Distinguished Fellow and Professor, Leatherby Center for Entrepreneurship & Business Ethics, Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University, and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.