Predation vs. Parasitism

I recently attended a political event where a guest speaker was talking about how we can restore the republic.  He made a distinction between a republic and a democracy in that a republic was to include certain moral restraints.  On this subject I would agree on the importance of voters being guided by moral and ethical values.  On other subjects I would disagree with the speaker.  He seemed to be advocating a form of government in which atheists and gays would be treated as second class citizens.  I'm also skeptical of his idea that abolishing property tax on the basis that it violates the Mosaic prohibition against theft is an idea that is likely to bring about consensus on how people ought to be governed.

The main part of his speech that I want to explore in more detail is an idea he presented that democracy, unguided by moral restraint, is what happens when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.  I'm sure that this idea did not originate with this speaker.  I believe that I have heard it before.  But for some reason I thought about this idea in more detail this time.  I've come to the conclusion that while it may have a valid point behind it, it is mistaken in the form given.  Democracy would tend to decrease predation.  The danger lies with parasitism.  There are subtle distinctions between parasitism and predation which I would like to explore in this post.

A predator seeks out its prey, chases it down, catches it and violently takes nourishment from its body.  Often predation involves killing the prey.  However, it sometime happens that the predator only removes part of the body of the prey and that the prey can still survive after the removal of that part.  In contrast with parasitism the parasite is usually much smaller than the host.  The parasite attempts to enter into the body of the host surreptitiously, without arousing the host's attention or even awareness.  The predator is usually larger than the prey.  The parasite is usually much smaller.

The reason why the speaker's characterization of democracy is inaccurate is because democracy would easily solve the problem of predation.  In order for a population of predators to feed on a population of prey, the prey must greatly outnumber the predators.  Thus in any democracy that would allow wolves and sheep to vote, the sheep would greatly outnumber the wolves.  Hence predation would be illegal.

In contrast parasitism is quite viable under democracy.  Being much smaller than their hosts, the parasites can easily outnumber them.  Hence if sheep and some form of parasitic worm that feeds on them can vote, the worms can easily outvote the sheep and keep their activities legal.

Analysis of the comparative effects of parasitism and predation will reveal that over time parasites evolve to have simpler central nervous systems over time.  That is, they will tend to become less intelligent.  The small parasites latch on to a larger host and draw nutrients from it.  Complex computation is not necessary for their daily lives.  Hence a large brain is an unnecessary expense, and they no longer go to the trouble of growing it.  More accurately this is an evolutionary process.  Those parasites that invest less in growing a brain tend to survive and reproduce better than their more intelligent conspecifics.