Tag: cooperation

Categories
35. Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Social Systems Theory from a Cognitive and Physicalist Perspective

Introduction

The principles of evolution apply more extensively than many of us may be aware. They operate at chemical level and at the level of society, possibly even at ecosystem level as will be explained in the following sections.

Catalysis and autocatalysis

The term catalysis was proposed in 1835 by the Swedish chemist, Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779-1848). A catalyst or, as it is known in biochemistry, an enzyme is a chemical that increases the rate of a reaction between two or more raw materials without undergoing any change itself. Colliding particles from raw materials must have a minimum amount of energy to form reaction products. A catalyst provides an alternative way for the reaction to take place which uses less energy, and so, increases the probability of a reaction. Catalysts often react initially with the raw materials to form intermediate chemicals. These then react with one another to yield the reaction products, as well as regenerating the catalyst. The first known scientific use of a catalyst was in 1552 when Valerius Cordus used sulphuric acid to convert alcohol to ether (Cordus, 1575). An interesting history of catalysis can be found at (Wisniak, 2010).

A chemical reaction is autocatalytic if one of the reaction products is also a catalyst for the same reaction. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the catalyst reproduces itself. For example, the decomposition of arsine, AsH3, is catalysed by arsenic which is also a product of the reaction.

A set of chemical reactions are “collectively autocatalytic” if they produce sufficient catalysts for the same set of reactions to be self-sustaining. In other words, given sufficient energy and raw materials, the set of chemicals reproduces itself. The origin of the concept of autocatalytic sets is thought to have been the Austrian physicist, Erwin Shrödinger (1887- 1961), in his 1944 book, “What is Life” (Shrödinger, 1944). The concept was developed from this source by several researchers.

Evolution at the chemical level

In 1971, the American medical doctor, Stuart Kauffman (1939 – ) contributed the idea that autocatalytic sets formed the basis of the origin of life (Kauffman, 1971). A history of Kauffman’s work can be found at (Hordijk, 2019). Reproduction is one of the two criteria necessary for evolution to occur. The other is random mutation and natural selection. In this context, random mutation can be regarded as changes in the collectively autocatalytic set of chemicals. Some of these changes will result in autocatalysis failing. Others will allow it to continue but result in different products. Such changes would be inevitable and frequent in a disorderly chemical environment.

Autopoiesis

The term autopoiesis was first coined by the Chilean biologists, Humberto Maturana (1928 – 2021) and Francisco Varela (1946 – 2001), to describe the self-maintaining properties of living cells (Maturana & Varela, 1972). The main factor affecting the continued existence and procreation of a set of autocatalytic chemicals is the intervention of others that do not act as raw materials. Rather, they disperse the collectively autocatalytic set, thereby preventing it from functioning. Furthermore, excess energy or reactions with other chemicals can disrupt the set. Natural selection dictates that a set that maintains its integrity is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. For example, a set that produces a shell that protects it from the environment, whilst allowing the passage of raw materials, is more likely to survive and propagate than one that does not. Please hold onto the idea that it is the maintenance of integrity that is of importance here, and that a shell is merely one way of doing that. I will come back to this point later. To continue, it is likely that living cells were first established in this way and that evolution continued until it produced the highly complex ones that we know today.

Holons and holism

The term holon was coined by the Hungarian author and journalist, Arthur Koestler (1905-1983), in his 1967 book, “The Ghost in the Machine”. (Koestler, A., 1967). It describes any entity that is a whole in itself  and also a part of a larger whole. In other words, holons form a nested hierarchy. The term holism was coined by the South African statesman, Jan Smuts (1870 – 1950), in his 1926 book, “Holism and Evolution” (Smuts J., 1926). A holistic entity has features that its parts do not. In other words, it has emergent properties.

A holon is a system with inputs, processes, and outputs. Its outputs can be described as its function. Furthermore, these outputs can serve as inputs to other holons. In the causal perspective of reality, a cause transfers space, energy, matter, or information to its effect. So, the processes and outputs of one holon can be regarded as a cause, and the inputs and processes of another holon as an effect.

In human society, the outputs of a holon can be regarded as satisfiers or contra-satisfiers, i.e., external things that respectively increase or decrease the level of satisfaction of our needs. Satisfiers and contra-satisfiers can be regarded as opportunities and threats. Finally, opportunities and threats affect our ability to survive and procreate. So, people have evolved to recognise holons and to acquire or avoid their outputs.

It is thought that all holons comprise several component ones that have emerged at lower levels of complexity. It is possible, however, that there is a minimum holon at subatomic level. A certain number of components, arranged in a particular way and with particular relationships between them, are required to create a holon that has an output that is distinct from those of its components, i.e., an emergent output. It is these emergent outputs, one of which is physical appearance, that lead us to distinguish between holons, name them, and use them in causal relationships. Thus, all holons have emergent outputs, emergent functions, and are therefore holistic. That is, they not only form a nested hierarchy, but they also have their own novel or emergent outputs distinct from those of their components.

It is also thought that all holons are components of larger ones that emerge at a higher level of complexity. This seems likely but is not proven. Nevertheless, although the universe may be infinite, what people are able to perceive of it is not. So, in any circumstance that we observe, not all combinations of component holons appear to form a larger one.

In any finite circumstance, component holons can be arranged and interact with one another, even if they are insufficient in number to form a process with emergent outputs that we can perceive. I will call these orphan holons. There are very many ways in which orphan holons can interact with one another, and the number of ways increases with the number of orphans. However, human cognitive abilities are limited. We can perceive, analyse, and to a limited extent predict the interaction of a few orphans, but, as their number increases, we cannot, and the situation appears to be chaotic. At best, we can only identify recurring causal patterns, and so, have developed techniques to assist us in this.

The concepts of purpose and of an artifact

Before moving on, I would like to briefly mention the concept of “purpose”. Purpose has two meanings depending on the context. When external agents refer to the purpose of a system, then they are referring to its function, i.e., to the outputs that it produces. When a system refers to its own purpose, then it is referring to what it would like its outputs to be. These outputs can be regarded as causes, and so, the system is also referring to the effects that it wishes to cause. Clearly, in the latter context, purpose applies only to systems with agency.

I would also like to mention artifacts. Holons can be classified as artifacts, living holons, or non-living holons. They are classified by the way that they are assembled. Artifacts are non-living aids to the function of a living holon. They are assembled from a design by that holon or another. For example, we create bone to support ourselves against gravity. Physical shells or containers can also be artifacts composed of non-living material such as calcium carbonate or dead skin cells. We can, of course, create more complex artifacts such as machines or computers to assist us in production or communication. All these artifacts, when needed by a living holon to perform its function, can be regarded as a component of the living holon.

Living holons are also produced from a design but are self-assembling. Finally, non-living holons do not appear to be assembled from a design, but rather, by random events according to the laws of physics.

Lesser living holons co-operate to form greater ones

Living cells cooperate within the human body because this better enables them to survive and propagate their genome. They have evolved to behave in this way. They do not all propagate their immediate genome, of course. Only those cells involved in reproduction do so. Nevertheless, the genome that is propagated is a copy of that of the cells not involved in reproduction. It is notable that evolution is a continuing process within our bodies. For example, random mutation produces cancer cells that no longer cooperate with their peers. Furthermore, cancer cells can themselves evolve under attack from the body’s immune system to yield more resistant ones. In this context, our cells are component holons and our entire body the larger holon of which they are a part.

Our various organs are formed of relationships between cells but are not able to survive and reproduce in isolation. They are an example of specialization within a holon. The overall function of a holon can be broken down into several specialised functions. For example, circulatory systems to deliver raw chemicals to other components. Nervous systems to exercise control over other components and so on. As holons become more complex functional differentiation occurs, i.e., there are ever more sub-functions.

In a similar way organisms cooperate to form what might, generically, be called “organisations”. In the human context, examples are clubs, businesses, and nations. In the animal world, examples are packs, and herds. Again, this cooperation occurs because it better enables the organisms to survive and procreate. It is worth noting that in some of these animal cooperatives only a few individuals reproduce. For example, in ant and other insect colonies only the queen does so. Again, however, it is copies of the sterile workers’ genome that is reproduced.

So, life forms a nested hierarchy of living holons. Typically, these are cells, organisms, collectives, species, and ecosystems. These holons are autopoietic. Cells protect themselves with a membrane and individual organisms with a shell or skin. Organisations, communities, packs, and herds use less tangible measures such as patterns of behaviour, to protect themselves, however.

Multi-level selection theory

We normally understand evolution as applying to organisms because this is where it was first identified by the English biologist, Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882), in his famous book of 1859, “On the origin of species…” (Darwin, C., 1859). However, in practice, anything that is self-reproducing is subject to evolution.

The design of an entity is the information that, when it interacts with the environment, creates the physical manifestation of the entity. In the case of a cell or organism, this design is the genome. In the case of society, it is culture or the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that we hold in common in our minds. It is this design that is subject to random mutation. On the other hand, it is the physical manifestation of the entity that is subject to natural selection. That is the cell, the organism, the collective or the colony. Each living entity is a holon and autopoietic. It uses a protective shell or protective behaviour not only around itself, but also around the component holons that form it. Thus, those component holons are reliant on a nested hierarchy of protections for their survival and propagation. This is the basis of multi-level selection theory and implies that each holon has an interest in the survival and propagation of the greater holons of which it is a part. So, human beings for example, will have an interest in the survival and propagation not only of themselves but also of their family, any organisation of which they are a part, their nation, their species, and their ecosystem, albeit an interest that diminishes with distance.

Human social systems

The German sociologist Niklas Luhmann (1927 – 1998) was prominent in the development of social systems theory. However, his views on autopoiesis in human society are highly controversial. This is because social systems are like abstract entities whilst cells and organisms are concrete ones. The former differ from the latter in that their components are distributed in space and time, and so, cannot be protected by a single shell that encloses a region of space-time. For example, an individual is part of an organisation for as long as he is attending to that organisation’s function, even if working from home.

Nevertheless, organisations are not dissimilar to organisms in that they comprise several distinct components. The only difference is that, in an organism, many cells are in physical contact with one another. Others, more remote from one another, communicate via the nervous system, via chemical signals in the bloodstream, or via another other such channel. The components of an organisation are less in physical contact with one another, although we do gather together in offices and other workplaces. Rather, communication between remote components predominates. Autopoiesis is still necessary to maintain the integrity of an organisation but a physical shell is not possible. Rather, we use a range of protective behaviours that Luhmann referred to as operational closure.

Luhmann’s theory has been described as a theory of communication, and it has been said that an organisation comprises solely information. However, this is not correct. Information is physical in nature and held in the minds of people, books and other documents, computer memory chips, and so on. Thus, information cannot form part of an organisation unless the medium that holds it does too. So, an organisation comprises: the organisms that form it for so long as they are engaged in its function; the information they hold; communications between them; and any non-living artifacts necessary for the organisation to function.

Protection from the environment is still necessary. However, it is the member organisms, their ancillaries and their communications that are protected. In part this may be by a physical shell such as an office building. However, in the main, it is by less tangible but nonetheless physical protective processes, such as the encryption or provision of safe channels for information.

Conclusions

  1. Holons are holistic and are defined by their function or outputs.
  2. A minimum level of complexity is necessary for a greater holon to emerge from an arrangement of lesser ones.
  3. Holons can be classified as non-living, living, or artifacts. In each class members are assembled differently.
  4. Co-operation to acquire common satisfiers and avoid common contra-satisfiers creates a nested hierarchy of living holons.
  5. Holons comprise a number of component holons that are arranged and interact in a way that produces outputs that their components cannot, i.e., emergent outputs.
  6. People can only perceive a finite part of the universe, and so, not all holons appear to be part of a larger one. In any observed situation, there may therefore be orphan holons with causal relationships between them. As the number of orphans increases the interaction between them becomes increasingly complex and difficult for us to understand.
  7. Evolution is a fundamental principle of all self-replicating systems from autocatalysis upwards. It comprises random mutation in the design information for a living holon together with multilevel selection in the nested hierarchy on which the holon depends.
  8. Autopoiesis can be explained by the principles of evolution. However, rather than always being a shell that encloses a region of space-time, it comprises whatever maintains the integrity of the living holon and protects it from contra-satisfiers in the environment.
  9. Social systems such as organisations are living holons. They are self-replicating in the sense that their cultures can be observed and copied. They are also subject to evolution, in that successful cultures propagate whilst unsuccessful ones expire. They exhibit emergent properties in the form of their outputs which can only be produced once there is a sufficient level of complexity among their components. Finally, they are autopoietic in the sense that they have measures to protect their integrity from the environment whilst allowing their necessary inputs to pass.

References

Berzelius, J.J., 1835. “Sur un Force Jusqu’ici Peu Remarquée qui est Probablement Active Dans la Formation des Composés Organiques”. Section on Vegetable Chemistry, Jahres-Bericht, 14 (1835).

Cordus, V., 1575. “Le Guidon des Apotiquaires: C’est à dire, la Vraye Forme et Maniere de Composer les Médicamens”. L. Cloquemin, E. Michel, Lyons, 1575.

Darwin, C., 1859. “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. London, John Murray, 1859.

Hordijk, W. 2019. “A History of Autocatalytic Sets”. Biol Theory 14, 224–246 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-019-00330-w

Kauffman, S.A., 1971. “Cellular homeostasis, epigenesis and replication in randomly aggregated macromolecular systems.” J Cybern 1(1):71–96.

Koestler, A., 1967. “The Ghost in the Machine”. London, Hutchinson (Penguin Group). ISBN 0-14-019192-5.

Maturana, H.R. & Varela, F.J., 1972. “Autopoiesis and cognition: the realization of the living.” Boston studies in the philosophy and history of science (1 ed.). Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 141. OCLC 989554341.

Smuts, J.C., 1926. “Holism and Evolution”. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Wisniak, J., 2010. “The History of Catalysis. From the Beginning to Nobel Prizes”. Educación Química, Volume 21, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 60-69. ISSN 0187-893X, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0187-893X(18)30074-0. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0187893X18300740)

Categories
32. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 1)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective

This article generalizes the principles of biological evolution so that their broader application can be seen more clearly, particularly in the context of human society and cultural evolution. I will begin with the definition of some general terms, then use these terms to describe general evolutionary principles.

Definitions

A living holon is any organism, any group of organisms, or any group of groups that work together with a common purpose. Human holons are a subset of living holons. They include individual people and organisations of all types from clubs, through businesses and nations, to the global community.

The principles of evolution apply to living things such as bacteria, trees, and people, and some of their artifacts such as factories and computers. They do not apply to other non-living things. This is because living things and their artifacts are derived from a design which can change. Other non-living things, such as planets, rocks, etc. may be derived from a design, but it does not change.

The design of something comprises the information necessary to create the physical manifestation of that thing. Thus, the genome of an organism can be regarded as its design and the phenotype as its physical manifestation.

Culture includes the values, norms, knowledge, and beliefs that govern the behaviour of a living holon. So, the culture of a living holon can be regarded as its design, and the set of behaviours or society of that living holon as its physical manifestation.

The genome of an organism and the culture of a living holon are passed on from generation to generation. Both are also subject to evolutionary change. Randon mutation can occur in the genome due to the influences of viruses, radiation, copying errors, and so on. Random mutations can also occur in culture due to new norms, values, knowledge, ideas, and beliefs.

Satisfiers are those external things that increase the level of satisfaction of the needs of a living holon. Contra-satisfiers, on the other hand, reduce that level of satisfaction. All living holons are motivated to acquire satisfiers and avoid contra-satisfiers. Random mutations in the genome or in the culture of a living holon make it either more or less able to acquire satisfiers or avoid contra-satisfiers.

The status of a satisfier or contra-satisfier can be any one of the following: absent; latent, i.e., promised or threatened; precarious, i.e., present but not necessarily so in the future; or entrenched, i.e., present and likely to remain so. This discussion concerns satisfiers and contra-satisfiers that are precarious or entrenched.

The principles of evolution apply to populations of living holons in the following ways.

Evolution under the effect of contra-satisfiers.

When a contra-satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population of living holons, then those most able to avoid it are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. This ability to avoid the contra-satisfier stems from the design of the holon, i.e., its genome or culture. Thus, genetic or cultural attributes that enable avoidance of the contra-satisfier are selected for, and the proportion of those better able to avoid it steadily increases. Advantageous genes or ideas will propagate through the population and disadvantageous ones will expire.

Evolution under the effect of shortages of satisfiers.

When a shortage of a satisfier that impacts on a living holon’s ability to survive and procreate is applied to a population, then those best able to acquire the satisfier are more likely to survive and procreate than those least able. Again, through natural selection, the proportion of those better able to acquire the satisfier steadily increases.

The evolution of cooperation.

Although this is not always the case, one way of becoming better able to acquire a satisfier is to form a co-operative group, and thus, a shortage of satisfiers can also lead to the evolution of cooperation. By acting together, it may be possible for more than one holon to acquire a mutual satisfier or avoid a mutual contra-satisfier from the environment. When the members of a holon act together in this way, they exchange satisfiers with the holon’s control component or leader. This often takes the form of information flowing upwards and instructions flowing downwards. It is also possible, but not necessarily so, for them to exchange satisfiers with one another. In this way, a cooperative group, and thus, a higher-level holon is formed which follows the same general laws as the original holons. Thus, the higher-level holon can act cooperatively with others to form yet higher-level ones. If holons benefit more, in terms of their survival and procreation, by acting together rather than independently, then the former are more likely to survive and procreate than the latter. So, the genetic or cultural attributes which lead to cooperation will steadily propagate through the population over time.

However, cooperation will of course fail if it does not lead to the desired result.

We tend to focus on our failures, and this obscures the fact that human beings are extraordinarily cooperative. Were this not the case then our societies which comprise millions of people, and sometimes even billions, would collapse.

This is the basis of multi-level selection theory, i.e., the survival and procreation of an organism depends on the survival of cooperative groups or holons to which it belongs. Furthermore, multi-level selection theory applies not only to individual organisms but also to higher level holons. The survival of any higher level holon also depends on the survival of yet higher level ones to which it belongs. Such holons are formed by their culture, and so, multi-level selection theory also applies to cultural evolution.

The existence of leaders with dark personality traits can also be explained by this process. The lower the level of a holon the more it contributes to the survival of the organisms that comprise it. Leaders with dark traits may be perceived as beneficial to the survival of that holon, and thus, the organisms that comprise it, even this is at the expense of potentially higher level holons. However, evolution cannot predict the future and the highest level holon, humanity, is now at risk from dark leaders. So, such leadership must not be allowed to continue if we are to survive.

Competitive co-evolution.

It is possible for two populations of living holons to compete to acquire the same satisfier or  avoid the same contra-satisfier. In this case, both populations evolve to become ever more capable. Ultimately, one may succeed and the other may expire. But until that time, neither fully succeeds because of the evolution of the other, and ongoing evolution causes the two to become ever more specialised.

As in the case of predation, where two populations A and B are involved, it is also possible for A to provide B with a contra-satisfier and for B to provide A with a satisfier. In other words, what may be a satisfier for one may be a contra-satisfier for the other. Evolution will result in population A becoming better able to acquire the satisfier and population B becoming better able to avoid the contra-satisfier.

Finally, as in the case of conflict, it is possible for the two populations of living holons to deliver contra-satisfiers to one another. Evolution will result in both being better able to deliver them, but also in being better able to avoid them. Ultimately, however, one party is likely to prevail and the other to expire.

Cooperative co-evolution.

Cooperation comprises the exchange of satisfiers between two parties. If the two parties have different functions, and the receipt of a satisfier from the other party affects their ability to survive and procreate, then cooperative co-evolution will occur. Genetic or cultural traits that better enable one party to acquire the satisfier from the other will propagate through the population. Genetic or cultural traits that enable one party to deliver the satisfier to the other more efficiently, i.e., using fewer resources, will also propagate through the population. Over time, this can result in both parties becoming highly specialised and dependent on one another.

Categories
27. How Cooperation Can Fail (Part 2)

How Cooperation Can Fail Part 2

A colleague in LinkedIn has posted the following comment on my previous article: “Co-operation fails when the demands of the goal are put ahead of the needs of the relationships involved in the cooperative”. Although this comment uses different language to mine, I agree with it, and my reasons are given in this article. The comment also has some interesting implications that I will also explore here: why the needs of cooperative groups are so similar to the needs of individuals, and how cooperation can become coercion.

My explanation begins with cognitive physicalist philosophy, one of the key principles of social systems theory. The cognitive component of this philosophy holds that the universe is infinitely complex, but our minds are not. Therefore, to understand the universe we are obliged to mentally represent it in a simplified way. One of the ways we do this is by using holons. These are things whose structure we recognise due to its recurrence. Holons enable us to recognise threats and opportunities from experience or from knowledge passed on by others. We respond to holons in a way conducive to our survival and procreation, and so our ability to recognise them has an evolutionary source.

The physicalist component of cognitive physicalist philosophy holds that everything is physical, and nothing metaphysical. In other words, everything comprises matter or energy in space-time, and there is nothing other than that. If we also accept Einstein’s proposition that matter is organised energy, then this simplifies, yet further, to the premise that everything is energy in space-time.

There are two outputs from this philosophy of significance for social systems theory.

Firstly, information is physical in nature. It exists at source, i.e., in the original physical thing that we are thinking of or communicating about. Information at source is the structure or organisation that we recognise in that thing. Information at source can be translated into a simplified form capable of being held in and manipulated by our minds. This simplified form can be an icon or image, or it can be a symbol or word. This icon or symbol is also organised matter or energy that represents a holon in the physical universe. We can also create external representations of these internal ones in the form of drawings, words, etc. This enables us to communicate information to others. Both translations are fraught with difficulties, of course, but I will not expand on that here.

Secondly, even abstract things such as relationships and characteristics are physical in nature, rather than metaphysical. For example, a characteristic is the aggregate of all physical things that can be said to have it. Justice, for example, is the aggregate of all just acts. To cite another example, a relationship between two things is the aggregate of those two things. It exists only for as long as the characteristic that defines the relationship applies to those things. This implies that co-operation is physical in nature. A relationship does not exist independently of the two parties who, for example, co-operate. Rather, it IS those two parties for so long as they have the characteristic of cooperating with one another.

We recognise cooperative groups because they occur frequently in society. Parties who cooperate form a larger holon comprising several smaller ones. These smaller ones are the individuals who cooperate, plus any other living things, such as horses, and any artifacts, such as computers, necessary for the co-operative endeavour. Even individual people rely on other living things and artifacts. Examples include guide dogs for the blind and heart pacemakers. So, the needs of these things must be included with those of the individual person.

Another principle of social systems theory is that holons comprising more than one person have much the same range of needs as those of a single individual. This is because the needs of these larger holons comprise an aggregate of the needs of its component parts, i.e., the individuals concerned, and any other living things or artifacts necessary for cooperation. When the needs of these components are aggregated, they yield those of the cooperative group and no new needs emerge.

In summary, individuals have needs, relationships between them have needs, and groups of individuals have needs. They are all much the same as the needs of individuals.

Our growing reliance on artifacts, and where this may be leading is, of course, a significant topic in its own right. However, this will be discussed in a future article.

Evolution has resulted in people who carry out a form of risk-benefit-cost analysis when translating their needs into behaviour. Emotion plays a part in this. If a situation lowers the level of satisfaction of our needs, then we will experience negative emotions, e.g., grief. On the other hand, if the situation increases the level of satisfaction of our needs, then our emotions will be positive, e.g., happiness. These emotions affect our behaviour. If we believe that the effort involved in satisfying a need will outweigh the benefit to be gained, then we will wish to avoid negative emotions and will not voluntarily behave in that way.

Because larger holons have much the same needs, albeit aggregates, they follow the same rule. If the aggregate effort of the cooperative outweighs the aggregate benefit to be gained, then some parties in the cooperative endeavour will inevitably suffer a net disbenefit. They will, therefore, no longer cooperate voluntarily. So, co-operation fails when the aggregate cost of pursuing the mutual goal exceeds the benefits to be gained.

This has an interesting implication. If unsatisfiable needs exist, then cooperation with people who pursue them without restraint is impossible. An example of an unsatisfiable need is absolute power. No matter how much we have, there will always be someone or some group with more. The same is true of wealth. If we have people who prioritise their need for wealth or power and pursue it without restraint, then this will consume endless resources. However, the satisfiers that any cooperative can generate are finite. So, if co-operation were attempted with such people, then ultimately, we would face a situation in which the costs to us outweigh the benefits. Thus, any cooperation would fail.

In practice, for cooperation to be sustained, it is necessary to work within the constraints of the benefits that can be gained from it. Furthermore, the benefits generated by co-operation must be shared reasonably equitably so that all parties experience a net benefit. In practice, this is what good leaders do. It is also what dark leaders do – up to a point.

Once sufficient wealth and power is gained via cooperative means, then coercion becomes possible. Indeed, in the case of people who pursue power or wealth without constraint, it becomes inevitable. Once coercion becomes common practice, what may previously have been a democratic society becomes an authoritarian one, with extremes of wealth and power and extremes of powerlessness and poverty.

To avoid such a society, it is necessary to place constraints on the pursuit of wealth and power. These must be built into our governmental and democratic processes. Not everyone seems to realise this, unfortunately.