Tag: Evolution

Categories
36. A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems Psychology Ecology and Evolution

A Theory of Society Derived from the Principles of Systems, Psychology, Ecology, & Evolution.

The lack of a unified theory of human society is hampering our ability to tackle the self-induced existential threats that we currently face. This paper presents a practical social systems theory that addresses that absence. Furthermore, because the theory has been derived largely from the principles of systems science, ecology, and evolution, it has a broader application to natural ecosystems, artificial ones, and the interactions between them and the human species. The theory draws on an empirical observation of society; on the principles of systems science to describe the general structure of society; on the principles of ecology to describe the ways in which components of society can interact; and on the principles of psychology and evolution to demonstrate how those interactions can alter with time. The principles employed are fundamental to the field from which they were derived, are broadly accepted by practitioners in those fields, and were obtained by research of the literature. What is new, in this paper, is the combined application of principles from these different fields to human society. The result is a model that accurately reflects real situations involving social units of all sizes from individuals, through organisations, to nations. Methods are suggested for symbolising, diagramming, and analysing these interactions and how they change over time. This provides a basis for better understanding the causes of the threats that humanity and the natural world faces, and for designing interventions to counter them.

The paper is open access and can be downloaded free of charge in pdf format at https://rational-understanding.com/my-books#theory-of-society

It is targeted at a broad audience which may include specialists from various disciplines. Interpretation of the language used and the concepts that underpin this theory may differ from individual to individual and from discipline to discipline. No prior knowledge is assumed, therefore. Furthermore, the paper is written in plain English and, where any technical terms have been used, they are clearly defined.

Over the next few months, I will begin applying the theory to some relatively simple practical social issues and will publish the results here. If you would like to join me in this venture, please contact me at email@johnachalloner.com.  If there is sufficient interest, then I am also willing to provide free online training.

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
33. Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective (Part 2)

Evolution from a Social Systems Perspective, Part 2

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.

All living holons are motivated to acquire benefits or satisfiers and to avoid disbenefits or contra-satisfiers. However, most decisions have both benefits and disbenefits. That is, if implemented, they yield both satisfiers and contra-satisfiers. Rarely are they entirely beneficial. So, in deciding whether to act, living holons carry out a form of risk benefit cost analysis. The disbenefits are weighted, mitigated, and deducted from the benefits to yield a net benefit or disbenefit. That is, an overall satisfier or contra-satisfier. If there is an overall satisfier, then the living holon will act. If there is an overall contra-satisfier, it will not.

The benefits of an action normally apply to the actor, but the disbenefits can apply to any party. The more socially distant the latter from the actor, the lower the weighting given by the actor to the disbenefit. Also, in the case of people, the less empathic and the darker the traits of the actor, the lower the weighting given to disbenefits for others.

If an action that yields both a benefit and a disbenefit becomes established, and if they affect the ability of the holon or holons that experience them to survive and procreate, then they will become evolutionary drivers for that holon or those holons. If both are experienced by the actor, then both become evolutionary drivers for the actor. If they apply to different holons, then they become individual evolutionary drivers for those holons. These drivers will cause the benefit to be acquired ever more efficiently and the disbenefit to be avoided ever more effectively. Thus, the holon or holons will become ever more specialised.

Risk benefit cost analysis is not necessarily a conscious process and can be one that is programmed into a species by evolution. An example is the cognitive bias in human decision making identified by Kahneman and Tversky (Kahneman D., 2011). Cognitive biases are shortcuts to decision making carried out under the pressure of circumstances. They are often not entirely logical and are certainly not consciously considered, but they do have the advantage of being correct much of the time. We use them when there is no time to consciously review our decisions before events decide the outcome for us. It is more beneficial to take an action quickly and unconsciously, even if there is only a limited likelihood of success, than to engage in conscious reasoning and, during that process, experience failure.

The effect of the benefits and disbenefits of an activity on a single species can clearly be seen in one of nature’s most delightful sights, the murmuration, or synchronised flight, of a flock of starlings. A murmuration over Brighton Pier can be seen here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eEobkfMC_4 .

The purpose of a murmuration is to attract starlings, who have dispersed during the day, into large groups for overnight roosting. If you watch carefully, you will see smaller groups joining larger ones and the latter steadily growing. Once a group is large enough, the birds will descend to roost together. This provides them with safety in numbers against predators. In other words, they cooperate to gain a mutual benefit or satisfier. There is no doubt that this instinctive behaviour has an evolutionary basis. Those that roost together are more likely to survive and propagate their genome than those that do not, and so, the genetic drivers for this behaviour propagate through the population over time.

There is, however, a downside. Flying together in close formation poses a risk of collision, injury, or death, and thus, a disbenefit or contra-satisfier. Mitigation of this disbenefit is carried out by spatial distancing. Using computer modelling the Italian Physicist, Professor Giorgio Parisi, found that the birds synchronise their flight by co-ordinating only with those adjacent to them (Parisi G., 2023). The skill involved is one of flying as closely to their neighbours as possible without colliding. This, in turn, is determined by their ability to respond to changes in proximity and direction before a collision occurs. There is no doubt that this skill also has an evolutionary basis. Those birds lacking the necessary genetic drivers will have collided and perished whilst those with them will have survived and procreated. Again, the necessary genetic drivers will have propagated through the population over time.

A colleague in LinkedIn, Fiona Clubb, describes the following event. “… about 25 years ago in Birmingham, England. I was competing in a Western Equestrian national show and was in a very small collecting ring with around 30 other competitors. There was very little room but the riders were all practicing their art, some going sideways, some at a flat out gallop, some just standing, and others spinning on the spot at high speed. It was complete chaos, yet nobody came close to colliding. They were all in control, and totally aware of space as it opened up for them to make their move. I have never seen anything like it. It was like a chaotic murmuration. The only protocol in place to coordinate the process was the riders’ mental skill and their ability to adapt…”. (Clubb F., 2024)

In this example, the riders were acquiring the mutual benefit of practicing their skills. However, as a part of this they also had to avoid the contra-satisfier of collisions. Again, this disbenefit was avoided by spatial distancing.

On the streets of a busy city, dense crowds of people walk in many different directions but, unless they are using smartphones, collisions are rare. In the same way as the starlings and the horses and their riders, people show a remarkable ability to avoid them. Indeed, in the branch of psychology known as proxemics, if one person enters another’s defensible space this is regarded as a threat. (Hall, E.T. 1966). The ability to avoid one another’s defensible space is almost certainly an evolved trait. It may also be an evolved trait in horses which are a herd species. So, it is likely that, in Birmingham, the horses were contributing as much to the avoidance of collisions as their riders.

Spatial separation can also be observed in the niches occupied by different species. For example, the insect species on a tree are separated according to the parts of the tree. Some occupy the foliage, some the branches, and others the trunk. All benefit from being a part of the larger ecosystem but maintain spatial separation to avoid direct conflict.

The same is true of human sub-cultures. The members of a sub-culture will gather together to avoid conflict with others but will remain in the same locale as the main culture and reap its benefits for so long as it tolerates them.

In human affairs, functional difference can, however, replace spatial distance. For example, fast food outlets will tend to congregate in the same location, and this acts as a mutual satisfier by attracting customers to that location. However, we do not see two fish and chip shops next door to one another. This is because the same function in the same location would create competition that is likely to become negative and lead to conflict. This, in turn, would ultimately lead to the failure of at least one competitor. The weaker competitor would be taken over or driven out by the more successful one. So, the outlets differ in function: fish and chips, Indian, Chinese, burger bars, coffee shops, and so on. There is some competition in terms of value for money, but no immediate competition in terms of the service provided. Each outlet shares the mutual benefit of cooperation and avoids the potential disbenefit of conflict by functional distancing.

Competition and takeovers are common in the business world when two organisations have a similar function. Thus, there is a tendency for functional distance to develop between businesses in the same market. This minimises conflict but can lead to the formation of monopolies. However, because monopolies can discourage innovation and abuse their powers, most governments legislate and regulate to prevent them. Departments or components within an organisation are, however, often monopolies. This is because there is no market choice, and the cost of duplication would outweigh the benefits of competition. It is, however, possible to introduce competition by splitting departments geographically or by outsourcing an activity to more than one contractor.

In summary, the decisions of living holons, human or otherwise, involve both satisfiers and contra-satisfiers, and so, an often innate form of risk benefit cost analysis is carried out when deciding whether to act. If an activity becomes established, then its benefits and disbenefits can act as evolutionary drivers for the holons that experience them. This process can be seen in both humans and other animals. It can also be seen in individuals and groups. Finally, it can be seen in both biological and cultural evolution. As well as learning to take decisions using these analyses, people also take them intuitively, and so, our genetic inheritance plays a part. Thus, human behaviour, although more complex than that of other species, is not as different or as divorced from nature as we sometimes like to believe. The principles of evolution still underpin our behaviour.

References

Clubb, F. (2024). Jobs for Horses, LinkedIn. https://uk.linkedin.com/in/fiona-clubb-47074095

Hall, Edward T. (1966). “The Hidden Dimension”. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-385-08476-5.

Kahneman, D. (2011). “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-27563-1.

Parisi, G. (2023). “In a Flight of Starlings”. UK: Penguin Random House. Allen Lane.

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
26. How Cooperation Can Fail (Part 1)

How Cooperation Can Fail

In this article, I use social systems theory to explain how cooperative arrangements can fail. I will use the topical example of labour relations in business to illustrate this, although there are many other examples such as cooperative relationships in families, between friends, and between nations. The example that I have chosen reveals little that we do not already know from experience. However, this is not the purpose of the article. Rather, its purpose is to demonstrate how the underlying principles of social systems theory result in a model that reflects reality.

The example began as a series of equations, each of which, drew on the principles of ecology to describe a relationship between two unspecified parties. The principles of evolution were then used to link the equations and demonstrate how these relationships could change over time. Finally, the series of equations was translated into the text below.

The example is limited to a discussion of relationships within the private business sector. This sector interacts with many others such as education, healthcare, government, the legal sector, and so on. For the purposes of this article, only a brief discussion of interactions with government is included. Interactions with other sectors have not.

Cooperation, or as it is known in ecology, mutualism, occurs when two parties work together with a common purpose. The parties involved can be individuals or organisations of any type or size, including families, businesses, voluntary organisations, governments, and nations. Their purpose is usually to gain satisfiers or avoid contra-satisfiers for their mutual benefit. The source of these satisfiers or contra-satisfiers is a third party or the general environment. Satisfiers are those external things that satisfy the needs of an individual organism, group of organisms or species. Contra-satisfiers on the other hand are external things that reduce the level of satisfaction of those needs. For example, the employees and employers in a business cooperate to manufacture and sell goods to their market for a profit. This profit is a satisfier for the needs of both parties and is shared between them for their mutual benefit.

Initially, two parties in a cooperative arrangement may be relatively equal in power. However, as time progresses, one invariably gains greater power, and so, the benefits of the arrangement are shared less equitably. In a business, for example, employers typically come to hold greater power. However, there have been cases in which, through trade union organisation, employees have come to do so instead.

Two things can then occur. Those with greatest power can seek ever greater power, and thus, ever more inequitable distribution of the benefits of cooperation. Alternatively, or additionally, a shortage of the mutual satisfier can occur. For example, the market for the business’s product may decline.

There is a threshold above which parties will voluntarily cooperate, and below which they will not. For example, if employees are to co-operate with employers, then the wages gained from employment must be sufficient to satisfy their needs. Employers, on the other hand, must be able to satisfy their own personal needs and those of the business. If one party takes too much of the benefits and/or if the market for their product fails, then the other party may find the benefits of co-operation insufficient. The owners may no longer be able or willing to pay enough to make employment worthwhile, or the returns for the employers may no longer be sufficient to make the business worthwhile. So, one party may find itself cooperating involuntarily with the other. For example, the employer may, in effect, be taking the employees’ labour against their will, although the reverse is also possible.

When one party takes a satisfier from another and the other party a) needs it to satisfy their needs and b) has no resilience or rainy-day surplus such as savings or capital, then the former party is, in effect, imposing a contra-satisfier on the latter. As a consequence, there is a risk of conflict, and three courses of action are possible.

To avoid conflict, the weaker party can move elsewhere. For example, employees can resign and look for alternative employment, or employers can close the business. Cooperation then ceases. In ecology, this is known as neutralism.

Alternatively, because the imposition of a contra-satisfier by one party on another normally results in reciprocation, the two parties can engage in conflict. The purpose of reciprocation is, of course, to coerce the employer or employees into a more equitable apportionment of the business’s benefits.

Finally, the one party can accept harmful exploitation by the other. It is an objective fact that, in ecology, harmful exploitation is known as predation or parasitism. These terms are not intended to be disparaging.

Much depends on the relative power of the two parties. If the harmful exploitation of employees is widespread, there may be nowhere for employees to move to. If general employee power is too great, there may be no alternative business opportunity for the employers. In these circumstances, the only options that remain are conflict or the acceptance of exploitation. If either party has so much power that conflict with them will inevitably fail, then only the final option, an acceptance of exploitation, remains.

Co-operation can, of course, fail even when the parties are relatively equal in power and the benefits of a business are shared reasonably equitably. If these benefits should fail for any reason, e.g., market collapse, competition, etc., then, providing they have reserves of the necessary satisfiers, both employers and employees may find themselves in the position of being harmlessly exploited for a while. A reasonable degree of resilience by both parties is, therefore, needed to retain co-operative arrangements during short term market downturns, etc. However, if these reserves become exhausted, then harmless exploitation becomes harmful, i.e., a contra-satisfier, and so, co-operation fails.

The following conclusions can be drawn from this example. If employers gain too much power and are unwilling to share the benefits of businesses sufficiently equitably to satisfy the needs of their employees, then they will fail to gain the latter’s voluntary cooperation. Conflict can then become widespread and lead to economic failure with disbenefits for all. Alternatively, harmful exploitation can become widespread, and we can come to live in an authoritarian society. Employers can, of course, tread a careful line and share benefits just sufficiently equitably to make employee cooperation worthwhile. However, because there will be no employee resilience, when a shock to the business occurs, this can quickly cause cooperation to be lost.

Conversely, if employees gain too much power and demand excessive pay, then this can prevent growth, reduce business resilience, and thus place, the business’s continued existence in jeopardy. Again, co-operation will break down, and the benefits to both parties will be lost. If this situation becomes widespread, then only those employees who are organised will benefit, and then only in the short term. Ultimately, economies will fail to grow, and the benefits of this growth will be lost. In the extreme, economies can collapse, and poverty can become endemic.

The way forward, therefore, is a middle road in which the balance of power between employers and employees is optimised. This is the role of national government which, in an ideal world, should exercise it scientifically, objectively, non-ideologically and without undue influence from either employers or employees. It is worth mentioning that corrective legislation to curtail excessive power of either employers or employees should not be retained indefinitely. Rather, it should be rolled back once an optimum balance is achieved. Failing that, the optimum will be overshot, and the power of the other party will steadily increase. If they are to retain an optimum balance, governments should keep their eye on the ball and amend legislation as necessary.

Categories
09. Cultural Speciation (Part 2)

Cultural Speciation 2

Introduction

This article comprises the posts that I made in Facebook’s Cultural Speciation chat from 11/9/23 to 25/9/23.

During my work on social systems theory, I have been struck by similarities between the behaviour of individuals, organisations, and nations, i.e., by the isomorphisms. An example is, personal denial vs. cultural denial. The latter is also known as co-denial or conspiracy of silence. Because of these isomorphisms, I now treat the organisation, in in its most general sense, as the fundamental holon in social systems theory.

The phrase “cultural evolution” is often thought of as being merely metaphorical. However, very real isomorphisms do appear to exist between biological evolution and cultural evolution. Examples include cultural speciation, cultural co-evolution, sub-cultures vs. sub-species, and so on. As cultural evolutionary principles appear to explain much of what is going on in the world today, I would like to begin a discussion with a view to developing the concept further.

More on this topic can be found at: the World values Surveys website at https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ ; and in the excellent book “Cultural Evolution” by Ronald Inglehart.

Cognitive Physicalist Philosophy.

I developed this philosophy during my 23 years of work on mathematical logic. It was the only approach that enabled me to join up the various branches of logic into a single, consistent, and relatively simple system. This philosophy underpins the steps that will follow.

The cognitive perspective holds that we are our minds and cannot escape the constraints imposed by their biology and evolutionary history. Nevertheless, human cognition is a reasonably accurate representation of reality. If it were not, then it is unlikely that our species would have survived to be as successful as it is. Physicalism holds that space-time comprises the whole of reality and that everything, including abstract concepts and information, exists within it. Nothing transcends the laws of nature or occupies somewhere other than space-time.

The Nature of Information.

Information is physical in nature. It is not merely conveyed by matter and energy; it is integral to it in the form of order and structure. Information exists at source i.e., within the original physical entity. It is formed of meaningful component parts within that entity and the relationships between them. For an entity to be meaningful it must be structured in a way that recurs. This is an evolutionary trait that enables us to recognise recurring entities and, when we encounter them in the future, predict their behaviour, including any opportunities or threats. If an entity is meaningful, we associate the information that it contains with a sense image (icon) and in a symbolic form compatible with our minds. This enables us to remember entities and the associations between them. Finally, we translate information in that form into a symbolic form that can be communicated to others, e.g., words, thereby sharing our knowledge of an entity’s behaviour. In this latter form information can be replicated.

The ability to recognise and process information in this way is a property that emerges with life. This property applies only to living beings and some of their artifacts. It does not apply to other non-living physical entities.

Information at source is, by definition, always true. However, there are many ways in which mentally processed and communicated information can become false.

Basic Biological Evolution.

There are two main features of an organism: its genotype, i.e., the genetic constitution of the organism, and its phenotype, i.e., the manifestation of that design and the observable characteristics of the organism. The organism’s genotype is information that can be replicated and translated. It is the organism’s design. The phenotype is a consequence of this design as influenced by environmental circumstances.

Biological evolution has two main components, random mutation, and natural selection. Random mutation acts on an organism’s genotype and can, for example, be caused by radiation, viruses or copying errors during replication. Most random mutations are harmful, many are neutral and a few beneficial.

Natural selection operates on the phenotype. Under selective pressures from the environment organisms with harmful mutations often expire or fail to reproduce whilst those with beneficial mutations tend to propagate. Neutral mutations can persist in a population’s variable genome and can manifest themselves in the form of sub-species. Later, if the organism’s environment changes, they may prove beneficial or harmful and either propagate or expire.

Isomorphism between Biological and Cultural Evolution.

Society has two main features which are very similar in nature to those of the organism. Firstly, there is its culture. This includes values or those things that we hold good or bad; norms or codes of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour; and beliefs. They are all information held in the mind and socially propagated. They comprise a society’s design and are the equivalent of the biological genome.

Secondly, there is the practical manifestation of culture, in the form of society itself. This manifestation is a consequence of both culture and environmental circumstances. So, the manifestation of society can be regarded as the equivalent of the biological phenotype.

Culture is also subject to mutation. This can be caused by new knowledge, ideas and understanding; changes in the social and natural environment; communication errors; and even deliberate interventions such as propaganda and advertising.

Again, some of these mutations are harmful, some neutral and others beneficial. Theoretically, social processes should tend to cause those that are beneficial to propagate, those that are harmful to expire, and those that are neutral to remain as variations. However, deliberate intervention can propagate harmful cultural mutations. It is noteworthy that our interventions have also been biological. We have deliberately intervened in the genome of some organisms via selective breeding and, more recently, direct genetic modification has become possible.

In some circles culture is known as a memeplex with individual parts known as memes. However, the meaning of the word meme has changed with the advent of the internet, so I now avoid using it.

Biological and Cultural Speciation.

Biological speciation is the formation of new and distinct species through the process of evolution. Two main factors are involved, the accumulation of viable genetic mutations and geographical or environmental separation. In the case of geographical separation, members of a species come to occupy different parts of the world and can no longer interbreed. In the case of environmental separation, they come to occupy different environments, e.g., the trunk or branches of a tree, and again can no longer interbreed. This allows different mutations to accumulate in each group.

Initially this can result in a sub-species. That is, a group of organisms with identifiable differences from the parent species, but which nevertheless hold most of their genome in common with it and remain able to interbreed with it. If separation ceases a sub-species may be absorbed into the parent species. If separation continues it may diverge from the parent species as genetic differences accumulate, and ultimately may be unable to interbreed with it, thus forming a separate species.

A similar process can occur in society. Geographical separation is the same but environmental separation can be social as well as physical. Initially, a sub-culture can form with its own distinct cultural features but nonetheless holding much in common with the parent culture. If geographical or social separation ceases, then the sub-culture can be re-absorbed into the parent culture, but if separation persists, cultural speciation can occur such that it becomes difficult for the two cultures to interact. Differences in language, values, and norms form the basis for these difficulties.

Other Support for Cultural Speciation

Another interesting parallel is as follows. Culture is held in the minds of individual people. Together these people form society. The genome is held within individual cells. Together these cells form the organism.

Cultural speciation is thought to precede biological speciation and to have occurred in early hominids. The Italian scientist, Fiorenzo Facchini suggests that “Culture probably played a double role in the process of human speciation: (1) in isolation and differentiation from other groups of hominids that did not have such behaviour; and (2) in adaptation to the environment and in communication between groups that had the same cultural behaviour, thus slowing down or preventing the conditions of isolation that lead to new species.” (Facchini, 2006)

Application of The Biological Evolution/ Cultural Evolution Isomorphism.

At present (Sept 2023) I am working on interactions in the natural world, both human and non-human. This is going well, and I am finding strong isomorphisms. The same small range of interactions exist between: different species; groups within a species, including human organisations and cultures; and individuals within a species, including people. These interactions, which include co-operation, are both consequences and drivers of the evolutionary process. So, it does appear possible to unite the social and biological sciences in a way that allows knowledge to be transferred between disciplines.

Regarding cultural evolution, this is often thought to be merely a metaphor. However, biological evolution and cultural evolution are so similar in nature that they are almost certainly the same process. So, it is likely that the knowledge that we have gained of biological evolution can be applied to society.

Finally, I should perhaps mention that, although humanity comprises different cultures, this is merely an observation. I make no value judgements as to which culture is better. In fact, such value judgements are themselves cultural.

Categories
08. Cultural Speciation (Part 1)

Cultural Speciation

Cultural speciation is the formation of separate and distinct cultures in human society and is a product of cultural evolution. Just like biological evolution, cultural evolution comprises two main features: random mutation and natural selection.

What evolves is not the subject itself but rather its design, i.e., the information that determines how it is formed. In the case of a living organism, this design is its genotype or genetic constitution. Together an organism’s genotype and its environment determine its phenotype, i.e., its observable characteristics. In the case of society, the equivalent of the genotype is its culture, that is, its values, norms, beliefs, and symbols, all of which are, of course, information. This culture together with its environment determine society and the latter is the equivalent of an organism’s phenotype.

Only living things and some of their artifacts can recognise and process information. Thus, evolution applies only to living things and potentially the artifacts that they create. Furthermore, for evolution to take place the entity must be capable of self-assembly from its design. Only living organisms are capable of this and not, for the present at least, their artifacts. In the latter case, an external agent is still needed to carry out the assembly.

Random mutation in living organisms is due to changes to the genome, caused for example by duplication errors, radiation, or viruses. Many of these changes are harmful, a few are neutral, and even fewer beneficial. Human society is a living thing, and it too is subject to random changes in its equivalent of the genome, that is, its culture. These random mutations take the form of new theories, opinions, attitudes, lies, etc. Before the advent of the internet they would propagate quite slowly and often die out. However, the internet has subjected society to a form of “radiation” that has accelerated the rate of random mutation enormously. New ideas proliferate and propagate at a rate never before seen. The effect of this has been to accelerate cultural evolution.

The environment in which these cultural mutations operate is the natural one, the social one and their prevailing states. Together these environments exercise the equivalent of natural biological selection. In principle, cultural mutations that are clearly true to reality and of benefit to society should be selected for by this environment; others that are neutral should persist perhaps to come to the fore if the environment changes; and those that are clearly harmful should expire. However, vested interests can influence the propagation of information. This occurred before the advent of the internet when, for example, the Catholic Church supressed scientific discoveries. More recently, commercial, and political interests have promoted information on the internet that supports their objectives and supressed that which does not. To some extent this alters the direction of cultural evolution by accelerating the rate of propagation in some directions, e.g., consumerism, whilst slowing it in others, e.g., environmentalism.

In living organisms, evolution leads to speciation. Successful mutations accumulate on different lines, and these lines become increasingly different. Initially, they form sub-species that can interbred but eventually, they become entirely separate species that cannot. The same is true of culture, initially cultural mutations lead to sub-cultures which operate largely within the main one. Interaction between the sub-culture and main culture slows the rate of divergence. However, as mutations accumulate, it becomes increasingly difficult for the sub-culture to operate within the main one, and a separation can occur. An example is the migration of religious groups from Europe to the USA.

Such speciation is thought to have occurred in early hominids. The Italian scientist, Fiorenzo Facchini suggests that “Culture probably played a double role in the process of human speciation: (1) in isolation and differentiation from other groups of hominids that did not have such behaviour; and (2) in adaptation to the environment and in communication between groups that had the same cultural behaviour, thus slowing down or preventing the conditions of isolation that lead to new species.” (Facchini, 2006)

When migration is impossible and a distance between the cultures cannot be achieved, then they will compete, often negatively, as for example in the case of political polarisation in the USA and the Russia/Ukraine war.

Finally, in humans, cultural evolution is thought to be a precursor to biological evolution. So, if geographical separation is possible in the long term, then biological speciation will eventually occur.

References

Facchini, F. “Culture, Speciation and the Genus Homo in Early Humans.” Human Evolution 21, 51–57 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11598-006-9004-y

Nazari, V. & Belardinelli, S., 2023. “Speciation and Cultures: The Interplay of Biological and Cultural Diversity”. Conference: Speciation: The Origin and Persistence of Species (Gordon Research Seminar) At: Lucca (Barga), Italy; 28–29 January 2023 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367280120_Speciation_and_Cultures_The_Interplay_of_Biological_and_Cultural_Diversity

Categories
10. The Evolution of Knowledge

The Evolution of Knowledge

Introduction

In this article, I describe the evolutionary stages in the development of human knowledge. Many of these stages took place in our ancestor species. The first almost certainly began in relatively simple animals, and subsequent stages followed on as complexity increased. At each stage, an increase in the sophistication of the ancestor’s brain would have been necessary to accommodate the new ability.

The process is summarised in the diagram below.

The recognition of holons or meaningful entities

The term “holon” was coined by Arthur Koestler in his 1967 book, The Ghost in The Machine. Another term for “holon” is “meaningful entity”. Both terms refer to any entity that can be recognised as a whole in itself and which constitutes part of a larger whole. We recognise such entities by virtue of the static or dynamic structure that forms them, and by the recurrence of instances of the same structure at different times, in different places, and in different circumstances. This recurrence enables us to draw a boundary around each instance which distinguishes it from its surroundings.

The recognition of holons requires memory. We must be capable of encoding in a mental form what we perceive with our senses. This is so that we can compare what we have experienced with what we may experience in the future. It is notable that the repetition of a meaningful entity or event reinforces our memory of it, whilst a lack of recurrence causes the memory to fade.

The recognition of equilibrium states

The next stage in the evolution of knowledge was the recognition of equilibrium states. That is states that persist for a period, and which also recur. For example, traffic lights have several static equilibrium states: red, red and amber, green, amber, and back to red. As most motorists know to their frustration, traffic lights also have dynamic equilibrium states: not operating, operating slowly, or operating quickly.

The recognition of causal relationships between holons in equilibrium states.

There can be recurring relationships between holons in a particular state, and these form the basis of causality. For example, traffic flows through green traffic lights, but is static at red ones. The ability to recognise recurring relationships is of great benefit to an animal’s ongoing survival. It enables it to predict events from experience, seize opportunities, and avoid threats.

However, with this ability also comes the ability to imagine and speculate. Thus, not all knowledge and beliefs are empirical and derived from the environment. When empirical information is absent knowledge can also be a consequence of the speculative juxtaposition of holons.

The development of language

In the case of humans, and to a limited extent some higher animals, experience can be passed on via language. This involves encoding, as speech, items of information held in memory. We are a social species and natural language has evolved alongside our cognitive abilities. Language enables us to share information and co-ordinate our activities, and this conveys an evolutionary advantage. Unsurprisingly, natural language reflects holons, their equilibrium states, and the causal relationships between them. This structure is represented in the form of sentences containing a subject, i.e., a holon, and a predicate, i.e., an equilibrium state. Causality is reflected in compound sentences, such as “If sentence A then sentence B”.

With this ability also came the ability to communicate not only speculative information but also deliberate misinformation. Unfortunately, unless the speaker explains its source, it is difficult for the recipient to know whether the information communicated is true.

The development of writing

However, spoken language is transient. Speech does not linger and is gone as soon as it has been spoken. The brain is still necessary to store information, therefore. During our early development we relied on aural tradition. Individuals would remember knowledge and pass it to others through speech, stories, or songs. In so doing they would reinforce their own memory and prevent it from fading. However, we then developed writing. This is another form of encoded information, and it is notable that many alphabets are, in part at least, phonetic. Thus, written language encodes spoken language, which in turn encodes memorised information. The development of writing enabled us to store information externally and refer to it when necessary. Furthermore, written memory does not fade, and so, we became able to recognise holons and causal relationships that recur less frequently.

The development of formal languages

The next stage comprised the comparatively recent development of formal languages such as mathematics, chemical formulae, Feynman diagrams, etc. These present written information in a condensed form and enable predictions to be made by manipulating it with formal rules that always apply.

Paradigm changes

Human knowledge has evolved through a series of paradigm changes. The development of present day rational, scientific knowledge began in ancient times, in particular with ancient Greek civilisation. The ancient Greeks produced knowledge of major importance including the works of Archimedes, the great mathematician, inventor, and experimenter. An example of Archimedes work is the case of the crown of King Hiero. Archimedes was able to determine the volume of the crown by immersing it in water and measuring the volume displaced. From this and the weight of the crown, he was able to determine its density, and thus, show that the goldsmith had cheated the king by mixing gold with silver.

However, metaphysics, i.e., speculative knowledge with no empirical basis and often in the form of religion, superstition or mysticism, has hampered progress. The methodology of the Middle Ages was to give equal, and sometimes greater weight to speculative theological knowledge over that gained from observation and experiment. This resulted in, for example, the so-called sciences of alchemy and astrology. To a limited extent this brake on progress still exists today, and metaphysical explanations are often proffered for physical events. For example, the World Values Survey found that in 2017, 33.6% of the United States population agreed or strongly agreed that “whenever science and religion conflict, religion is always right.” In other countries this can be as high as 98.8% (Egypt) or as low as 2.8% (Japan).

A significant paradigm change occurred in the Renaissance era. It required that any knowledge produced by imagination must be confirmed by empirical data and that any predictions should be testable. Thus, the scientific method was invented, and this change resulted in the modern disciplines of physics, chemistry, geology, geography, etc.

The present-day situation

These disciplines first began their development in an era when our scientific knowledge was still very limited, and specialisation was unnecessary. Thus, at their foundations they are relatively consistent with one another. However, in the present day, our scientific knowledge is extensive, and it is impossible for any individual to know it all in detail. Specialisation has become necessary. This has brought with it problems of communication, consistency between specialist fields, and reduced ability to recognise the inconsistencies necessary for paradigm shifts.

Categories
05. Group Level Natural Selection

Group Level Natural Selection

There has been much academic debate between evolutionary biologists, such as John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, and Richard Dawkins, who advocate individual level selection plus rare cases of kin selection, and others, such as David Sloan Wilson, Elliott Sober and E.O. Wilson, who advocate multi-level selection. However, a consensus is beginning to emerge that a process of natural selection occurs at each biological level, i.e.: the genome, cell, organism, family, group, species, and ecosystem. Due to emergent properties, i.e., properties held by systems which are not held by their component parts, the process of natural selection at each level can differ. However, the process at each level tends to be undermined by stronger selection processes at lower levels.

E.O. Wilson described multi-level selection using the analogy of Russian dolls. The various biological levels can be likened to nested containers for competing genes. To varying degrees, the genes rely on each container for their survival and propagation. Thus, higher level selection can be a significant factor in some species and has probably played a part in human evolution.

Selection at cell level does occur within an organism. For example, recent research has shown that, in certain circumstances, cancer cells can evolve from healthy cells under pressure from the organism’s immune system. However, this form of evolution is normally a dead end. The cells act together to form the organism which is a container that they rely on for their continued existence. There may be billions of cells acting together over thousands of cell generations. However, evolution has shaped their genome to behave altruistically and, ultimately, the vast majority die out with the organism. Typically, only two or three carry the organism’s genes forward through reproduction. Thus, natural selection operates at the level of the organism rather than at the level of the cell.

Group selection forms part of the theory of multi-level selection. It is a natural selection process whereby traits evolve due to the fitness of a group of organisms, who are not necessarily kin, to their environment. The theory of group level natural selection proposes that groups which co-operate are more likely to be successful than those which do not. An individual will see it as beneficial to its own survival and ability to reproduce if it supports the group through co-operation. The concept has a long history. Darwin wrote on how groups can, but do not necessarily, evolve into adaptive units. This view was generally accepted until the mid-1960s. It was then criticised in favour of the view that evolution was based solely on the fitness of the individual. However, with advances in the science of multi-level selection, it is now returning to acceptability.

Both kin selection and group selection have, in a complex and inter-related way, had a part to play in governing human evolution. Kin selection has had a stronger influence on us than group selection. We will, for example, tend to favour a brother over an unrelated colleague. However, it is not the only factor which has determined our social behaviour. Charles Goodnight, in comparing the two, concludes that kin selection and multi-level selection should be considered complementary approaches which, when used together, give a clearer picture of our evolution than either can alone.

Together, kin and group selection explain some of the moral dilemmas that we face and how we handle them. There is often a conflict between the immediate interest of the individual, those of the individual’s kin, and the interests of the individual and its kin via the group. These interests, all of which are inherited, manifest themselves both in the form of competition between members of a group, and in the form of competition between groups. The individual must balance individual level competition and group level co-operation in a way which optimises their survival and the propagation of their genes. The way that we do so is explained by Freud’s model of the human psyche, i.e., the id, which is concerned with immediate personal interest, the super-ego which is concerned with group interest, and the ego which moderates between the two. However, because group selection is relatively recent, the super-ego is probably an inherited pre-disposition whose detailed contents are acquired through social learning. Freud’s model is relatively universal in human beings and is probably an innate consequence of multi-level selection, therefore.

Politics provides another example which demonstrates the existence of multi-level selection in humanity. The ideology of right-wing parties is one of individualism whilst that of left-wing parties is one of collectivism. Thus, we have the same dilemma in our political institutions both at a national level and at international level. Multi-level selection pervades humanity, therefore, from our individual psyche to our highest institutions.

In my next post I will give further examples of the influence of kin and group level natural selection on humanity.

Categories
04. Kin Level Natural Selection

Kin Level Natural Selection

An early precursor to kin selection was the theory of inclusive fitness. This was proposed by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 but developed and named by William Donald Hamilton in 1964. Hamilton’s theory is the basis of Richard Dawkins famous book, “The Selfish Gene” and argues that it is the survival and reproduction of genes, rather than organisms, that is the principal driver behind evolution. As a result, an organism can display altruism if this leads to a greater propagation of the genes it holds than would be the case if it acted solely out of personal self-interest. This relies on the individual organism being able to identify those genes in others. There are two main ways of doing so. Firstly, by knowing its kin or related family members and, secondly, by recognising external characteristics displayed by others with the relevant gene. However, there are several difficulties with the latter, for example whether the gene does in fact express itself in the form of recognisable traits and whether the organism can see those traits. Because such traits are often only skin deep, there is the potential for imposters to display them to benefit from altruistic behaviour.

The more specific theory of kin selection developed from Hamilton’s work. This theory states that an organism can behave in a way which maximises the propagation of its genes by behaving in an altruistic manner towards close relatives likely to hold the same genes.

Individuals in a species have approximately 99% of their genes in common. The remaining 1% constitutes their variable genome which accounts for physical variation within the species. The fitness of the 99% is well established and, thus, only genes in the variable genome, including any mutations, compete to propagate themselves. 50% of the variable genome is inherited from each parent. On average, therefore, an individual will share 50% with each parent, child, and sibling and, on average, 25% with each grandparent, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, or grandchild. The theory of kin selection proposes, therefore, that it is advantageous in terms of the propagation of the variable genome to favour the survival and reproduction of three siblings over that of the self. Thus, genetically driven behaviour which facilitates this will propagate within the species.

Kin selection behaviour relies on the ability of an individual to recognise its kin. Nurture kinship, i.e., having raised, been raised by, or having been raised with another nuclear family member, is clearly an important factor, and can be observed in other species. However, the recognition of more remotely related kin, e.g., aunts, uncles, and other members of the extended family, requires considerable cognitive skill and, so, is probably limited to the more intelligent species.

As individuals become more remotely related, it only becomes possible to recognise kinship through physical appearance and, in the case of humans, cues such as language, dress, beliefs, etc. Thus, kin selection suggests that an individual is more likely to behave altruistically towards others of similar appearance and culture because these factors also suggest a similar variable genome.

Intuitively, kin selection operates within humanity. There is also a great deal of objective evidence for its presence. For example, research has shown that non-reciprocal help is far more likely to occur in kin relationships than non-kin relationships. It has also been shown that, when wills are written, there is a close correlation between kinship and the proportion of wealth passed on.

A small number of species can be described as eusocial. These species co-operatively rear their young across multiple generations. They also divide labour through the surrender, by some members, of all or part of their personal reproductive success to increase the reproductive success of others. In this way they benefit the overall reproductive success of the group. Eusociality arose late in the history of life and is extremely rare. Only nineteen species are known to display this characteristic: two species of mole rat, some species of brine shrimp, insects such as wasps, bees, and ants and, of course, mankind. In eusocial species, group level natural selection takes place due to competition between groups. In the case of the eusocial insects, the group is the nest or hive. Individual workers will lose their lives in the interest of the hive as a whole. It can be argued that this form of behaviour in insects is entirely altruistic and an inherited form of kin selection. However, in the case of humanity, this argument does not hold true because human groups display both kin altruism and non-kin co-operation.

However, there remain doubts whether individual and kin selection fully explain natural selection and human social behaviour since natural selection may also occur at higher biological levels. This will be explored further in subsequent posts.