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.
Rational-Understanding.com 