Years ago, I came across a book (I'm sorry that I don't recall the title) by a biologist who'd decided that she had found a pattern which was pervasive in biological systems. Her conjecture was that life followed a sequence of events, repeatedly, in its evolution. The stages are: 1) innovation - a new biological technology comes into existence (by chance) that is favorable for reproduction given environmental conditions. (so far, we're right with Darwin on this one). 2) gold rush - blessed with the new technology, this particular system proliferates, following an exponential pattern of expansion. 3) competition - after sufficient growth, the system, faced with the impending resource crisis, begins to self-limit. In ecology, we have something called "density dependent mortality" to describe this, though her idea applies to molecular interactions (advent of certain proteins, cell structures, etc.) equally - in other words, this applies to all biological systems, on any order of complexity. 4) cooperation - only the portions of the system which develop the capacity to maintain an equilibrium condition persist, and they do so, consistently, through a mutualistic arrangement which gives a distinct advantage to those who embrace or "discover" this strategy. The alternative(s) would result in death/extinction. Thus, she argued, arose all the complexity of the modern biosphere; tiered arrangements of cooperating systems (molecules, cells, tissues, organs, bodies, populations, ecosystems), each one dependent on the participation, and continued cooperation, of the subsystems 'beneath' it.
"Oh, but there are clearly non-cooperative arrangements extant in nature, some of which have been going on for millions of years," one might argue. For this idea (from the previous paragraph) to be acceptable, it relies on a particular interpretation for the idea of cooperation. You might think that sharks and seals are not cooperating, or, better yet, that sharks and orcas are clearly competing, but let's remove ourselves from the situation by looking at a lower tier. In your own body, similar arrangements are occurring all the time: cells are destroying one another, different systems all demand access to the same resources. Without some of the more violent dynamics within each of us, we would succumb to any number of terrifying disorders and inevitably die. In this same way, ecosystems, while apparently ruthless, can only persist with a balance between creation and destruction (a fundamental tenet in many religions). That balance is what the arrangement is all about. In more classical mutualistic situations, such as a lichen, it is precisely because no individual overexploits the arrangement that they can persist. While the mechanisms of that limitation are less violent (on a macroscopic scale), they serve the same purpose.
I like this description, as it seems to portend a more desirable future for humanity, wherein cooperative social organization would arise out of the pending resource crisis that we, with our exponentially increasing population, and increasingly competitive interactions, seem to be wrestling with.
On the recommendation of a friend, I recently read another argument that supports, or maybe expands, this idea, called "non zero, the logic of human destiny." In it, the author uses a mathematical game theory approach to analyze biological systems, and then human behavior. He contends that there are many sorts of relationships in both strata, some of which are zero-sum (one party's gain is another's loss), and some of which are non-zero-sum (both can gain, or both can lose), and that history has favored the non-zero-sum arrangements in which both parties gain. Evolution, he argues (both biological and social), involves repeated exchanges, and that over time the exchanges that result in positive-sum results are more adaptive.
There was a mathematician in the 60's who conducted a computer simulation which pitted innumerable programs against one another in non-zero-sum games. One program would encounter another and choose to be either benevolent or selfish, and depending on the choices of the two, would walk away with some amount of gain or loss. The prisoner's dilemma was the scenario: if both programs choose to be benevolent, both gain some; if one is benevolent and one is selfish, the selfish one gains a lot and the benevolent loses a lot; and if both are selfish, both lose some. Different programmers had decided what would be the most advantageous approach to such an arrangement, where they played repeatedly and at random with one another. There was a broad array of approaches, from totally vicious programs to absolutely generous ones, with some complicated in-between sorts of behavior patterns. As you can imagine, the really "kind" programs quickly lost to the really "mean" ones. But what was interesting was that the ones which persisted were the most "just." That is, they would respond to other programs according to what the other chose in the previous exchange. The really great twist was that the ones which overtook the entire game board were just, but also a little nice. That is, they occasionally tried trusting, even if they'd been wronged. As you can imagine, when these guys would encounter one another, they'd gain gain gain, as they'd be benevolent to one another. When they encountered mean programs, they'd lose some, but so would the meanies. The mean programs, however, had no chance to ever exploit a mutualistic arrangement for shared gain.This supports the idea that the desirable systems (from an evolutionary perspective) are those which have the capacity to be mutualistic (but aren't suckers), and among that group, the subset of those which have a little more likelihood of cooperating end up dominating.
Here's the bottom line: in the difficult times to come for humanity, according to the patterns of biological and social evolution, those who will persist will be those who can figure out the best way to work together with one another and with the biosphere. All others will eventually perish... perhaps.
No comments:
Post a Comment