Re: The Engineered Future and The New Organisms

Chris Gordon-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[Re: http://alife.co.uk/misc/new_organisms/]

: On "The New Organisms", I think that the idea of companies as organisms and
: their business logic as genomes is fair enough. It demonstrates that a
: template replicating molecule is not the only thing that can carry
: inherited information (a point that is relevant to my own interest in the
: origin of life).

: You conclude by saying "I'm suggesting [...] there's good evidence from
: biology that the organisation of companies within governments will
: ultimately involve harmony - rather than competition."

: I'm a little sceptical about this. It is true that governments regulate
: companies. However, I see no evidence that governments are likely to
: succeed in removing competition between companies. No mainstream politician
: in the western world would advocate this policy. In the last decade or two
: the market economy has also made major inroads to India, China and the
: Former Soviet Union.

: Even if you are correct that competition / friction between companies will
: end, I don't think that this would be the end of competition. It might
: simply be that the competing units were different to the structures
: (companies, governments) with which we are familiar today. We can hope that
: as things advance, competition will become less brutal (eg the failure of a
: company leading to a somewhat lower standard of living, rather than
: destitution). However, I believe that as new forms of organisation emerge,
: the only way to determine which are most effective (and harmonious) will be
: to allow them to compete.

: In other words, I am saying that competition will only end if evolution
: stops, so that we live in a static world in which all the relationships
: between entities / organisms / organisations are fixed and no new forms of
: organism / organisation arise. 

I don't think competition will end either - it's a pretty fundamental
part of the evolutionary process.

What I am suggesting is that the level at which competition arises
is likely to rise above the level of individual humans - and (perhaps)
above the level of companies.

We have seen analogous shifts occur in nature before:

Somatic cells don't compete with one another any more (at least not
much).  Their relationships are characterised by cooperation.

On the next level up, worker ants are in much the same situation -
their relationship with other worker ants is dominated by cooperation -
even though they are not as closely related to one another as somatic
cells are.

Humans currently appear to me to be in a transitional mode between simple
social existence and full-blown colony life.

Colony life often winds up being characterised by "polymorphic" organisms.

Female ants divide into queens and workers - depending on how they are fed.

Somatic cells turn into brain cells or liver cells - depending on
developmental signals.

Somewhat similarly humans can turn into gymnasts, sumo wrestlers, go
players, or opera singers depending on genetic and environmental factors.

However these roles have not been around for very long - and evolution
has not had much time to fit us into them.

Our ancestors were generalists - but modern humans are coming to play
increasing specialised roles.

A major activity for our ancestors was feeding themselves and
their families.  These days food is supplied to individuals by
a global network that looks a great deal like the way blood
sugar is delivered to cells - and individuals can focus more on
performing other tasks.

If our species sticks around, I think we'll continue to become more like
somatic cells - diversifying into highly morphologically distinct actuators,
sensers, thinkers, reproductives - and possibly many other categories.

We may also get the equivalents of apoptosis, somatic cell sterility
and the suicidal sting of the bee as part of the package.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]