Nick Arnett wrote:
> It makes sense (and it is quite modern, in the sense of Darwinism) to say
> that living things know how to be selfish and competitive.
<snip>
>So, with the vagueness (or dynamicism, perhaps) of community a little more
>in mind, I'd like to suggest that within any given community, there is
>knowledge of altruistic cooperation as much as competition. In fact, I
>think one could make a good argument that without it, there would be no
>community, since communication with a community requires agreement on media,
>symbols and so forth, even if we talking about the cells in our bodies
>communicating information chemically.
Hrm.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding... and I know I'm probably moving off at a
tangent here.... but I don't think that collaboration and cooperation are
strictly necessary to establish order in a given system. And I think we must
be very careful when referring to a tendency towards selfishness or altruism
when referring to organisms and systems that aren't human. This would include
'parts' of our own bodies... like our cells.
That said, your statements make sense and I agree with them when you refer
broadly to human systems and inter-relationships.... but not necessarily when
they apply to other species or to smaller sub-systems within our own bodies.
First of all, it seems to me that when considering basic biology, you could
make an additional argument along the lines of conscious vs. unconscious
cooperation and/or competition. For instance, a honeybee pollinates without
being aware of its place in that larger cycle. A predator may kill for food
and remain unaware its prey is leaving orphaned young behind. They may act
selfishly, but they do so without cognizance. Your genes certainly don't
communicate with each other on anything approaching a cognizant level either.
More on this later.
To clarify further: this isn't to say there aren't ground rules for
interactions between animals, but in the strictest sense, (to use your
example) cells within your body don't communicate -- or if they do, only in
the most basic definition of the word. Instead, they react to stimuli and
those stimuli effect changes within them. A perfect example of this might be
a string of nerve cells. As the result of a stimulus, a nerve cell generates
neurotransmitters which span the distance (synapse) between that cell and the
next one along the chain. Upon receipt of the neurotransmitters, the second
nerve cell 'transmits' the signal along its length by changing itself
internally.
I'm not checking my Websters, but I believe collaboration usually means that
two or more entities are working together towards a common goal. This would
be a conscious interaction, no? Human communities have the ability to do
that... and on a smaller level, your body may adjust itself towards a
homeostatic position. Can we really classify that adjustment as
collaboration though? Your immune system may fall into this definition,
although I'm not sure.
Perhaps I should have said your cells don't "consciously" communicate? Would
any listmember biologists like to add in their two pennies, guilders or
rubles? :)
> It seems to me that the world needs a theory of the role of collaboration in
> the emergence of order to complement the existing theories that describe the
> role of competition in the emergence of order, lest we continue to model
> human systems excessively on the latter.
I agree with this statement when referring to human communities. A potential
model would be a set of social rules based on basic human biological concepts.
>Have not the very cells in our bodies "agreed" upon how to communicate? Is
the
> emergence of such
> communications, through biology, any different from the emergence of memes
> in human communications? Or is that something that differentiates us from
> the rest of the universe? I'd answer that last question, "No."
Um, not exactly. I discussed this earlier at greater length, but other than
perhaps recognizing other cells around them as either 'self' or 'other', and
responding in set ways to specific stimuli, they don't really communicate.
(well, they definitely scream 'you idiot' during a hangover! :) ) Seriously,
they merely unconsciously react to environmental stimuli.
Also, a meme is a concept or behavior that spreads throughout a culture from
person to person. (again, without the websters!) Since a meme seems to be a
learned behavior, rather than a genetic one by definition, I think the above
argument would seem to be comparing evolutionary (Darwinian) genetics to a
concept that seems more Lamarckian?
Can someone provide a strict definition of 'selfish gene' also? I was always
under the impression that this was a rather vague concept that meant the
ultimate purpose of any organism is to survive and propagate, and therefore
perpetuate the species. What you're saying seems to be something else, and I
want to get my facts straight!
*sigh*
I'm running on very little sleep -- perhaps this will make more sense once
I've recovered from a 12-hour workday!!! If I've completely misunderstood,
I'm sorry. Will re-read in the morning and see if I'm blowing smoke ;)
Jon
