Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution

by Peter Corning

Overview

In recent years, evolutionary theorists have come to recognize that the reductionist, individualist, gene-centered approach to evolution cannot sufficiently account for the emergence of complex biological systems over time. Peter A. Corning has been at the forefront of a new generation of complexity theorists who have been working to reshape the foundations of evolutionary theory. Well known for his Synergism Hypothesis—a theory of complexity in evolution that assigns a key causal role to various forms of functional synergy—Corning puts this theory into a much broader framework in Holistic Darwinism, addressing many of the issues and concepts associated with the evolution of complex systems. Corning's paradigm embraces and integrates many related theoretical developments of recent years, from multilevel selection theory to niche construction theory, gene-culture coevolution theory, and theories of self-organization. Offering new approaches to thermodynamics, information theory, and economic analysis, Corning suggests how all of these domains can be brought firmly within what he characterizes as a post–neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780226116136
Publisher:	University of Chicago Press
Publication date:	12/15/2005
Pages:	504
Product dimensions:	6.00(w) x 9.00(h) x 1.40(d)

About the Author

Peter A. Corning is director of the Institute for the Study of Complex Systems. He is the author of The Synergism Hypothesis and Nature's Magic, among other books.

Read an Excerpt

HOLISTIC DARWINISM
Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Bioeconomics of Evolution

By Peter A. Corning The University of Chicago Press
Copyright © 2005
The University of Chicago
All right reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-226-11616-7


Chapter One Synergy: Another Idea Whose Time Has Come?

Catching the Flood Tide

Shakespeare's famous metaphor has been borrowed by many modern authors, perhaps because it captures an eternal truth. In the 1930s the historian Arthur Schlesinger (senior) used this image in a widely acclaimed article called "Tides of American Politics" (1939). In the 1960s, the French historian Jacques Pirenne wrote a magisterial volume that was translated and published in English as The Tides of History (1962). Political scientist Karl Deutsch also used the metaphor in the title of his classic text Tides among Nations (1979).

More recently, a search of the Internet bookseller amazon.com produced a total of 274 current titles that include the word "tides." There are books on corporate tides, the tides of power, tides of migration, tides of change, the tides of reform, China against the tides, NATO and the tides of discontent, the tides of war, the tides of love, and political tides in the Arab world, as well as, of course, many volumes related to ocean tides.

Our everyday lives are also subject to such tidal influences, especially in the business world, in the arts, and in politics. This year's fad is often next year's remainder or closeout sale item. This year's titanic blockbuster movie will be available for rental next year for a pittance. And this year's hot political issue may be ignored by the media next year, even though the underlying problem still exists.

Although we like to think that science is free from such extraneous influences, of course this is not so. Thomas Kuhn, in his celebrated volume The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), argued that science is very much influenced by the tidal effects associated with different paradigms. Ideas and theories that fit within or support the currently dominant framework of basic assumptions and theories in a given discipline are more likely to be favorably received. On the other hand, conflicting work, especially if it challenges the dominant paradigm, is often ignored or rejected. Kuhn's specific scenario for scientific revolutions has been much debated. Nevertheless, there seems to be widespread agreement that Kuhn's core idea is valid, even if the dynamics may be somewhat different from his original formulation.

A classic case in point is biologist Barbara McClintock's work on the so-called jumping genes-genetic rearrangements during ontogeny via what are now called transposons (or transposable elements) that can produce variations in the phenotype of an organism (such as the different color patterns in maize). This phenomenon, painstakingly documented by McClintock over twenty years, remained in the shadows until late in her life. The reason was that it contradicted the then-reigning central dogma of molecular biology-namely, that the genome is expressed during ontogenesis in a linear, deterministic fashion (DNA to RNA to proteins). Now, of course, it is recognized that ontogeny is a much more complex process and that a variety of nonlinear, feedback-dependent influences may affect the outcome (see E. F. Keller 1983).

In a similar fashion, the dominant paradigm in the social sciences for the better part of the past century utilized as its core premise the assumption that human behavior and cultural processes are determined (caused) by the sociocultural environment, and that biological influences are largely irrelevant. According to the widely quoted dictum of Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology, "Every time that a social phenomenon is directly explained by a psychological phenomenon, we may be sure that the explanation is false" (1938, p. 104). Among the many consequences of this dogmatism was a wall of prejudice against any purported facts that conflicted with socioeconomic and cultural explanations. Accordingly, Edward O. Wilson's paradigm- shattering textbook, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975), was greeted by many mainstream social scientists with great hostility. This is not surprising; Wilson threatened their core assumptions and challenged the hegemony of their explanatory apparatus. (The term sociobiology was actually coined by the pioneer biopsychologist John Paul Scott, but Wilson made it famous.)

Now it seems that another, somewhat less contentious tide change is underway, one that is affecting both evolutionary biology and the social sciences. It is a shift that, hopefully, will result in a more balanced, multileveled, interactional perspective on the evolutionary process generally and the ongoing evolution of the human species in particular. Over much of the past twenty-five years, evolutionary theory has been dominated by the "selfish gene" (or Neo-Darwinian) paradigm, so named after biologist Richard Dawkins's famous 1976 book by that title. The selfish gene metaphor epitomizes a reductionist perspective in which atomistic individual competition is viewed as the predominant, if not exclusive, shaping force in evolution. In this view, cooperative phenomena are not only very limited in scope but are reducible to gene self-interest; higher-level cooperative relationships are even considered by some theorists to be epiphenomena that are not causally important in their own right.

Given this predisposition among many evolutionary theorists of the 1980s, a new theory about the role of synergy in evolution-about cooperative effects of various kinds as a causal mechanism in the evolution of complexity-was, in retrospect, launched on a strongly unfavorable tide. The theory was developed in a book-length monograph called The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution (Corning 1983), and it was largely ignored at the time that it was published. Not only did this theory challenge the dominant Neo-Darwinian paradigm, shifting the focus from competition to cooperation (or, better said, to competition via cooperation), but it directed attention away from genes and stressed the functional dynamics of living systems at various levels of organization-that is, the functional effects produced by the phenotypes. As a corollary, this theory also proposed to shift the explanatory focus to the economics of survival and reproduction.

Paradoxically, at the time this theory was first proposed, the concept of synergy was already widely used in biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, and related disciplines. (A search of a biological database for the year 1988 using the keyword "synerg" identified 613 references, of which 95 percent were related to these hard sciences.) However, in evolutionary theory and the behavioral sciences the concept of synergy was largely ignored during those years-aside from a few eccentric uses by the anthropologist Ruth Benedict, the engineer-inventor Buckminster Fuller, and a handful of others. Of course, the term synergy is often used-and misused-in the business world, most notably in relation to corporate mergers and the like.

A Tide Change in Evolutionary Theory

Today there is every indication that the tide has turned. One early sign was the adoption of the synergy concept by biologist John Maynard Smith (1982a, 1983, 1989), who developed a synergistic selection model to characterize the interdependent functional effects that may arise from altruistic cooperation. (Maynard Smith later broadened the concept to accord with a strictly functional interpretation, whether altruistic or not.) The work of political scientist Robert Axelrod and biologist William Hamilton (1981; also see Axelrod 1984) on the evolution of cooperation, which relies on the game theory methodology pioneered by Maynard Smith, was also important.

Another significant contribution was made by biologist Leo Buss in his 1987 book on the evolution of higher levels of organization, which invoked the concept of synergy, albeit in a narrow sense and without much elaboration. The biologically oriented psychologist David Smillie (1993) has also utilized the concept of synergy in relation to social interactions in nature. Biologist David Sloan Wilson and various colleagues have also played a role with their dogged efforts over the past twenty-five years to put the concept of group selection on a new footing (D. S. Wilson 1975, 1980; Wilson and Sober 1994; Wilson and Dugatkin 1997; Sober and Wilson 1998). Although Wilson's paradigm remains gene-centered, he stresses the role of what he calls a "shared fate" among individual cooperators, which implies a functional interdependency.

Especially important, though, is the work of biologist Lynn Margulis on the role of "symbiogenesis" in evolution (particularly in relation to the origin of eukaryotic cells). Now recognized as a major theoretical contribution, this concept has focused attention on an area in which synergistic functional effects have played a key role (see Margulis 1981, 1993; Margulis and Fester 1991; Margulis and Sagan 1995). Indeed, the relatively new discipline of endocytobiology-inspired in part by Margulis's work but centered in Europe-is concerned especially with investigating symbiotic and synergistic phenomena of various kinds at the cellular level.

Perhaps the most significant sign that a favorable tide now exists for the synergy concept is the publication of two books coauthored by John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry on the evolution of complexity, The Major Transitions in Evolution (1995) and The Origins of Life (1999), which feature the role of synergy at various levels of biological organization. Maynard Smith came to recognize the universal importance of functional synergy (personal communication), as did Ernst Mayr (personal communication). Nowadays, articles about synergy in evolution are routinely accepted for publication, whereas fifteen years ago they were routinely rejected.

Complexity is also recognized by many theorists these days to be a distinct emergent phenomenon that requires higher-level explanations. In fact, there is a rapidly growing literature in complexity theory-much of it powered by the mathematics of nonlinear dynamical systems theory-that is richly synergistic in character; it is primarily concerned with collective properties and collective effects. To be sure, much (but not all) of the work in complexity theory involves a radically different view of the evolutionary process from the functional, selectionist paradigm within which the Synergism Hypothesis fits. For instance, the biophysicist Stuart Kauffman's work (e.g., 1993, 1995, 2000) is directed toward trying to identify overarching laws of biological order. His metatheoretical premise is that much of the order found in nature is self-organized-"order for free" as he puts it. (Ultimately, I believe that both self-organizing influences and synergistic functional influences will be recognized as important mechanisms in the evolution of complex systems. For more on this issue, see chapter 4.)

Even the concept of progressive evolution-lately denigrated as an outmoded idea (see especially Nitecki 1988; S. J. Gould 1996)-has also been resuscitated. For instance, John Stewart (1997) proposes that progressive evolution, meaning the trend toward the emergence of higher levels of organization, has been catalyzed and sustained by the functional advantages of cooperation and the ability of managers to control cheaters and free riders. Stewart boldly projects this process forward with a futuristic vision of government on a "planetary scale." A similar vision can be found in Robert Wright's Non Zero (2000). There is also much work in biology these days on emergence and the evolution of higher-level individuals (e.g., Michod 1997, 1999; Frank 2003; also see Ghiselin 1997). Again, we will explore these matters further in chapters 2 to 5.

So, the question is, will the rising tide lead on to fortune for the concept of synergy? A firm prediction would be risky, of course, but there do seem to be a number of favorable indications. One is the case for it made by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry in their two volumes on major transitions theory. Several of my recent publications also seek to advance the concept (see especially Corning 1995, 1996a, 1998, 2003).

There is also a recognition, only now emerging, that synergistic functional effects are a fundamental aspect of virtually every scientific discipline (see chapter 3). The reason why the universality of this functional principle has not been widely appreciated in the past is that synergy has traveled under many different aliases: emergent effects, cooperativity, symbiosis, a division of labor (or, more precisely, a combination of labor), epistasis, threshold effects, phase transitions, coevolution, heterosis, dynamical attractors, holistic effects, mutualism, complementarity-even interactions and cooperation.

Finally, there are currently several convergent theoretical developments that focus in various ways on synergistic phenomena, even though they may not employ the term synergy explicitly. These developments include, among others, (1) network theory and network dynamics (see, for example, Barabási 2002; Buchanan 2002; Strohman 2002; Fewell 2003; Strogatz 2003); (2) niche construction theory (Laland et al. 2000; Odling-Smee et al. 2003); (3) emergence theory (J. Goldstein 2002; S. Johnson 2001; Morowitz 2002); (4) evolutionary developmental systems theory or evo-devo (Rollo 1995; Oyama 2000; Pigliucci 2001; W. Arthur 2002; West-Eberhard 2003); (5) systems biology (Kitano 2001, 2002; Chong and Ray 2002; Csete and Doyle 2002); and (6) gene-culture co-evolution theory (Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981; Boyd and Richerson 1985; Durham 1991; Thompson 1994; Weingart et al. 1997; P. R. Ehrlich 2000; Hammerstein 2003; Richerson and Boyd 2004).

Of course, it is one thing to recognize synergy as a ubiquitous phenomenon. It is another thing to assign to it a major causal/explanatory role in various domains, particularly biological evolution, human evolution, and the evolution of complex societies. This is what the Synergism Hypothesis encompasses, and the case for this theory, along with an argument for using synergy as a unifying concept for cooperative effects of all kinds in various scientific disciplines, will be presented in chapters 2 and 3.

* * *

Often the most important contribution a scientist can make is to discover a new way of seeing old theories or facts. -Richard Dawkins

The power and majesty of nature in all its aspects is lost on one who contemplates it merely in the detail of its parts and not as a whole. -Pliny the Elder

SUMMARY: "Holistic Darwinism" is a candidate name for a post-Neo-Darwinian evolutionary paradigm. When two functionally linked genes are selected together, or when two symbionts (say a ruminant and its gut bacteria) are jointly favored, or when a group of communally nesting female wasps reproduce in greater abundance, the unit of differential survival and reproduction (in functional terms) is the whole-the combined (synergistic) effects produced by the cooperating parts. Holistic Darwinism is not a different theory; it involves a different perspective on the evolutionary process. To borrow Richard Dawkins's image, it is an alternative way of viewing the theoretical Necker cube. Holistic Darwinism is distinctive in that it is concerned especially with the bioeconomics-the functional costs and benefits-of cooperative phenomena of all kinds. It does not contradict the Neo-Darwinian assumption of gene self-interest but highlights the paradoxical interdependence of genes and their "vessels." Indeed, it is argued that the units of replication (genes, genomes, gene pools) and their genetic relationships are less important as determinants of cooperative phenomena than are the functional properties and survival consequences of cooperation, as the data on such interactions clearly suggest. (Maynard Smith has termed it "synergistic selection.") Many hypotheses have been advanced to explain the evolution of complexity-an undisputed historical trend if not a "law" as some theorists have claimed. Holistic Darwinism focuses on the causal role of functional synergy.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from HOLISTIC DARWINISM by Peter A. Corning Copyright © 2005 by The University of Chicago. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Part I - Synergy and Evolution: From the Origins of Life to Global Governance
1. Synergy: Another Idea Whose Time Has Come?
2. Holistic Darwinism: Synergistic Selection and the Evolutionary Process
3. The Synergism Hypothesis: On the Concept of Synergy and Its Role in the Evolution of Complex Systems
4. Synergy versus Self-Organization in the Evolution of Complex Systems
5. The Re-Emergence of Emergence: A Venerable Concept in Search of a Theory
6. Synergy, Cybernetics, and the Evolution of Politics
7. Devolution as an Opportunity to Test the Synergism Hypothesis and the Cybernetic Theory of Political Systems
8. Synergy and the Evolution of Superorganisms: Past, Present, and Future
Part II - Bioeconomics and Evolution
9. Evolutionary Economics: Metaphor or Unifying Paradigm?
10. Bioeconomics as a Subversive Science
11. Biological Adaptation in Human Sciences: A Basic Needs Approach
Part III - From Thermodynamics and Information Theory to Thermoeconomics and Control Information
12. To Be or Entropy: Thermodynamics, Information, and Life Revisited
13. Thermoeconomics: Beyond the Second Law
14. Control Information: The Missing Element in Norbert Wiener's Cybernetic Paradigm?
Part IV: Evolution and Ethics
15. Evolutionary Ethics: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
16. The Sociobiology of Democracy: Is Authoritarianism in Our Genes?
17. Fair Shares: A Biological Approach to Social Justice
Acknowledgments
Notes
References
Index

Editorial Reviews

"[A] fascinating book on evolution, in which [Corning] uses synergy, cybernetics, and the bioeconomics of complex systems as his organizing principless."

PsycCritiques - Mike Knight

An extraordinary tour-de-force.”

Anthony Trewavas FRS

"There is clearly a vast amount of challenging and valuable material here and this will certainly be a standard text among biologists, sociologists and economists. It is clearly and entertainingly written, without any mathematics but with precise and careful reasoning."

Kybernetes - Alex Andrew

Corning’s book is a masterpiece of synthesizing the most far-reaching facts and theories of evolutionary biology (and many other fields) and applying them with finesse to a variety of social phenomena. This book is a challenging and path-breaking contribution.”

John Gowdy

This is an exceptionally ambitious and important book that proposes to change the way most of us have thought about ‘Darwinism’ and evolutionary processes. Corning achieves this goal in many ways, but most effectively by integrating both his own diverse work in recent years and citation of just about everyone who has played a major role in scholarly dialogue on evolutionary biology and behavior over the last generation.”

Roger D. Masters

"Seen as an exploration of the economy of nature and as a challenge to Neo-Darwinism, Holistic Darwinism articulates an alternative that is both broadly convincing and attractive. The collaborative dimension of evolutionary processes has suffered from a poor conceptualization and I see Holistic Darwinism as an important step forward in getting it right."

E:CO - Max Boiset

"All [of the chapters] are important building blocks in setting up the theoretical structure of this new paradigm. A very illuminating read!"

Biology Digest

[A] fascinating book on evolution, in which [Corning] uses synergy, cybernetics, and the bioeconomics of complex systems as his organizing principless.

— Mike Knight

PsycCritiques

There is clearly a vast amount of challenging and valuable material here and this will certainly be a standard text among biologists, sociologists and economists. It is clearly and entertainingly written, without any mathematics but with precise and careful reasoning.

— Alex Andrew

Kybernetes