|
A
peer-reviewed electronic journal published by the Institute for Ethics and ISSN
1541-0099 25(1) – January 2015 |
Human Metasystem Transition (HMST) Theory
Cadell
Last
Global Brain
Institute (GBI)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Free
University of Brussels)
Journal of Evolution and Technology - Vol. 25 Issue 1 – January 2015 - pgs 1-16
Abstract
Metasystem transitions are events
representing the evolutionary emergence of a higher level of organization
through the integration of subsystems into a higher “metasystem” (A1+A2+A3=B).
Such events have occurred several times throughout the history of life (e.g.,
emergence of life, multicellular life, sexual reproduction). The emergence of
new levels of organization has occurred within the human system three times,
and has resulted in three broadly defined levels of higher control, producing
three broadly defined levels of group selection (e.g., band/tribe, chiefdom/kingdom,
nation-state/international). These are “Human Metasystem Transitions” (HMST). Throughout
these HMST several common system-level patterns have manifested that are
fundamental to understanding the nature and evolution of the human system, as
well as our potential future development. First, HMST have been built around
the control of three mostly distinct primary energy sources (e.g., hunting,
agriculture, industry). Second, the control of new energy sources has always
been achieved and stabilized by utilizing the evolutionary emergence of a more
powerful information-processing medium (e.g., language, writing, printing
press). Third, new controls emerge with the capability of organizing energy
flows over larger expanses of space in shorter durations of time: bands/tribes
controlled regional space and stabilized for hundreds of thousand of years,
chiefdoms/kingdoms controlled semi-continental expanses of space and stabilized
for thousands of years, and nation-states control continental expanses of space
and have stabilized for centuries. This space-time component of hierarchical
metasystem emergence can be conceptualized as the active compression of
space-time-energy-matter (STEM compression) enabled by higher informational and
energetic properties within the human system, which allow for more complex
organization (i.e., higher subsystem integration). In this framework, increased
information-energy control and feedback, and the consequent metasystem
compression of space-time, represent the theoretical pillars of HMST theory.
Most importantly, HMST theory may have practical application in modeling the
future of the human system and the nature of the next human metasystem.
Metasystem transitions
Metasystem
transitions (MST) are major evolutionary processes that allow for the
hierarchical emergence of higher organization in living systems (Turchin 1977;
Joslyn et al. 1991; Heylighen 1995; Turchin 1999). According to MST theory, a
metasystem (also referred to as a “major transition”) (see Smith and Szathmáry 1995) occurs when
living systems achieve higher system organization from the controlled
coordination (i.e., control system X)
of previously disparate subsystems (i.e., A1+A2+A3=B)
(Turchin 1977; Heylighen and Campbell 1995; Goertzel 2002; Last 2014a). In this
framework, metasystems occur as a step function that separates two
qualitatively different levels of organization (Heylighen 2014). This step
function can be approximately measured as a sigmoid (S-shaped) curve (Modis
2012) (see Figure 1).
Figure
1: Metasystem Transition as a Sigmoid Curve
Metasystems separate two qualitatively
different levels of organization. The new level of organization must emerge
from the coordination of new controls (X)
utilizing a new information medium for the integration of previously disparate
subsystems (i.e. A1+A2+A3 = B). The
highest control can then continue to replicate (“Branching of the Penultimate
Level” (Turchin 1977)), allowing for a new level of group selection, and potentially
allowing for the generation of another
metasystem transition (contingent on environmental evolutionary selection
pressures for higher information processing functionality). Through metasystems,
living organizations generate complexity that manifests as hierarchical and
developmentally constrained cybernetic controls (Heylighen 2000).
Throughout
the evolution of life, metasystems have consistently increased living system
complexity (Miller and Miller 1990; Smith and Szathmáry 1995). Common examples include
the emergence of prokaryotes, eukaryotes, multicellularity, sexuality,
societies, and superorganisms (Heylighen 2000; Smith and Szathmáry 1995). These
metasystems have emerged in a hierarchical and developmentally constrained
nature (Smart 2009), through progressive and cooperative symbioses at various
levels of biological organization (Corning 2005; Margulis and Fester 1991). This
simply means that previous metasystems act as structured platforms for the
emergence of higher cooperation, and therefore, the potential for the
generation of higher metasystems (Heylighen 2000).
However,
the current study of metasystems has progressed with little detailed
evolutionary analysis of the human system.
This is problematic for metasystem transition theory because the human
system exhibits social organization mediated by biochemistry, but also social
organization mediated by culture and technology, suggesting that metasystems
can occur even if driven by non-biochemical organizing properties. Furthermore,
the human system, specifically because of its cultural and technological
properties, gives us the most obvious appearance of a system with the
capability to transition to a higher metasystem in the near-term future. Therefore,
in this paper I attempt to apply MST theory to the human system specifically in
order to develop “Human Metasystem Transition” (HMST) theory. This new analysis
will give us a deeper framework for understanding the specific nature of human
transitions, and consequently give us a better understanding of the
similarities and differences between metasystems that emerge from biochemical
and technocultural mechanisms, two distinct and (potentially) competing
evolutionary pathways (Last 2014b).
2. Human metasystem transitions
From the
application of metasystem transition (MST) theory to the human system, we can
identify three major system transitions throughout the evolution of our genus Homo. On each occasion a new level of
organization has emerged, which has been stabilized by higher controls and
higher group selection. These metasystems broadly include systems commonly
referred to as “band/tribe,” “chiefdom/kingdom,” and
“nation-state/international” organizations (see Figure 2). The structures of
these organizations have been stabilized by the control of three mostly
distinct primary energy sources: hunting, agriculture, and industry. Band/tribe
organizations manifested around the control of hunted and cooked animal meat:
the Pyrian Regime. Chiefdom/kingdom organizations manifested around the control
of domesticated plant and animal resources: the Agrian Regime. Nation-state/international
organizations manifested around the control of ancient biomass (or fossil
fuels): the Carbian Regime (see Niele 2005).
The
control of these energy sources was always organized through the utilization of
a new information medium to connect previously disparate subsystems. During the
transition to hunting organizations, modern language emerged to facilitate the
formation of larger group sizes, which were capable of producing the social and
technical expertise necessary for hunting to become a stable and reliable
energy source (Dunbar 2003). During the transition to agricultural
organizations, written language functioned to track, collect, and stabilize a
coordinated large-scale economy fundamentally built on domesticated plants and
animals (Cooper 2004). During the transition to industrial organizations, the
printing press emerged allowing for the flourishing of scientific and technical
expertise necessary for the exploitation and stabilization of fossil fuels, and
consequently, the construction of the modern world (Niele 2005).
All of
these human metasystem transitions (HMST) can be characterized by subsystems of
lower control becoming integrated under new higher control regimes. In the
hunting transitions, parties and groups became integrated into bands and
tribes. In the agricultural transitions, bands and tribes became integrated or
subsumed into chiefdoms and kingdoms. In the industrial transition, chiefdoms
and kingdoms became integrated or subsumed into the formation of the modern
nation-state. These are the most basic
example of both the hierarchical and developmentally constrained nature of
metasystems. Metasystems are
hierarchical because they emerge from integration at lower levels and
developmentally constrained because they manifest similar organizational
properties at each level. In this
framework of thinking about the human system, the modern nation-state sits atop
an ancient evolutionary HMST control hierarchy of ever-more diversely
integrated subsystems (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Human Metasystem Transitions
Human metasystems appear to be phenomena
intimately dependent on information mediums, energy systems, and the
synergistic feedback processes they can maintain. Information mediums tend to
act as the functional tool for the organization of control system resources,
capital, and people, and energy systems tend to act as structural stabilizers
of control system organization. Therefore, the control of information for the
purpose of acquiring and distributing energy may represent the nature of
complex system control, at least in the human system.
Throughout
this process of higher subsystem integration, the stabilization of a new HMST
appears to compress spatial and temporal restrictions on human action, both
within the control system and within society as a whole. The highest metasystem
controls display an ever-broader extension of control over larger regions of
space, and they can accomplish this spatial feat in shorter durations of time
(i.e., physical space-time barriers to human action are consistently and progressively
reduced). Consequently, there is a trend toward accelerated metasystem
emergence, as the space-time reach of human action progressively increases. The
hunting transition occurred over a period of hundreds of thousands (if not
millions) of years, the agricultural transition occurred over a period of
thousands of years, and the industrial transition has been occurring over a
period of centuries. This metasystem process has resulted in more complex human
organizations directly and coherently controlling more of the Earth’s surface,
faster. For individuals, the consequence is the emergence of systems that
increasingly allow for action that is global (spatial) and instant (temporal). Therefore,
in regards to both space and time, higher metasystem controls appear to
facilitate a culturally and technologically mediated conquest of
dimensionality.
Of
course, it is unknown whether the metasystem conquest of dimensionality will be
further extended, but there is already evidence that a new information-energy relationship
is emerging in the human system between the Internet (information medium) and
renewables (energy structure). The development and stabilization of a new
information-energy feedback process could provide the basic architecture for a
further metasystem transition, which would mean a transition towards higher
controls (i.e., global), greater systems complexity (i.e., higher subsystem
integration), and further reduction of space-time restrictions on human control
and action. Such a metasystem transition would likely produce a human
civilization best described as a “global village” (Last 2014a) with a “global
brain” (Heylighen 2014a).
2.1. Emergence
of bands/tribes
The
first HMST was caused by the regular exploitation of animal meat (Wrangham
2009) via coordinated hunting and complex culture and technology (Ambrose 2001).
This allowed our ancestors to organize parties and groups into bands and
tribes. We see evidence of a gradual but significant increase in animal meat
consumption with the emergence of the genus Homo
2 million years ago (Braun et al. 2010; Schoeninger 2012; Steele 2010). This
exploitation of animal meat accelerated with successive Homo species (e.g., Homo
erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis) (Antón 2003;
Pontzer et al. 2011; Ungar 2012) between the emergence of the genus and the
emergence of modern humans approximately 200,000 years ago (McDougall et al.
2005). As human brain size increased, there was a concomitant rise in the
diversity and proportion of animal meat exploited from hunting larger game, and
eventually the regular exploitation of coastal resources (Wrangham 2009; Gamble
et al. 2011). From an analysis of great ape and modern human hunter-gatherer
meat consumption, we can see that the consumption of animal meat exploded
during the transition from ~5% to ~65% (Cordian et al. 2002).
During
the acceleration of hunting and cooking animal meat for energy, several evolutionary
anthropological models suggest that increased communication abilities emerged
as a result of the functional need to increase the faithfulness of information
transfer within parties and groups (Aiello and Dunbar 1993; Dessalles 2009;
Dunbar 2009). Between the emergence of the genus Homo and the emergence of modern humans, linguistic ability appears
to have improved in three or four evolutionary “movements” from grooming to
vocal language (Gamble et al. 2011). These movements can be correlated with
increased brain size and group size, and increased animal meat dietary
dependence (Dunbar 2003; Gamble et al. 2011). From these models we can identify
that a new relationship between information and energy was becoming
established. Without language our human ancestors would not have been able to
achieve the coordination, faithful cultural transmission, or technical know-how
to engage in an elaborate and complex hunting energy regime.
The
hunting energy regime necessarily required the development of new controls for
a new qualitative level of organization: bands/tribes. Bands and tribes
typically consist of 100-250 individuals, but can include larger aggregations. This
may seem like an inconsequential increase in the level of primate organization,
but our closest great ape relatives typically operate in party sizes of 5-10
individuals (Chapman et al. 1994, 1995), and group sizes that may reach a maximum
of 50 individuals (Aiello and Dunbar 1993). Therefore, tripling the number of
cooperating primates required the development of sophisticated kin and social
networks, as well as new complex modes of distributed decision-making and
diversification of labor related to energy acquisition and utilization. This
larger and more complex metasystem compressed both space and time. This was in
part facilitated by the development of long-distance endurance-running
capabilities, which co-evolved in the genus Homo
with language and hunting (Bramble and Liberman 2004). Long-distance running,
along with complex language, allowed bands and tribes to form organizations
with the capability to migrate, colonize, and stabilize in almost any niche on
the planet within a relatively short duration of time (Richerson and Boyd
2008). However, the specific spatial and temporal reach of any one band/tribe
was always regional in nature. Of course, this simply means that no
bands/tribes organized on large semi-continental or continental scales. But as
a whole, when compared to pre-Homo
hominid species and contemporary great ape species, the human band/tribe
organization was able to control larger areas of space within shorter durations
of time.
2.2. Emergence
of chiefdoms/kingdoms
The
second human transition was caused by the domestication of plants and animals
via selective breeding (Diamond 1997; Morris 2011). We see evidence for
independent agricultural developments in seven different locations between 9000
B.C.E. and 2000 B.C.E. (Diamond and Bellwood 2003). These “agricultural
revolutions” shared the same system-level patterns and included the same
general ordering of causal events related to the cultivation of plants,
domestication of animals, and rise of sedentism (Morris 2011). The degree to
which the agricultural system matured was largely dependent on the plant-animal
complexes available to human populations on different continents (Bellwood and
Oxenham 2008) and the ecologically influenced (but not dictated) diffusion
patterns of agricultural cores over centuries and millennia (Putterman 2008). However,
history gives us a clear directional trend: between the original establishment
of agricultural systems 11,000 years ago and the present day, we have seen an
overwhelming tendency of human populations becoming integrated (or subsumed)
(willingly or unwillingly) within controls originating from the agricultural
revolutions. Indeed, the human groups who adopted agricultural practices transformed
the ecology of nearly every habitable region of the planet Earth (Haberl 2006).
Agricultural
organizations formed sedentary populations of varying sizes and scales, but all
were ultimately stabilized by the new organization of symbolic information in
the form of written language (Cooper 2004). We have evidence of recorded human
symbols functioning to communicate information that predates agricultural
organizations by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years (Hawks 2013). Therefore,
the recording symbols as a practice, is likely as old, or older than the modern
human species (Conkey 1997). This ability to record symbolic information
facilitated the increased sociopolitical complexity necessary to organize early
agricultural organizations, as the first written records are largely composed
of lists related to administration and taxes (Cooper 2004). In the most
intensified agricultural cores (e.g., Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, and
Mesoamerica) we have the best evidence of this early record keeping (Trigger
2004). From this evidence, we find that increased population size increased the
need for administration and wealth redistribution to collectively maintain the
first city-states, chiefdoms, and kingdoms (Morris 2011). Without written
records for the practical administration and continued maintenance of
agricultural resources, large interconnected farming networks would not have
been able to provide the energy surplus for the emergence of civilization
(Stewart 2010). After the new information-energy relationship between writing
and agriculture was established in the most productive agricultural cores, more
individuals could dedicate their time and energy toward non-food related tasks
(Morris 2011). This eventually culminated in writing as a medium for recorded
narrative, bringing spoken language and written language closer together
(Stewart 2010). Therefore, the cultural and technological capabilities of
agricultural groups vastly expanded.
Controls
facilitating the metasystem transition toward the most intensified agricultural
systems represented a new qualitative level of organization exhibiting
increased functional specialization. The smallest of these controls reached
sizes of 1,000 to 10,000 individuals (Gabriel 2007), but in the most
intensified agricultural regions, controls managed to organize empires as large
as 10 to 100 million individuals (Taagepera 1979; Taagepera 1997). These
organizations were highly centralized in their nature and manifest in cultural
kin-based institutional structures often referred to as chiefdoms and kingdoms.
However, our conceptual framework to discuss ancient agricultural political
organizations, especially within an evolutionary perspective, needs to be
improved (see Graeber 2004). But like their hunting predecessor, agricultural
systems allowed for the compression of both space and time in comparison to
lower metasystems. Spatially, many agricultural systems began organizing vast
empires across large expanses of continents (e.g., Inca Empire), and sometimes
even inter-continental regions (e.g., Roman Empire). Temporally, agricultural systems achieved and
maintained this larger spatial conquest in shorter durations of time (e.g.,
millennia, centuries) (Stanish 2002; Taagepera 1979; Taaepera 1997). The
mechanisms to facilitate this compression included domesticated horses for more
efficient intracontinental travel and constructed sailing ships for the
beginnings of early intercontinental travel.
2.3. Emergence
of the nation-state
The
third transition was enabled by the exploitation of fossil fuels (e.g., coal,
petroleum, natural gas) (Landes 1969; Allen 2009). This transition happened so
quickly that it required only one diffusion center (i.e., England) (Allen
2009). Therefore, the diffusion of the new energy economy was largely dependent
on the European sociopolitical context into which it was unleashed. European
colonial and neo-colonial entities started exploiting fossil fuels well before
any other sociopolitical entity was able to develop a post-agricultural economy
(excluding Japan) (Robertson 2003). This gave most western European and
European neo-colonial entities a tremendous energetic advantage over
non-European peoples and territories. But global industrialization has been
developing and accelerating in “non-Western” countries between 1945 and the
present (i.e., the post-colonial era) (Weiss 2003). In particular, in the twenty-first
century, it is impossible to now talk about globalization as a purely “Western
phenomenon”, as many of the most developed countries exist throughout Asia. Similar
to the initial diffusion of fossil fuel use, the modern period of
industrialization is dependent on sociopolitical context (i.e., sociopolitical
groups’ ability to control the resources and development of their territory). But
unlike the first diffusion, most modern industrializing nations throughout
Asia, Latin America, and Africa are emerging in a far more competitive and
quickly evolving energy landscape, within which alternative fuel sources may
start to play an increasingly important role.
In
the same way that earlier human metasystems were dependent on the organization
of higher information mediums, modern structures were constructed utilizing an
emergent information medium: the development of mass-produced recorded symbolic
information (i.e., the printing press). The first experiments with paper (105
C.E.), printing (713 C.E.), and moveable type (1041 C.E.) started in East Asia
over the course of several centuries (Gunaratne 2001). These developments
predated the famed Gutenberg printing press, which was developed in mid-fifteenth
century Germany (Harnard 1991), but the system-level pattern of significance is
that similar moveable type technologies were developed in the two most
intensified agricultural cores: Western and Eastern Eurasia (Morris 2011). This
suggests that, like previous information mediums (e.g., language, writing), the
printing press as a medium emerged and adapted in response to increased
population size and sociopolitical complexity. However, the effects and
diffusion of the printing press in Europe were far more profound than those in
East Asia: between 1500-1700, European cultures, technology, and society were
forever changed by the proliferation of “ancient” knowledge, as well as the
ability to diffuse philosophical, scientific, artistic, and technical
literature to ever-broader audiences (Eisenstein 1980; Dittmar 2011). This
medium fully matured with “industrial scale” printing press technology in the nineteenth
century, allowing for the organization and maintenance of the modern
nation-state, as well as intercontinental empires and eventually the beginnings
of international governance (Eisenstein 1980; Mazower 2012). From the new
information-energy feedback between the printing press and fossil fuels, the
modern world (i.e., third human metasystem) emerged: the printing press enabled
the flourishing of knowledge for the exploitation of fossil fuels, and then
fossil fuel energy distribution in turn increased the percentage of humans who
could engage with the knowledge generated by the printing press.
Controls
in the first industrial metasystem manifest in the establishment of the
nation-state. Nation-states, like the agricultural organizations that preceded
them, had a proclivity for colonial and neo-colonial empire building (e.g.,
British Empire, American Empire) (Mann 2012). However, industrial organizations
represent the largest controls in human history, with the largest entities
(e.g., China, India) encompassing as many as 1-1.5 billion humans (Winters and
Yusuf 2007). Throughout the industrial era, various forms of the nation-state
have emerged, but these control systems are typically more decentralized and
driven and/or influenced by significantly higher citizen input than is typical
of the largest agricultural organizations. Once again, the industrial
metasystem compressed space-time when compared to previous metasystems, as
humans began to aggregate spatially on larger scales (i.e., expansion and
consolidation of integrated territory e.g., United States of America, Canada,
Russia, China, India, Brazil) over shorter temporal periods (i.e., centuries,
even decades). The primary intracontinental mechanisms to facilitate these
industrial advances included the development of the steam engine (nineteenth
century) and automobiles (twentieth century), and for intercontinental travel
the steam ship (nineteenth century) and airplane (twentieth century) (Crafts 2004)
3. Future human metasystem
transition
As
demonstrated (see 2.0-2.3), throughout the evolution of the human system
increasingly complex control systems have emerged from the development of new
information-energy systems (Figure 2). Within this framework of thinking about
human evolution, nation-states currently represent the highest control systems,
and thus, the highest human metasystems. However, it is unlikely that these
organizational structures represent the pinnacle of human evolution, or cosmic
evolution for that matter, as cultural and technological processes could allow
for the production of higher complexity in the future (see Smart 2009;
Heylighen 2014a): a fourth human metasystem.
Human
Metasystem Transition (HMST) theory offers a way to understand the future
emergence of a new level of human complexity through the development of
emergent information-energy systems, and consequent integration of the highest
control subsystems. If accurate, this
next metasystem may not be too far from fundamentally disrupting modern control
structures, as radically new energy and information systems are developing and
could form higher collective synergies than current information-energy systems
(Rifkin 2014). The possibilities of a new energy system to stabilize a fourth
metasystem could be based on the full exploitation of solar energy (Bradford
2006). Many energy experts have recognized that there is a strong pressure for
a new carbon-neutral energy economy that can provide more energy to a greater
number of people (e.g., Lewis and Nocera 2006; Şen 2004). Such experts have
also realized that solar provides us with the best opportunity to achieve this
next energy system (e.g., Bradford 2006; Goetzberger et al. 2002; Lewis 2009;
Liang et al. 2010; Morton 2006). Of course, other energy sources, such as wind
and geothermal power, could (and likely will) complement solar (Carrasco et al.
2006, Haralambopoulos and Polatidis 2003). Therefore, we could exist in a world
primarily powered by distributed solar energy complimented by a wide variety of
“alternative renewables” (Singer et al. 2011). But also, we should not
underestimate the potential future of nuclear energy, either the fission or
fusion variety (Niele 2005). Nuclear energy has had a problematic history, but
if developed and controlled properly, this fuel source could offer humanity
practically infinite energy for the remainder of Earth’s life history. However,
whether our next energy system is primarily based on solar radiation or nuclear
fusion, we can consider both energy systems “solar”, in that nuclear fusion mimics
the properties of stellar bodies (Niele 2005).
The
information medium that could stabilize the establishment of a higher level of
systems-organization is far more advanced than emergent alternative energy: the
Internet. If the Internet acts as the medium enabling higher human
organization, the fact that it precedes the maturation of new alternative
energy would be consistent with previous human metasystems (see: 2.0-2.3), as
new higher information mediums have always preceded the stabilization of a new
energy source. But that is not to say that the Internet is fully mature, in
both quantitative and qualitative terms. Quantitatively, most humans still do
not have Internet access (Kende 2012) (although access is increasing quickly,
and the selection pressures for truly global access are strong). Qualitatively,
Internet experience itself is likely to change dramatically, as advances in
artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and semantic web technologies will
likely alter the way humans interact with each other, and with computers
(Goertzel 2002). These quantitative and qualitative developments combined could
result in an Internet at full maturity that acts as a self-organizing
“planetary nervous system” (Giannotti et al. 2012) or “global brain” (Heylighen
2014b), facilitating all intelligent
agent interaction all the time
(Goertzel 2002; Heylighen 2008). Such a communication medium would emerge from
increasing Internet use, increasing access to the Internet, and the development
of the “Internet of Things” (IoT) (Atzori et al. 2010; Kopetz 2011; Kortuem et
al. 2010; Rifkin 2014; Sahel & Simmons 2011).
However,
all metasystem transitions are fundamentally dependent (and defined) around the
formation of new control systems. Currently, international control mechanisms
exist, but the nation-state has not been socioeconomically superseded. Despite
this, modern nation-states appear to represent an insufficient level of
organization to manage socioeconomic issues in the twenty-first century (e.g.,
Piketty 2014). Furthermore, data suggest that individual opinion of modern
governments is at an all-time low globally (see Glenn et al. 2014). Therefore,
it is possible that these control structures will be superseded in the twenty-first
century (Stewart 2014); but understanding the future nature of human controls
is still in its infancy (see Graeber 2004), and perhaps inevitably an active
ongoing process. Will the next system be a transition towards global governance
through socioeconomic regulation by a political body like the United Nations? Will
the next system be a transition to higher levels of state cooperation, similar
to what is currently occurring in the European Union? Will the next system
experience fragmentation to stronger local governance? Or will the next system
develop a wholly new type of control structure utilizing emergent information
technology related to artificial intelligence and collective intelligence? In
other words: what will be the nature of subsystem integration and higher
organization?
I
have my own speculations, but I must admit that here there are more questions
than answers, although I hope human metasystem transition theory will provide a
helpful framework to begin a serious inquiry into the future of human control.
Figure 3: Human Metasystem Transitions
(Possible Future)
The emergence of a fundamentally new
information medium and energy structure could suggest the beginnings of a
metasystem transition towards a higher level of control. If true the first half of the twenty-first century
could be characterized by a fundamental disruption to the operations of the
nation-state and the stabilization of new higher forms of human organization.
What
we can learn from previous human metasystem transitions is that new controls
will likely be organized utilizing the highest emergent information medium (in
this case, the Internet as medium should play a crucial organizing role). And
indeed, there has been a recent flourishing of studies suggesting that some
form of transition to “e-democracy” merits more serious consideration (e.g.,
Chadwick 2009; Fountain et al. 2011; Lathrop and Ruma 2010; Noveck 2009). Furthermore,
if past human metasystem transitions are any indication, and new digitally
based controls emerge to stabilize feedback between emerging global
information-energy systems, we should expect a continuation of the trend toward
space-time compression. This would likely result in a global human network
composed of 8 to 12 billion individuals who can seamlessly interact with few
global restrictions on travel and communication. Such a system would require
the emergence of more efficient intracontinental and intercontinental travel
mechanisms, but also, controls facilitating a more fluid dynamic between
individuals and societal boundaries. Is our world truly a small world after
all?
Although
this world may be difficult to imagine given current global conflicts, its
description is consistent with current trends toward higher international
cooperation during the later stages of the industrial transition (Karns and
Mingst 2004; Krahmann 2003), current projections of global population for the
middle of the twenty-first century (Boongaarts 2009; Cohen 2003), as well as the
trends characteristic of previous human metasystem transitions (Hanson 1998;
Hanson, 2008). The fourth human metasystem would allow us to enter a world as
different from the industrial world as the industrial world is from the
agricultural world, or as different from the agricultural world as the latter
was from the hunting world. But to enter such a world would be to challenge and
successfully replace, fundamentally, the current structure of our world. Such a
transition would be unprecedented, although the idea of higher global
integration has a long and complex history. In the metasystem framework, we
would tend to view this transition as humanity in the process of birthing a
global biocultural superorganism (see Turchin 1977). Considering that no such
entity has ever existed, the concept and foundations of the metasystem, should
receive far more of our attention.
4. Conclusion
I
have tried to describe a complex systems theory of the human evolution – human
metasystem transition (HMST) theory – based around the emergence of higher
control organization through the stabilization of feedback between emergent
information-energy systems. Both energy and information as phenomena appear to
fundamentally influence human system structure and also appear to build on
previously established processes, allowing higher controls to stabilize new
organization and complexity. If this theory accurately maps the territory of
human evolution, the emergence and establishment of new information and energy
systems should present us with a signal that our current control structures
will be challenged and potentially superseded this century.
From
an evolutionary cybernetic perspective, this theory has the potential to better
integrate unique human species processes within a systems-level evolutionary
model of all life. Previous biochemical metasystem transitions have followed
very predictable patterns related to organization and complexity, and it
appears as though the human system is not distinct in this respect even though
a new and unique pathway (that of technocultural evolution) has emerged and
continues to dominate change within our lineage. If simple fundamental
mechanisms increase the probability of the establishment of higher-level
organization within the human system, this may make our systems behavior easier
to understand in relation to other complex systems.
References
Aiello,
L.C. and R. Dunbar. 1993. Neocortex size, group size, and the evolution of
language. Current Anthropology 34:
184–193.
Allen,
R.C. 2009. The British industrial revolution
in global perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Books.
Ambrose,
S.H. 2001. Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Science 291: 1748–1753.
Antón,
S.C. 2003. Natural history of Homo
erectus. Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology 122: 126–170.
Atzori,
L., A. Iera, A. and G. Morabito. 2010. The Internet of Things: A survey. Computer Networks 54: 2787–2805.
Bellwood,
P. and M. Oxenham. 2008. The expansions of farming societies and the role of
the demographic transition. In The
Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences, ed. J-P. Bocquet-Appel.
13–34. New
York: Springer.
Boongaarts,
J. 2009. Human population growth and the demographic transition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society 364: 2985–2990.
Bradford,
T. 2006. Solar revolution. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Bramble,
D.M. and D.E. Liberman. 2004. Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 432: 345–352.
Braun,
D.R., J. Harris, N.E. Levin, J.T. McCoy, A.I.R. Herries, M.K. Bamford, L.C. Bishop,
B.G. Richmond, and M. Kibunjia. 2010. Early hominin diet included diverse
terrestrial and aquatic animals 1.95 Ma in East Turkana, Kenya. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 107: 10002–10007.
Carrasco,
J.M., L.G. Franquelo, J.T. Bialasiewicz, E. Galván, R.P. Guisado, M.A. Prats,
and N. Moreno-Alfonso. 2006. Power-electronic systems for the grid integration
of renewable energy sources: A survey. Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Transactions 53: 1002–1016.
Chadwick,
A. 2009. Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of E-democracy in an era of informational
exuberance. Journal of Law and Policy for
Information Society 5: 9–42.
Cohen,
J.E. 2003. Human population: The next half century. Science 302: 1172–1175.
Conkey,
M.W. 1997. Beyond art: Pleistocene image
and symbol. San Francisco: University of California Press.
Cooper,
J.S. 2004. Babylonian beginnings: The origin of the cuneiform writing system in
comparative perspective. In The first writing:
Script invention as history and process, ed. S.D. Houston, 71–99. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Corning,
P. 2005. Holistic Darwinism: Synergy, cybernetics,
and the bioeconomics of evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crafts,
N. 2004. Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth accounting
perspective. The Economic Journal 114:
338–351.
Dessalles,
J-L. 2009. Why we talk: The evolutionary origins
of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Diamond,
J. 1997. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates
of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Diamond,
J. and P. Bellwood. 2003. Farmers and their languages: The first expansions. Science 300: 597–603.
Dittmar,
J.E. 2011. Information technology and economic change: the impact of the
printing press. The Quarterly Journal of
Economics 126: 1133–1172.
Dunbar,
R. 2003. The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary
Perspective.
Annual Review of Anthropology 32: 163–181.
Dunbar,
R. 2009. Why only humans have language. In The
prehistory of language, ed. R. Botha and C. Knight, 12–35. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Eisenstein,
E.L. 1980. The printing press as an agent
of change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fountain,
J.E., G. Bertucci, G.G. Curtin, Y.E. Hohlov, K. Holkeri, Y. Jarrar, J. Kang, et
al. 2011. The future of government: Lessons learned from around the world. World Economic Forum. Geneva: World
Economic Forum.
Gamble,
C., J. Gowlett, and R. Dunbar. 2011. The social brain and the shape of the
Paleolithic. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 21: 115–136.
Giannotti,
F., A. Pedreschi, A. Pentland, P. Lukowicz, D. Kossmann, J. Crowley, and D. Helbing,
D. 2012. A planetary nervous system for social mining and collective awareness.
The European Physical Journal Special
Topics 214: 49-75.
Glenn,
J.C., T.J. Gordon, and E. Florescu. 2014. State of the future 2013–14. The Millennium Project.
Goertzel,
B. 2002. Creating internet intelligence:
Wild computing, distributed digital consciousness, and the emerging global
brain. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Goetzberger,
A., J. Luther, and G. Willeke, G. 2002. Solar cells: Past, present, future. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 74:
1–11.
Graeber,
D. 2004. Fragments of an anarchist anthropology.
Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.
Gunaratne,
S.A. 2001. Paper, printing, and the printing press: A horizontally integrative macrohistory
analysis. International Communication
Gazette 63: 459–479.
Haberl,
H. 2006. The global socioeconomic energetic metabolism as a sustainability
problem. Energy 31: 87–99.
Haralambopoulos,
D.A. and H. Polatidis. 2003. Renewable energy projects: Structuring a
multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renewable Energy 28: 961–973.
Hanson,
R. 1998. Long-term growth as a sequence of exponential modes. George Mason
University. http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf (accessed: January 2, 2015).
Hanson,
R. 2008. Economics of the singularity. Spectrum,
IEEE 45: 45–60.
Heylighen,
F. 1995.
(Meta)systems as constraints on variation: A classification of natural
history of metasystem transitions. World Futures: the Journal of General
Evolution 45: 59-85.
Heylighen,
F. 2000. Evolutionary transitions: How do levels of complexity emerge? Complexity 6: 53–57.
Heylighen,
F. 2002. The global superorganism: An evolutionary-cybernetic model of the
emerging network society. Journal of
Social and Evolutionary Systems 6: 57–117.
Heylighen,
F. 2008. Accelerating socio-technological evolution: From ephemeralization and stigmergy
to the global brain. In Globalization as evolutionary
process, ed. G. Modelsky, T. Devezas, T. and W.R. Thompson, 284–309. New
York: Routledge.
Heylighen,
F. 2011. Conceptions of a global brain: An historical review. In Evolution: Cosmic, biological, and social,
ed. L.E. Grinin., R.L. Carneiro, A.V. Korotayev, and F. Spier, 274–289.
Volgograd: Uchitel Publishing.
Heylighen,
F. 2014a. Return to Eden? Promises and perils on the road to superintelligence.
Forthcoming in B. Goertzel and T. Goertzel ed. The end of the beginning: Society and economy on the brink of the
Singularity. Available on line at
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/brinkofsingularity.pdf
(accessed: January 6, 2014).
Heylighen,
F. 2014b. Challenge Propagation: Towards a theory of distributed intelligence
and the global brain. Spanda Journal
V: 1-18.
Heylighen,
F. and D. Campbell. 1995. Selection of organization at the social level:
Obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. World Futures: The Journal of General Evolution 45: 181–212.
Joslyn,
C., Heylighen, F. and Turchin, V. 1991. A short introduction to the Principia
Cybernetica project. Journal of Ideas
1: 26–29.
Karns,
M.P. and K.A. Mingst. 2004. International
organizations: The politics and processes of global governance. London:
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Kende,
M. 2012. Internet global growth: Lessons
for the future. London: Analsys Mason Limited.
Kopetz,
H. 2011. Internet of Things. Real-Time
Systems 307–323.
Kortuem,
G., F. Kawsar, D. Fitton, and V. Sundramoorthy. 2010. Smart objects as building
blocks for the Internet of Things. Internet
Computing, IEEE 14: 44–51.
Krahmann,
E. 2003. National, regional, and global governance: One phenomenon or many? Global Governance 9: 323–346.
Landes,
D.S. 1969. The unbound Prometheus: Technological
change and industrial development in Western Europe from 1750 to the present.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Last,
C. 2014a. Global brain and the future of human society. World Future Society, 1–8. DOI: 10.1177/1946756714533207.
Last,
C. 2014b. Human evolution, life history theory, and the end of biological reproduction.
Current Aging Science, 7: 17–24.
Lathrop,
D. and L. Ruma. 2010. Open government:
Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol: O’Reilly
Media, Inc.
Lewis,
D. 2009. Solar grid parity. Engineering
& Technology 4: 50–53.
Lewis,
N.S. and D.G. Nocera. 2006. Power the planet: Chemical challenges in solar
energy utilization. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 103: 15729–15735.
Liang,
T., X. Zheng, X. Jiangbin, T. Szu-Ting, W. Yue, L. Gang, R. Clair, and Y. Luping.
2010. For the bright future – bulk heterojunction polymer solar cells with
power conversion efficiency of 7.4%. Advanced
Materials 22: E135–E138.
Mann,
M. 2012. The sources of social power:
Volume 3, Global empires and revolution, 1890-1945. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Margulis,
L. and R. Fester, R. eds. 1991. Symbiosis
as a source of evolutionary innovation: Speciation and morphogenesis. Massachusetts:
MIT
Press.
Mazower,
M. 2012.
Governing the world: The history
of an idea, 1815 to the present. New
York: Penguin.
McDougall,
I., F.H. Brown, and J.G. Fleagle. 2005. Stratigraphic placement and age of
modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia. Nature
433: 733–736.
Miller,
J.G. and J.L. Miller. 1990. The nature of living systems. Behavioral Science, 35: 157–163.
Modis,
T. 2012. Why the Singularity cannot happen. In A.H. Eden, J.H. Moor, H. Soraker,
and E. Steinhart ed. Singularity hypotheses,
101–126.
Berlin: Springer.
Morris,
I. 2011. Why the West rules – for now: The patterns of history and
what they reveal about the future. Toronto: McClelland &
Stewart.
Morton,
O. 2006. Solar energy: A new day dawning?: Silicon Valley sunrise. Nature 443: 19–22.
Noveck,
B. 2009. Wiki Government: How technology can
make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Piketty,
T. 2014. Capital in the twenty-first century.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Pontzer,
H., J. Scott, D. Lordkipanidze, and P. Ungar. 2011. Dental microwear texture
analysis and diet in the Dmanisi hominins. Journal
of Human Evolution 61: 683–687.
Putterman,
L. 2008. Agriculture, diffusion, and development: Ripple effects of the
Neolithic Revolution. Economica 75:
729–748.
Richerson,
P.J. and R. Boyd, R. 2008. Not by genes
alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Rifkin,
J. 2014.
The Zero Marginal Cost Society:
The Internet of Things, The Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of
Capitalism. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Robertson,
R. 2003. The three waves of
globalization: A history of a developing global consciousness. London: Zed
Books.
Sahel,
A. and J.M. Simmons. 2011. Technology and architecture to enable the explosive
growth of the Internet. Communications
Magazine, IEEE 49: 126–132.
Schoeninger,
M.J. 2012. Paleoanthropology: The ancestral dinner table. Nature 487: 42–43.
Şen,
Z. 2004. Solar energy in progress and future research trends. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
30: 367–416.
Singer,
S., J. Denruyter, B. Jeffries. 2011. The energy
report: 100% renewable energy by 2050. Gland: WWF International.
Smart,
J. 2009. Evo devo universe? A framework for speculations on cosmic culture. In Cosmos and culture: Cultural evolution in a cosmic
context, ed. S.J. Dick and M.L. Lupisella, pp. 201–296. Washington
DC: NASA.
Smith,
J.M. and E. Szathmáry. 1995. The major transitions in evolution. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Stanish,
C. 2002. Ancient Titicaca: The evolution
of complex society in southern Peru and northern Bolivia. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Steele,
T.E. 2010. A unique hominin menu dated to 1.95 million years ago. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 107: 10771–10772.
Stewart,
J. 2010. Foundational issues in enaction as a paradigm for cognitive science:
From the origin of life to consciousness and writing. In Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science, ed. J. Stewart,
O. Gapenne, and E.A. Di Paolo, 1–32. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Taagepera,
R. 1979. Size and duration of empires: Growth-decline curves, 600 B.C.E. to 600
A.D. Social Science History 3: 115–138.
Taagepera,
R. 1997. Expansion and contraction patterns of large polities: Context for
Russia. International Studies Quarterly
41: 475–504.
Trigger,
B.G. 2004. Writing systems: A case study in cultural evolution. In The first writing: Script invention as history
and process, ed. S.D. Houston, 39–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Turchin,
V. 1977. The phenomenon of science. A
cybernetic approach to human evolution. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Turchin,
V. 1999. A dialogue on metasystem transition.
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/turchin/dialog.pdf
(accessed: October 6, 2014).
Ungar,
P. 2012. Dental evidence for the reconstruction of diet in African early Homo. Current Anthropology 53: S318–S329.
Weiss,
J. 2003. Industrialization and
globalization: Theory and evidence from developing countries. New York: Routledge.
Winters,
A.L. and Yusuf, S. eds. 2007. Dancing
with giants: China, India, and the global economy. Washington DC: World
Bank Publications.
Wrangham,
R.W. 2009. Catching fire: How cooking
made us human. New York: Basic Books.