In the previous post, Norian compares the formation and collective welfare of human societies to the formation of a multicellular organism through the cooperation of individual cells. He describes the division of labor of cells in a multicellular organism as "more akin to the Platonic division of labor [...] a static system with no changing jobs."
While he's right to say that the division of labor is static, it is worth noting that the biological system we call an "organism" is by no means a "stationary state." The cells in your body are constantly dying and making way for fresh replacement cells. Every 24 hours, upwards of 50 billion of your cells kick the bucket. If your cells were to stop being born and stop dying, you would just die. (Norian notes that cells that refuse to die are called cancer.) As Ms. Bona, my 11th-grade biology teacher used to say, "Equilibrium = Death," meaning that a static biological system is a dead one.
If we compare biological growth to the growth of human societies, we come up with some interesting questions. For instance: Does "Equilibrium = Death" apply to human societies? Is Mill's conjectured "stationary state" desirable, or even possible? And to what extent are the "absolute needs" of humans analogous to the needs of individual cells?
In "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren," Keynes divides human needs into two classes: the "absolute" needs that we feel "whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be"; and "relative" needs, which are satisfied "only if their satisfaction lifts us above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows." Keynes writes that, by 2030, humans' absolute needs will be satisfied and the Age of Leisure will ensue.
But what are these "absolute" needs? I'm pretty sure that the most "absolute" need of any human -- or individual cell, for that matter -- is to live: that is to say, to not die. I cannot say with certainty that Keynes did not take this possibility into account when he wrote his essay. He might believe that "technical inventions" and rapid economic growth will lead to the ultimate achievement of immortality for all.
If Keynes were to have recognized living as an absolute need, though, it would come into tension with part one of his four-part prescription for rapid economic growth: population control. The only resolution to this tension would be to abolish human reproduction.
My guess is that a sterile, immortal society would not necessarily be the one most conducive to the practice of "the art of life." Societies, like our bodies, are of a dynamic, generational character. There is no living thing that has ever rightly been ascribed the title of "living" that has lacked biological potential or "desire" to make copies of itself. If the human species were to satisfy its "absolute needs" by forgoing death and reproduction, what would it be? Would it be alive? It is possible that it could be something much better (and more fun) than "alive." Humans might become ultra-happy, ultra-prosperous superorganisms with burgeoning bank accounts and abounding ambition. The one thing they would NOT be able to do, though, is what Keynes says they would be able to do, which is, ironically, to "cultivate into a fuller perfection... the art of life."
I think Ms. Bona is right, even when it comes to human societies: "Equilibrium = Death." Or at least a death of sorts. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that the best way to practice "the art of life" is to reproduce and die, engaging vigorously in activities of purpose for as long as you can. Maybe it's myopic of me to exalt the institution of life and "the struggle for subsistence." Maybe sterile immortality is the way to go. I think, however, that life -- painful, pleasurable, birthing, dying -- is not only the only type of life we've got, but the only type of life we want. Anything else, and we'd be rocks.
(David Brooks is far more eloquent than I. Recommended.)
Friday, February 26, 2010
Growth, Societies, and Organisms
Hey there!
So one of the point of this blog is to discuss the growth and development of societies. As I was thinking about the factors which cause societies to grow, I was drawn to thinking of the factors that enable societies to function in the first place, and so I wanted to kick this off by drawing a comparison between the formation of human societies and the events that took place in the transition from unicellular to multicellular life, millions of years ago.
The initial problems are identical: how do you create a unified entity which is advantageous to all concerned parties? There have been many ideas among political philosophers for why people enter into society, but the underlying assumption is that people entering society will be better off than they would have been in a state of nature. But what if the concerned parties have different definitions of "advantageous"? This is one of the problems posed to the cells which make up a multicellular organism.
Many multicellular organisms have two overarching types of cells, somatic cells and germ line cells. The germline cells are the ones that create gametes, such as sperm and eggs, and consequently they are the cells whose genes are directly passed down to the next generation. The somatic cells function in the creation and maintenance of the multicellular body, but do not directly create sperm and eggs.
Why is this a problem? Well, more often than not it isn't. That's because all of the cells in the body have the same genetic make-up, so the cells in your arm don't 'care' that they are not moving to the next generation directly, because the germ line cells of the body are passing identical sets of DNA to the next generation. But what if a mutation occurs, so that some somatic and germ line cells have different genetic makeups? Now there is the possibility (depending on the mutation) for there to be a sort of 'competition to get into the germ line', that is, a competition during development for certain cells to become germ line cells over others.
This is a similar situation to that of a burgeoning society: if different groups within the whole have different immediate interests, how is overall progress, or growth, accomplished? In this light, a political party which blocks reforms that will bring growth in order to protect its own political standpoint is analogous to cancer within the body; in both cases, selfish individuals are pursuing their own interests at the expense of the whole. Remember- a mutation arising in a cell which causes it to proliferate wildly will cause it to take over the body- cells have no foresight and do not 'realize' that taking over the body is not to their ultimate evolutionary interests. This is why cancer exists, even though it is to the detriment of the body.
Yet another comparison comes through the division of labor. In a society, the division of labor increases productivity, and according to moral philosopher and political economist Adam Smith, is also a source of innovation. Yet, to quote Book 5 of Smith's Wealth of Nations:
In fact, one of the main competing theories for the origins of multicellularity, compiled in large part by evolutionary biologist Richard Michod, states that multicellularity, aka the formation of a cohesive 'cell society', occurs precisely when the pressures of selection shift from those of the cell to that of the organism, meaning that when different cell types within the body become sufficiently specialized, it will be evolutionarily advantageous for each cell to remain specialized in this way as part of a larger entity, even though in doing so it loses its capacity to survive outside of the whole.
Is growth advantageous for society? Is the division of labor effective, and is it in fact advantageous for individuals within society to specialize? How does one go about curtailing cheaters and those who would advance their own private interests at the expense of the whole? These are some of the questions I hope we can begin to tackle, and I can't help but wonder if by viewing human society through the lens of nature, this shift in perspective might shed light on a novel and illuminating type of... consilience.
So one of the point of this blog is to discuss the growth and development of societies. As I was thinking about the factors which cause societies to grow, I was drawn to thinking of the factors that enable societies to function in the first place, and so I wanted to kick this off by drawing a comparison between the formation of human societies and the events that took place in the transition from unicellular to multicellular life, millions of years ago.
The initial problems are identical: how do you create a unified entity which is advantageous to all concerned parties? There have been many ideas among political philosophers for why people enter into society, but the underlying assumption is that people entering society will be better off than they would have been in a state of nature. But what if the concerned parties have different definitions of "advantageous"? This is one of the problems posed to the cells which make up a multicellular organism.
Many multicellular organisms have two overarching types of cells, somatic cells and germ line cells. The germline cells are the ones that create gametes, such as sperm and eggs, and consequently they are the cells whose genes are directly passed down to the next generation. The somatic cells function in the creation and maintenance of the multicellular body, but do not directly create sperm and eggs.
Why is this a problem? Well, more often than not it isn't. That's because all of the cells in the body have the same genetic make-up, so the cells in your arm don't 'care' that they are not moving to the next generation directly, because the germ line cells of the body are passing identical sets of DNA to the next generation. But what if a mutation occurs, so that some somatic and germ line cells have different genetic makeups? Now there is the possibility (depending on the mutation) for there to be a sort of 'competition to get into the germ line', that is, a competition during development for certain cells to become germ line cells over others.
This is a similar situation to that of a burgeoning society: if different groups within the whole have different immediate interests, how is overall progress, or growth, accomplished? In this light, a political party which blocks reforms that will bring growth in order to protect its own political standpoint is analogous to cancer within the body; in both cases, selfish individuals are pursuing their own interests at the expense of the whole. Remember- a mutation arising in a cell which causes it to proliferate wildly will cause it to take over the body- cells have no foresight and do not 'realize' that taking over the body is not to their ultimate evolutionary interests. This is why cancer exists, even though it is to the detriment of the body.
Yet another comparison comes through the division of labor. In a society, the division of labor increases productivity, and according to moral philosopher and political economist Adam Smith, is also a source of innovation. Yet, to quote Book 5 of Smith's Wealth of Nations:
"The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become."It is evident that with specialization, the productivity of the whole goes up, but, if Smith is correct, division of labor in the state renders each component incapable of functioning outside of the whole. Admittedly, under Smith's dynamic and self-generating division of labor, the loss of generalized function of each component would not be so severe. However, the division of labor arising in the multicellular body is more akin to the Platonic division of labor, it is a static system with no changing jobs. This specialization is one of the main reasons why multicellular organisms are capable of more functions than the aggregate sum of their parts.
In fact, one of the main competing theories for the origins of multicellularity, compiled in large part by evolutionary biologist Richard Michod, states that multicellularity, aka the formation of a cohesive 'cell society', occurs precisely when the pressures of selection shift from those of the cell to that of the organism, meaning that when different cell types within the body become sufficiently specialized, it will be evolutionarily advantageous for each cell to remain specialized in this way as part of a larger entity, even though in doing so it loses its capacity to survive outside of the whole.
Is growth advantageous for society? Is the division of labor effective, and is it in fact advantageous for individuals within society to specialize? How does one go about curtailing cheaters and those who would advance their own private interests at the expense of the whole? These are some of the questions I hope we can begin to tackle, and I can't help but wonder if by viewing human society through the lens of nature, this shift in perspective might shed light on a novel and illuminating type of... consilience.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Welcome to Consilience
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "consilience" as "The agreement of two or more inductions drawn from different sets of data."
Here at Consilience: Prosperity and Posterity, we -- Owen, Norian, and Chris -- will synthesize elements of political science, moral philosophy, economics, geography, and biology with the hope that our findings in each field will complement the others.
This blog will run parallel to the political science course in which we are enrolled, POLS1150: "Prosperity: The Ethics and Economics of Wealth Creation," taught by John Tomasi, Jason Brennan, and Mark Koyama. Most of the issues we will tackle here find their origins in our course. We will look at questions like:
Stay tuned! The thought-fest will kick off shortly.
Here at Consilience: Prosperity and Posterity, we -- Owen, Norian, and Chris -- will synthesize elements of political science, moral philosophy, economics, geography, and biology with the hope that our findings in each field will complement the others.
This blog will run parallel to the political science course in which we are enrolled, POLS1150: "Prosperity: The Ethics and Economics of Wealth Creation," taught by John Tomasi, Jason Brennan, and Mark Koyama. Most of the issues we will tackle here find their origins in our course. We will look at questions like:
- "Why do some societies grow rich while others remain poor?"
- "What does it take to deserve to succeed?"
- "Is prosperity good for humans?"
- "What is fairness?"
Stay tuned! The thought-fest will kick off shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)