THE AMBIVALENCE OF DEPENDENCE


dangerous and advantageous forms of interdependence





A Study in Thought

sa053



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

Inter-dependence and symbiosis; definitions.
Symbiosis, parasitism and predation.
Relationships between people.
The evolution of organisational patterns.
The "cell".
Inter-dependencies between radiant and orbital energy-forms.
All events require a set of suitable conditions, before they can take place.
Testing, fluidly, every niche of existence possibilities.
The conditions of existence.
A conglomerate of inter-dependence may overcome individual vulnerabilities of the participating members.
Pre-cellular evolution.
The tendency to re-establish an equilibrium of opposing force-fields.
The break-through of "complementary events"; the chain-reaction.

Inter-dependence is a dependence upon each other, and, because the most important forms of dependence are relationships between human beings, these terms are more or less inter-changeable, in spite of the fact, that the term "inter-dependence" may give the impression, that we are dealing with a mutually beneficial form of dependence between more or less equally placed organisms. The latter concept is more precisely and sharply defined in the word "symbiosis". We will use the term inter-dependence, therefore, as a representative symbol for all sorts of relationships between people, regardless of the aspect of mutual benefit, and, without the specific implication that the parties involved are more or less equal in strength or importance.

Our discussion will not remain limited, however, to dependencies between people. We will often refer to other forms of dependence and inter-dependence in nature, be it between living or non-living systems. Let us first discuss the concept of dependence itself. What do we mean with the existence or development of a state of dependence? Why would such a state develop, in particular, since it is, so often, associated with less desirable features or results? How does dependence relate to the more specific concept of symbiosis, and, when does symbiosis slide into a state of parasitism or predation?

Do we see parasitic and predatory aspects in the relationships of human beings? To what extent is human existence dependent upon the inter-dependencies operating within a complex, multi-cellular organism, and, how can we distinguish between advantageous and harmful dependencies? Before we can answer this last question, we have to ask; advantageous or harmful for whom?

Is there necessarily always a trade-off? Is it necessary, that an advantage for one party is, at the same time, a disadvantage for someone else? Does this mean, that equality and justice are only obtained, if individual members of a relationship of inter-dependence receive a nearly equal mix of beneficial and harmful, or positive and negative results?

Is it possible, that a relationship does not have to be an antagonistic trade-off? Can we see in the relationships between human beings practical applications of the concepts and mechanisms of a "symbiosis", where all the members benefit? Is it really possible to have a relationship that is truly beneficial for both parties; with a scrupulously equal burden of contribution, and yet, a decisively positive return for both?

There are examples of such a mutually beneficial state of symbiosis in nature, and, occasionally, in small human groupings as well, but, we see, also, that this condition is vulnerable, and, that it slides easily into a condition of parasitism, where one party is exploited for the benefit of the other.

Before we begin to discuss the questions about the relationships between people and between other living entities, we should go back and survey, quickly, current ideas and concepts about the existence of matter and energy. We will see, that, even, the existence of the most elementary forms of matter and energy are dependent upon a variety of conditions, and, we willl note, that the existence of any complex, inorganic particle is characterised by a set of relationships or dependencies forming, together, the essence of a "higher system" or more complex unit.

A complex unit of inter-dependencies may exist rather independently from other complex units, but, it is still governed by a range of external or environmental conditions or circumstances making its existence possible. Frequently, the existence of a particular system of inorganic existence depends, also, on the existence of another unit. For example, inorganic molecules exist as a combination of two or more atomic elements, which are already complex units of inorganic existence.

Life itself consists of a conglomerate of inter-dependent biochemical reactions, which found, eventually, after a billion years or more of evolutionary experimentation on a gigantic scale, a possibility to exist as an organised system of inter-dependencies; the "cell". The cellular unit is an example of a complex system of fragile inter-dependencies, which requires a rather narrowly defined range of physical conditions in order to remain intact, structurally and functionally, and, this condition of structural and functional integrity is characterised by the concept of "being alive".

The lability and fragility of many essential biochemical substances and reaction-patterns, (forming, together, the functional and structural unit of the cell), make it necessary to receive a continuous influx of a minimum level of suitable energy in order to prevent a chaotic disorganisation of this unstable unit of fluctuating inter-dependencies. On the other hand, the existence of such a large number of fragile and labile biochemical reactions in the cell is, not only, a liability, but, also, the crucial condition that makes the characteristics of reactability and adaptability possible in the living organisation.

At the present stage of our conceptual development, we have learned to see, that, matter and energy are different manifestations of an essential unit; matter-energy. The different forms of matter-energy readily change from a radiant form of energy to an orbital one, or, vice versa. The details of these transitions are complex, and, we do not have a clear picture, as yet, how, and, under what conditions, these transitions between the orbital and radiant forms of energy take place.

For our purposes, here, we do not have to concern ourselves with a coherent series of mental images in order to satisfy our sense of logic and quest for detail. We know, that these transitions between the orbital and radiant forms of matter-energy do take place under a variety of circumstances. The primary conversion of matter or orbital energy to radiant energy takes place in the interior of stars, where huge pressures and high temperatures fragment the atomic units of matter, in particular, the nuclei of atoms, liberating very large amounts of radiant energy, while forging, at the same time, more complex nuclear configurations.

However, radiant energy is produced, also, by an ordinary light-bulb, when the kinetic energy of moving electrons is able to generate enough heat to produce a significant emission of radiation in the spectrum of visible light. As a matter of fact, radiant energy is represented by a large spectrum of electro-magnetic wave-fronts, ranging from radio-waves to heat, light, ultra-violet light and X-rays, including the very penetrating, high-frequency gamma rays and cosmic rays. Most of the radiant or electro-magnetic forms of energy do not require the high pressures and temperatures of stellar interiors in order to perpetuate their existence, but, at the same time, we are not dealing, then, with the transition of orbital energy into radiant energy. For example, in the production of radio-waves, heat or light, we see, that other sources of energy, such as an electrical force-field is the driving source behind the production of these radiant energy-forms.

Similarly, we do not know much about the ways radiant energy-forms, or electro-magnetic radiation, reverts to an orbital existence in the form of elementary particles. However, we do know that radiant energy can easily be "absorbed" by orbital energy or matter in the form of an increased atomic or molecular agitation, which we call "heat" or thermal energy. Radiant energy can also be captured in a more specific way, such as the excitation of an orbiting electron by photons with a suitable wave-length and energy-content. This is the source of energy that made the existence of life possible during this gigantic pre-cellular experiment of natural evolution with the living organisation of matter and energy.

We want to emphasise, here, only the idea, that all these transitions require a set of specific circumstances or conditions, before they can take place, and, therefore, it is justifiable to speak about a certain "dependence". Every event in nature is bound to a certain set of conditions, and, these conditions are themselves, again, the result of events that took place, earlier, or, perhaps, even, simultaneously. Every happening or event is, therefore, woven into a web of inter-dependencies, where the creation of a certain series of conditions, opens-up the possibility for another event to take place. The fact, that this event took place, may, in turn, result in a set of conditions opening-up the possibility for yet another event, etc., etc.

Sometimes, these events or happenings are taking place randomly, as we visualise in the evolution of biochemical reactions in a protoplasmic primordium. In other circumstances, the events follow a much more clear-cut line of "guided" developments, leading to expected and predictable results, such as the series of nuclear transformations taking place in the interior of stars. If we know the size or mass of a star and the duration of its existence, we have a fairly good idea what sort of nuclear reactions are taking place within such a star or complex of stars.

All forms of existence, be it radiant or orbital forms of energy, depend upon specific circumstances, and, this means, also, that a certain reaction, development or event will take place, only, if the circumstances "allow" such a flow of reactions to take place. Certainly, if the energy-level is not sufficient, or, if the matter or building materials for a certain reaction or event are insufficient, the possibilities of existence will not be "realised" or actualised, but, we may include these conditions of a sufficient energy-level and adequate building materials, together with conditions of temperature, pressure, gravity, etc., within the overall concept of "suitable conditions".

If the conditions are suitable, a particular reaction or development will take place, and, this concept or idea is represented by the term or expression; "possibilities of existence". If water flows into a valley or a river-bed, it will seek-out all its "possibilities of existence", and, we see it flow, here and there, testing, fluidly, every niche of existence possibilities. The conditions which make this possible, yes, inevitable, are the influx of water, the gravitational energy-gradient, the internal fluidity of water, and the confines of the river-bed. If any of these conditions change, the events or happenings change, too.

We emphasise, here, a seemingly self-evident example of a fluid search for a possibility to exist, or occupy an area of the river-bed, because this process has so many similarities with the evolution of life, and, we want to emphasise, here, the all-important concept of a "possibility of existence". A possibility of existence, means, that a substance, an energy-form, or a system of energy-forms, requires certain conditions to exist. These conditions are usually defined by a specific force-field and temperature range, a certain number of substances and energy-states, as well as a series of specific "internal" conditions that are described by the concepts of fluidity and fragility, or, a limited internal resistance to "stress" or "force-fields" of one kind or another.

If all these conditions are present, a certain system or energy-form will exist. We have learned to delineate many conditions of existence for specific systems, by analysing the range of circumstances under which a particular system or substance can or can not exist. Once we have learned to see, what circumstances make the existence of a particular matter-particle or energy-state possible, we conclude, that we should be able to find such an existence again, if, and when, we encounter an identical series of circumstances and conditions.

If we do not find such existence, we look for an explanation or reason, why such a possibility of existence has not been actualised or materialised, or, why such an ecological niche has not been filled by a species of the living organisation. Usually, we come to the conclusion, that we have overlooked one or more conditions necessary for a particular form of existence, and, we have learned something new about the behaviour of a particular form of existence.

This principle can also be summarised by saying, that, all existence depends upon a series of factors, and, we know, that we can classify the conditions, existing at a particular time and locality, into factors favouring a particular existence and factors that hamper or prevent such existence.

If we look at the much more complex existence of a "system" of inter-dependent items of existence, we see, that the range of conditions favouring the existence of such a system, becomes much more stringent and more limiting. Yet, at the same time, under suitable circumstances, (such as, when the components of a system complement each other), it is possible for a system to have greater possibilities of existence than each individual component. This is only possible, if the conglomerate of inter-dependent components negates, in one way or another, the vulnerabilities of the individual components or items of existence.

For example, let us again imagine ourselves to be silent and non-participating witnesses of this gigantic experiment of biochemical evolution, before the single cell had found a possibility to exist. We see, how sun-light has warmed the shallow seas, and, how a large variety of salts and inorganic components have been dissolved and ionised into this pool of luke-warm water. Even before we begin to consider the energy contribution made by the capture of solar energy in the form of excited, high-energy electrons in orbit around atoms or complex molecules, we see, how the influx of substances from rivers and the dissolution of salts from rocks, as well as the precipitation of substances with the rains and the occasional flash of lightning, create many opportunities for chemical combinations and re-combinations.

The dissolution and ionisation of substances is one of the most important conditions to create an environmental "climate" that is favourable for random chemical combinations and re-combinations. Together with the less specific chemical and thermal energies provided by a luke-warm temperature, the mechanisms of ionisation and fluctuating concentration gradients, we see the capture of solar energy in the form of high-energy electron bonds emerge as a powerful driving force behind numerous chemical events.

Let us now visualise a specific example of a chemical transformation; because of a specific set of circumstances at a particular locale, the presence of a specific chemical compound is favoured. The production of such a compound will take place, until the concentration of building materials, the energy-gradient, or some other essential condition, changes sufficiently to slow-down and halt the process of production. We see, that every happening or event changes the circumstances, and, as a rule, the occurrence of an event, or the production of a chemical compound, builds-up counter-pressures or exhausts facilitating factors, until the event ceases to take place.

We say, then, that a new equilibrium has been reached. However, after an equilibirum has been reached, it does not mean, that the circumstances do not change anymore. Perhaps, the rate of change has been slowed, at least, for a while, but, eventually, conditions will change again. Other substances may have drifted-in from a neighbouring area. The temperature may have changed, more excited electron bonds may have formed, eager to give-off their energy and revert back to their original position.

One thing we can besure of. The conditions and circumstances are always changing, even, if there is no specific event taking place at a particular locale. Eventually, these changes create a new possibiliy of existence for another event, as well as the production of another chemical compound. Then, a particular event will take place and this causes again rapid and drastic changes of the local conditions, until, once more, an equilibrium sets in and things slow-down for a while.

However, it is also possible, that the occurrence of a particular event, together with the creation or accumulation of a specific substance, leads immediately to the occurrence of another event. It may be, that the rapid accumulation of a certain product opens-up the possibility for another event or reaction to take place, because this reaction uses the end-product of one particular event as a building-block or "substrate" for its own event. Then, these two reactions begin to take place simultaneously.

If this happens, the duration of the initial event may be prolonged. No counter-pressures develop because of the accumulation of a new product, and, the reaction may take place with an accelerated tempo because of the absence of inhibiting counter-pressures. In any case, it is obvious, that the changes in the conditions and circumstances of this locale are different, whenever we see such a coupling of a series of events, which is, in essence, the beginning of a "chain-reaction". If the limiting factor of the first event would, indeed, be the accumulation of the "end product", then, the occurrence of a subsequent reaction using this end- or waste-product, prolongs the existence possibilities of the first event.

We see, then, that the first event gains in durability, or viability, by the occurrence of the second event, and, at the same time, we note, that the second event is dependent upon the occurrence of the first event, because it needs the constant supply of the end-product of the first event in order to find conditions that are suitable for its own occurrence. Here, we see an example, where the occurrence of two linked and inter-dependent events enhances the viability of these two events occurring together, compared to the viability or possibilities of existence for each event, separately.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Fluctuations in conditions and circumstances.
Excited electrons.
The barriers of "night-fall".
A difficult imagery to work with, or believe in.
The whole machinery must have "clicked together".
A Creative Intelligence, versus an Evolutionary Search.
A confluence between the concepts of creation and evolution.
Mechanisms and consequences of polymerisation.
Duplicating a structure with complementary strands.
Growth in the living and non-living systems.
The protoplasmic primordium has disappeared.
Reproduction depends on the "creation" of specific, favourable circumstances.
A "nest" of very complex inter-dependencies.
Evolutionary adaptations.
The evolution of creative designs.

The fortuitous occurrence of two events that sustain each other and enhance their possibilities of existence, must be the exception, because it is far more likely, that an event will rapidly create changes that counter-act its possibilities of existence. It seems reasonable, therefore, to visualise the primordial protoplasm as an ever-changing and fluctuating field of possibilities of existence for a large number of chemical and physical events. We have to concentrate our attention upon one particular event or happening, but, we see in the background of our sphere of awarenesses an undulating field of conditions and possibilities of existence, creating, simultaneously, many different opportunities of existence at many different places.

One of the most important fluctuations in the conditions and circumstances of the protoplasmic primordium must have been the alternation between sun-light and darkness. The luke-warm seas cooled-off during the night, but not sufficiently to disturb the processes of ionisation. However, the capture of solar energy in the form of excited high-energy electron-bonds would have been halted during the night, and, most of the captured energy would, probably, have been released again in the form of light; an early form of (bio)luminescence. Chemical reaction-patterns would generally depend upon the energy provided by excited or "high-energy" bonds, and, these reaction-patterns would have a tendency to revert direction, or "run-down" towards their lowest possible energy-levels, during the night, when the driving force of the electro-chemical energy-gradient has fallen-away.

It seems justified to compare the daily influx of energy during day-light, as well as the regularly recurring episodes of night-fall, with the regularly recurring cycles of ebb and flood, which have also been used by numerous uni-cellular and multi-cellular organism as an ecological niche for the exploration of existence possibilities.

With this background in mind, it is not difficult to visualise, how numerous, complex biochemical chain-reactions found a possibility to exist, because of the influx of solar energy and its capture by excitable electrons, but, the periods of darkness and the cessation of solar energy-capture during the night, must have been formidable obstacles in the search for a more enduring possibility of existence, bridgeing this nightly hiatus in the supply of solar energy. Only, when electro-chemical energy could be stored in some sort of a reservoir that would be available during the period of darkness, was it likely, that the barrier of night-fall could be crossed.

How the biochemical evolution took place, during this first billion years of the earth's existence, is a matter of conjecture, and, the scope of this natural experiment is so unimaginable, that we may safely assume, that every conceivable chemical combination and permutation was tried-out by the force-fields of natural selection. Just because of this unimaginable scale of the natural experiment with biochemical existence possibilities, we have no difficulties accepting the idea, that the living cell was, ultimately, the sole survivor of this essentially blind evolutionary search for possibilities of existence. The living cell still represents the only viable state of complex, protoplasmic inter-dependencies upon which all life rests. The cell is a system of biochemical inter-dependencies, fore-shadowing in its complex relationships the many possibilities of survival and actualisation of the species' of life; of the past and present.

Each biochemical sequence must have been the result of an unimaginable and incalculable number of trials and errors, and, even so, on numerous occasions, the sequence must have disappeared again, before the mechanisms of guided reproduction were able to take care of the mechanisms of renewal. Such a process of renewal becomes an essential element in the chain of possibilities of existence, especially, after a biochemical "production plant" or sequence has become worn and defective.

We do not even dare to speculate, how, eventually, all these different sequences, (from respiratory and oxidative processes to lytic enzymes and the synthesis of carbo-hydrates, fats and proteins), came toghether, and, how the genetic encoding came-about that allowed a cell, at a certain, opportune moment, to reproduce itself. The mechanisms of cell-formation must have been "worked-out" in a vast and long-ranging experiment, before the whole machinery "clicked-together" and found the degree of endurance and flexibility that made it possible for the living organisation to exist, until today.

It is not surprising, that many people find it easier to believe, that life is due to an act of Creation by an Intelligent, Superior Being, because, it is easier to visualise a Deliberate Design, rather than an experimental and essentially blind Evolutionary Search. Yet, all evidence points to the occurrence of such an experimental and blind Evolutionary Search, and not to a deliberate juxta-position of complementary parts by a Creative Intelligence, as is the case, when man constructs a tool or a machine.

The construction of a living organism, the reproduction of the genetic code, as well as the numerous regulatory mechanisms that take place in the living system, are events, that depend upon the formation, or creation, of a set of stable and favourable circumstances, where these necessary biochemical sequences have a chance to take place.

I see your eyes light-up upon reading the word "creation", because you suspect me of contradicting the principle of a blind Evolutionary Search, and, you think, that I am, after all, reverting to a point of view, where we see the origin of many specific forms of existence, including those of life, as the result of a specific and deliberate Creative Act. Yet, this is not the case, because we use the term "creation", here, as a mechanism that ensures the development and maintenance of suitable conditions for the existence of a specific organisation or function of the living system.

We have discussed the concept, that, all events are dependent upon a series of conditions and circumstances suitable to their existence. We have not discussed, as yet, the possibility, that an event can "create" or "formulate" a specific set of circumstances, which would favour the occurrence of another specific event. This is somewhat different from the inter-dependence between chain-reactions, but there are similarities.

For example, the polymerisation or formation of long and complex molecules brings-about a large area, where the electrical potentials and the spatial configuration of the space in the immediate neighbourhood of such a molecule, becomes "directed" or "organised". All along and around these chain-molecules, in the three dimensions of space, we see a number of "dangling valencies", where there exist special opportunities for another molecule floating in the protoplasmic sea to become attached, but, as a result of the many neighbouring structures of molecules that take part in this chain-molecule, we see, that specific spatial configurations are preferred at specific locations.

Free-floating molecules have to "dock" by virtue of presenting a three-dimensional, complementary configuration, before they are able to link-up with a "dangling valency" or "electrical bond". Therefore, the protoplasmic space around a complex molecule becomes highly "selective", and specific molecules are favoured at specific sites. This imagery fore-shadows the manner in which genetic duplication is accomplished, as well as the "transcription" of guiding or message-bearing enzymes in the cellular protoplasm.

The main point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that a complex structure creates a complex and specific environment around itself, and, this presents an opportunity for a complementary structure to be "deposited" against its sides, provided, that other requirements, such as sufficient levels of substrate and energy, are met.

Let us visualise a structure made-up of a complex, double-layered strand of stable, organic or biochemical material, and, we can imagine, how a longitudinal separation may take place along the plane where the two layers are attached to each other. The subsequent apposition of complementary materials from the cellular enviroment, may lead, under suitable conditions, to the formation of structures that are mirror images of the "parent" or "guiding" molecules. If these two newly formed structures come together and form also a double-layered strand, they will form an exact replica of the original biochemical structure.

This imagery is directly based upon what we know about the duplication of genetic material within a living cell, but, it is undoubtedly true, that this mode of duplication is the end-stage of a long evolutionary search for suitable mechanisms to reproduce a complex organic structure.

We see, indeed, many simpler forms of reproduction, because, even, in the inorganic world, a crystalline structure has the capability to grow in size and copy its structure by the apposition of "free floating" molecules at the periphery of its crystalline lattice. Crystal formation depends on a super-saturated solution, because there are no specific energy mechanisms available to assist in a process of construction or synthesis, which requires, as a rule, a certain amount of energy. Especially the growth of living organisations or living systems of inter-dependence, requires large amounts of energy, and, this source of suitable energy has to be available, before growth can take place.

We may state, without any hesitation, that present terrestial conditions and circumstances are not conducive, anymore, to the development of another organisation of life from a protoplasmic primordium. As a matter of fact, conditions on earth have changed so dramatically since this one billion year period of pre-cellular evolution, that we have no concrete evidence for the thesis, that such a protoplasmic primordium really existed.

This concept is still a hypothesis, but it is a hypothesis that has been widely accepted. Not only, does this hypothesis make the mechanisms of natural evolution plausible at a chemical or pre-cellular level, but, it also implies, that, now, all life must come from other life; by virtue of the fact, that the living species' have within their genetic programming, a carefully guarded set of instructions, capable of creating suitable environmental conditions, (be it on a very local scale and of a temporary nature), to allow the development of a fertilised egg-cell into an embryo, which represents a life-form during the stage of development. This process of guided and guarded development leads, eventually, to an adult and reproducing member of a specific species, if everything goes well.

Those species' that have become extinct, or non-existent, lost the capability of reproduction for one reason or another. Their genetic code disappeared with the death of the last generation, and the secret of their organisation and the specifics of their genetic encoding are lost for good, unless, somehow, the genetic code remained intact within a fossilised cell. Fossil remains are the only evidence we have of the myriad of species' that existed at one time or another.

Let us make it clear, therefore, that the "creation" of specific and favourable circumstances to allow the development of a new generation of a species, or, to allow the production of specific chemical products within a cell, are functions that are carried-out by specific, gene-bearing structures. These structures are themselves the product of a process of exact duplication from one generation to the next, made possible by such a "created" set of suitable circumstances, but, the composition and organisation of this code reflects a long and continuous search for possibilities of existence, which species' carry-out in a process of blind trial and error.

We may state, therefore, that viability depends, first of all, upon the ability of parental genes to provide the specific conditions necessary to make the development possible from a fertilised egg-cell to a newly formed organism. Secondly, viability of a life-form depends on the genetic endowment of the fertilised egg-cell, because a complex and carefully timed sequence of biochemical events is necessary to carry-out the numerous embryological transformations that change a single, fertilised egg-cell into a tightly organised, well-differentiated and potential-laden new-born organism.

We have opened-up a "nest" of very complex inter-dependencies indeed. So far, these inter-dependencies are strictly biological or bio-chemical, ranging from a primordial protoplasm, billions of years ago, to the present time, where we see ourselves, merely, as a link beteen the previous and the next generations in this never-ending search for viability.

Before we continue to explore the many dependencies and inter-dependencies between ourselves, and, between our existence and the natural environment in which we live, we should explore an interesting side-line. We have alluded to the contrasting concepts of a blind Evolutionary Search, (as we see in the development of the primordial cell, as well as the many species' that search, fluidly, for a possibility to enhance and prolong their existence), as well as the "created", deliberately put-together items of existence. The latter is reflected in the concept of the Creation of the world, together with all its creatures and other forms of existence. These ideas and concepts are summarised by the imagery of many different religious beliefs.

Yet, how valid is it to see the concepts of evolution and creation as mutually exclusive? Is natural evolution, indeed, an example of a purely blind search for existence possibilities, and, are the creations of man pure creations, without an element of searching by blind trial and error? Indeed, the aspects of creativity and a blind trial and error are always inter-twined.

We see, clearly, as we have discussed before, that, only the composition of the genetic code is searched for "blindly" by the processes of trial and error, but, the processes of genetic duplication, as well as the metabolic mechanisms within the cellular protoplasm, are guided by specifically "created" circumstances. Similarly, we will come to the conclusion, that, man's artifacts are partly the result of a process of "mental foreseeing" and the deliberate juxta-position of items of existence, (creation), but, there is also an important element of trial and error when designing a useful tool or a piece of art, (evolution).

Let us review, briefly, some of the mechanisms behind the concept of a blind, evolutionary search. Sometimes, only a fairly small segment of a generation survives and reproduces. If this is the case, those functional and anatomic features that are making a difference in the distinction between survival and death, will be accentuated and perpetuated in an evolving species, while features that do not constitute an advantage in the struggle for existence, fade-away from the "gene-pool".

In species' that are under a considerable pressure from the naturally selective force-fields, the gene-pool is constantly modified, because a desperate search is under way for an improved measure of viability. In a way, we can visualise this situation as a race against the threat of extinction, because it is, obviously, a vulnerable situation, if only a small segment of a generation is able to survive and procreate. Either, a more successful genetic composition comes to the fore and the rate of survival improves, or, the search for a more successful genetic package of instruction fails, and the species becomes, indeed, extinct.

It may also happen, that a specific population of a species becomes isolated and separated, and begins to face markedly different circumstances compared to the "main-stream" or the main population of a species. Then, it is likely, that we are going to see two different species' emerge, because genetic compatibility is rapidly lost whenever segments of the same gene-pool are developing into different directions. Genetic compatibility would "dilute" the carefully selected set of genetic characteristics that secure survival under a specific set of circumstances, because genetic mixing would again introduce features that are not suitable to the demands of this particular ecological niche.

The existence possibilities for an individual, as well as the species as a whole, are constantly subjected to pressures from the environment, and, the search for viability constitutes, in essence, a blind trial and error to find the most useful and viable adaptation. However, the reproduction of an organism is a "guided event", not only, before birth, or, before hatching, but, thereafter as well. Mechanisms of guidance or regulation play an important role in the maintenance of individual and species viability during the entire period of existence.

Let us go back, for a moment, to man himself, and, let us consider his capability to foresee, under certain fortunate circumstances, the need for a special tool, which is an object with special qualities or capabilities. Sometimes, man is able to create this tool from a mental imagery in which he can visualise the characteristics or capabilities of an instrument, before it has actually been made. It was logical, that early man attributed a similar process of "mental fore-shadowing" in the Mind of a Superior Intelligence in order to explain the riddle of existence. This idea comes to the fore, for example, in the imagery of religious explanations, where man has visualised the origins of his existence and his natural surroundings as a Creative Act by God, Who foresaw in His Mind the existence of man and his world, and then proceeded to create such a world without the slightest hesitation or error.

When we take a closer look at many of man's creations, we see, that they do, indeed, "evolve", in contrast with the immediately perfect creations by God, as visualised in the imagery of man's religious beliefs. Certainly, man can create artificially a tool by the juxta-position of various parts or by deliberately shaping a natural object. Nature could not produce such a tool with the random processes of chance, because in most natural environments we are familiar with, the random distribution of suitable events is too low to permit a reasonable chance for such a juxta-position to occur.

Nevertheless, the design of a tool by a human being "evolves", on many occasions, and, it is clear, that the more complicated tools, such as an automobile or a computer, have a long "history", or period of evolution, where, often, several teams of designers, over a period of many years, or, even, several generations, have made contributions to a particular tool or piece of machinery.

We see, then, how the phenomena of evolutionary change and the worlds of guided or created events tend to overlap each other, and, I feel, that it is worthwhile to pursue this imagery further, because it has such an important influence on our grasp over the concepts of evolution and creation.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The bibilical concept of Creation.
Can something come from nothing?
The origin of God.
The appearance of randomness in the occurrence of numerous similar and simultaneous events.
Scattering grains of sand.
The summarising functions of the mind, and the concept of randomness.
Randomness and Guidance.
A deliberate, creative act of the human will.
Behavioural flexibility, and the need to finely tune our behaviour-patterns.
A brief outline of awareness, consciousness, symbolic representation, and a willed, intelligent, behavioural response.
The relativity of knowledge.
A number of questions.
An essential equivalence between the creative functions of human existence and the forces of natural selection.
Neither one, nor the other, is perfectly random or completely guided.
The mechanisms of social inter-dependence.

If we look again at the biblical concept of "Creation", we see, that this indicates, not only, a completely guided event, crafted by a Conscious Intelligence, but, it also implies a creation of something out of nothing. Actually, the bibilical text may not state the latter assumption explicitly, and, it refers, primarily, to a change from chaos into order, but I believe that we, indeed, assume, that God has the power to create something out of nothing, and, we have to assume, that the chaos existing before God began to create order, also existed because of God.

I am not aware of any theological doctrine stipulating that God, too, has to respect the Law of the conservation of matter-energy, and, it seems to contradict the concept of an omnipotent God to be bound by any sort of limitation. Yet, scientifically, this principle of the conservation of matter-energy has become a fundamental corner-stone in our grasp over reality.

Perhaps, it is fair to say, that a superficial sense of logic makes us assume, that something can come from nothing, because we assume that all existence has a cause. Yet, if we think about it carefully, we come to the conclusion, that all existence has a "cause", because there are endless possibilities to transform matter-energy into different states of matter-energy, but, the conclusion, that matter-energy comes from something else, e.g. from nothing, or, from God, does not follow logically at all.

We are not at all sure, that there must have been a "time", or a period of existence, before there was energy-matter, because our extrapolations fall-short, and, we become increasingly aware of the fact, that the perception of time and space, as well as all conceptualisations of cause and effect, are dependent upon sophisticated human thoughts, and, therefore, upon human existence; a rather specific and short-lived dependence, indeed!

Let us say, simply, that, in a human framework of reality perceptions, we assume, that matter-energy has "always" existed, in one form or another, and, that we limit our inquiry about the nature of all forms of matter-energy, including the living organisation, to an analysis of matter-energy transformations, as well as a synthesis of broad principles of operation describing the way human beings perceive reality.

In a way, the theologian has come to the same conclusion. While he readily admits the possibility, that God can create in his all-powerful wisdom and love anything He choses to create, the origin of God is left unanswered, or, it is categorically stated, that God existed "before all Time and all Existence".

Let us now look at the concept of creation as an event that is guided by the conscious intelligence of a human being. Let us contrast the creative activities of human beings with the concepts of chance and randomness, and, we will see, that it is possible to reconcile these entrenched contradictions between the concepts of a "deliberate creation" and those of "randomness", chance, and a blind evolutionary search for a possibility to exist.

If we look at a specific event, we see, that it is always guided by a specific set of conditions and circumstances. The event, either, takes place, or, it does not take place, depending on the circumstances, and, if the event is more complex and subject to variations, we note, that the circumstances and conditions of the locale at a particular moment, still determine completely each individual event or sub-event.

Sometimes, we think, that an event is not completely determined, and, we may come to the conclusion, that a "random variability" is, indeed, possible, but, we can be sure, that, the event is then, either, a large conglomerate of numerous smaller, more basic and completely determined events, or, we do not know all the conditions, factors or circumstances influencing this particular event.

Randomness is a human abstraction, and, it is, in essence, a conceptual tool with which we grasp the overall aspects of very complex phenomena. We are unable to see, detect, measure or weigh all the individual events and their circumstances of occurrence. For example, if I throw a handful of sand on the floor, the grains of sand will scatter in an apparently random fashion over the floor. However, we know, that, in many instances we can make a number of accurate predictions about the outcome of such a random event. These predictions are grasped in the concepts of a predictable random distribution, or "scatter", and these predictions are quite successfully quantitated and manipulated, mathematically.

We should not forget, that this apparently single event of dropping a handful of sand on the floor, is, in essence, a very large series of separate events. Each grain of sand describes a trajectory that is completely determined by its own momentum and mass, its collisions with neighbouring grains of sand and the floor, as well as other factors, such as angle of impact, elasticity, obstacles and irregularities in the shape, size and surface of the grains of sand or the particles of the floor with which it has come into contact.

Obviously, the calculation of all these factors, and, even, the qualitative description of the path of each grain of sand is beyond our powers. At the same time, we note, that such an effort is unnecessary, because the summarising concepts of randomness and scatter are far more useful to work with.

While randomness as a summarising concept disappears from the scene of detailed and focussed reality perceptions, we should not forget, that all conceptualisations of operative factors, conditions, influences and circumstances, are concepts, and, we know, now, that these concepts are based upon recognised classes of events, which are in themselves summaries of a much larger series of sense-impressions.

In a sense, therefore, our concepts about "guiding conditions", are not any more "real" than the summarising concepts of scatter or random distribution, but, it is useful to keep in mind, that, randomness is a summary of a large number of events with a specific set of guiding and determining circumstances. It is therefore valid to conclude, that the reality of randomness depends on the reality of a summarised or integrated series of numerous similar but not identical sub-events, which we can not delineate or discern with a significant degree of clarity, precision or meaning.

We see, then, how the randomness of fluctuating conditions, especially, in living systems, is, on many occasions, controled and changed into a relatively stable and suitable environment by mechanisms that "create" these specific and suitable circumstances. If this event is such a complicated process as the development of a mammalian embryo, we see, indeed, how these suitable circumstances have to be created with a great deal of care and consistency. The reproduction of an organism is therefore taken-out of the random circumstances of chance-happenings, because the chances for the continuity of living existence would be infinitessimally small, if it was left to these random circumstances of chance to reproduce the circumstances that would allow a living organism to be formed again.

Yet, the mechanisms of randomness do not disappear totally in the reproduction of complex living systems, as we see in the scattering of seeds, the somewhat random process of mating, as well as the random movements of sperm during the fertilisation of an egg-cell. The main point, here, is the fact, that the circumstances or conditions are deliberately guided by the genetic code of the parents, as well as the off-spring, in order to provide a milieu that is favourable for reproduction and secures, thereby, the continuity of a species.

The guidance of events by genetic mechanisms has a strong existential meaning, because it is the corner-stone of species viability. On close scrutiny it becomes obvious, that the seemingly arbitrary and choice-like processes of a deliberate "creation", or selective act of our "will", is not so far removed from the same mechanisms as we described above. We will see, that our creative activities and the deliberate choice of our "free will" show many characteristics that resemble the random processes of chance, or, the blind search for possibilities of existence.

Before we can define an act of our "will" as a deliberate creation of our conscious intelligence, we have to define, to some extent, what we mean by "conscious awareness", and, what the role is of our intelligence and "free will". We have traced, on various occasions, the faculty of conscious awareness to the ability of re-stimulating memory-traces by mimicry, stylised or stream-lined gestures, and, later, by arbitrary sound-symbols or written signs. In non-verbalising animals, re-stimulation of awarenesses and memory-traces can only occur through the reception of an analogous reality experience, but, in the human being, the faculty of symbolic representation allows a memory-trace to be recalled with the help of representative symbols.

This leads, quickly, to a large vocabulary of symbolic representations that require classification. In order to systematise the many symbolically representable awarenesses, we form abstractions, as well as a variety of syntactic devices, which let us manipulate a great variety of ideas and concepts with skill and ease.

We have discussed the reasons, why this trend was such a momentous break-through for the behaviourally flexible anthropoids, and, we know, how the development of conscious awarenesses led to a more or less systematised structure of beliefs, with a great deal of influence upon our behavioural choices. Mankind has developed behavioural flexibility to its limits in comparison with other living species', and, the development of belief structures has added another dimension to our repertoir of behavioural choices.

The behaviourally flexible species' developed the ability to finely tune their behaviour according to rapidly varying circumstances. This enhances their chances to find food, shelter and a mate, especially, when the environmental circumstances vary a great deal, but, this element of behavioural flexibility also places a much greater burden on the faculties of memory and recognition, because the members of such a flexible species have to distinguish between a large number of beneficial and harmful signals arising from the environment.

The responses of these flexible species' become less and less stereotyped, as they become individualised and adapted to specific circumstances. We observe in other people, and, we experience, clearly, in ourselves, the need to come, on many occasions, to a deliberate, well thought-out response. Certainly, the greatest part of our responses are automatic and routine, but, there is always a problem in our mind that requires a deliberate and willed response. If we have a well-developed ability to come to an appropriate behavioural choice, we call this behaviour "intelligent", and, it is clear, that intelligence depends on an accurate and broad grasp of the realities around and within us.

This, in a nutshell, gives us a background for the concepts of awareness, consciousness, symbolic representation and a willed, intelligent behavioural choice, based upon the faculties of behavioural flexibility. We have outlined each of these ideas more in detail before, and, we have also emphasised the fact, that, all these mental images developed as a result of our conscious awarenesses and powers of abstraction.

However, these images are mental images only, which help us in our relationships with the natural and social environment, but, they have nothing to do with, and can not be related in any way to, an absolute or extra-human reality. We have argued, before, that we can only know human realities, in the sense, that, all knowledge is conceptual in nature, and, because we do not know absolute reality, we are also prevented from claiming any degree of resemblance between our conceptual imagery and a hypothetical "absolute reality".

We have defined consciousness, as well as the ability to make a conscious, deliberate and, sometimes, arbitrary behavioural decision, as a biological development that was encouraged for one reason only; the enhancement of viability. Indeed, if we analyse acts of intelligent behaviour, we see, that the over-riding common denominator in all intelligent and creative behavioural acts, is the fact, that these behaviour-patterns benefit the individual.

These behavioural acts protect me as a member of a flexible species, or they make me stronger. Intelligent behaviour may make me more acceptable in the eyes of the other members in society, or, in my own eyes. In short, intelligent behaviour is the crown of our behavioural fine-tuning, and, it is also the crown of our evolutionary development.

The purpose of all behaviour is to adapt an organism to the circumstances in such a way, that the results are beneficial to this organism, and, in case of a socially integrated being, the behaviour-patterns must also be beneficial to the members of the immediate social environment. Intelligent behaviour, including the entire realm of conscious awareness, has, therefore, an existential meaning, and, as a result of the development of manipulative mastery, we see, that intelligent behaviour means, at least, for man, also, the manipulation of circumstances and reality perceptions.

We have seen, that, the primary function of the genetic code is to ensure favourable circumstancs for the continued existence of an organism, and to secure the continuation of the gene-pool by guiding, regulating and "creating" circumstances that are suitable for the development of the next generation. In the behaviourally flexible species', the detailed instructions for finely tuned behaviour are taken-away from the genetic code, and, they are "given" to the flexible, behavioural choice of an individual organism. This transfers, at least, in part, the responsibility of viability to the conscious behavioural choices of an individual or a small community.

Is it, therefore, strange to come to the conclusion, that this spectrum of consciously willed behaviour-patterns and deliberate decision-making, complements the functions of the genetic code? Is it strange to consider the genetic code, as well as the cultural code of intelligent and conscious behaviour, as tools with which we maintain the conditions and circumstances of viability? Is it surprising to see, that, even, the deliberate and specific act of our conscious will is guided by sense-impressions and their interpretations, and, is it strange to note, that, our consciously willed acts of creation present, (seen over a prolonged period of time), the same searching quality for enhanced performance and increased viability as the mechanisms of the blind evolutionary search? It is quite logical to emphasise the search for viability in every intelligent and creative act of freely willed behaviour, as well as in the genetic encoding of those events that ensure viability through the creation of favourable conditions for existence.

It will remain difficult for our sense of intuition to accept an essential equivalent between the creative functions of human intelligence, on the one hand, and, the apparently blind and ruthless forces of natural selection, on the other. We certainly do not want to imply the existence of an identity or an exact equivalent, but, it seems worthwhile to loosen ourselves from the traditional perception, that the forces of natural evolution and those of creative intelligence, represent an irreconcilable anti-thesis. Let us acknowledge, that the forces of natural evolution contain a very important element of guided development, and, that the creativity of man shows a great deal of searching and probing. Neither one, nor the other, is perfectly random, nor completely guided.

Let us leave this interesting field, because we have a lot to discuss about human relationships, as well as the various dependencies and inter-dependencies that present themselves in a kaleidoscopic fashion, whenever we care to think about these matters systematically. If we start to talk about relationships between people, we add another dimension to the complexity of the systems under consideration. In stead of considering only the existential requirements of one individual, we have to take into account the conflicting, as well as the harmonising interests, of a group of people forming a social unit.

We have discussed, before, that the mechanisms of secondary social integration of complex multi-cellular life-forms took place well before the origin of the human species. After all, some form of socialisation is wide-spread throughout the spectrum of mammalian life, and, there is, to some extent, also some sort of socialisation in the behaviour of the precisely instructed insect. Social developments, or, at least, the beginnings of social bonding, originated, therefore, well before the development of speech and symbolic communications, but, the larger social units of the human species are so unique, and, they are so unlike anything else in nature, that we may consider them to depend, almost completely, on the faculties of intelligence and the deliberate, voluntary choice, rather than on the instructions of a genetic code.

The possibilities for a viable, large-scale human society are solidly based on the capabilities natural selection has evolved during its long evolutionary search for viable mechanisms, but, it is clear, that the complexities and specialised features of large social groupings are dependent on the capabilities of behavioural flexibility, the voluntary choice, as well as the formation of sophisticated concepts and culturally encoded guidance-patterns.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Building upon the concept of a "biological heritage".
The anthropoid species'.
A need for excellent parental behaviour.
Trying to rear children "by the book".
Emotional mechanisms between parents and off-spring.
The ability to give and receive trust.
Unraveling the mechanisms of a developing personality.
A continuously varying mix between protection, affection, stimulation and discipline.
Mechanisms playing a role during an increase in population density.
The internal "frictions" of competitive strife.
A static population, and its internal dynamics.
Intra-species predation.
The stampede into a leaderless panic.
The mass-migration.
Limitations of the nomadic way of life.
Rising competitive pressures and tensions.
The inhibition of intra-species predation by "recognition mechanisms".
When recognition mechanisms fail to operate adequately.
The mechanisms of "cultural divergence" between human groupings interfere with natural recognition mechanisms.
In a cultural sense, we have become differentiated into widely divergent "species`".
Man has shaken-off his natural predators, except for a few, stubborn, pathogenic micro-organisms.
The background of the contradictory trends in man's personality.
Why human beings are willing to explore the possibilities of cooperation and social integration.
The break-through of the "hierarchical order".

Let us build upon the concept and imagery of a "biological heritage", because we have, so far, paid little attention to the influence of the genetic code upon the human personality. Our early ancestors led a precarious existence at the edge of the great forests. These forests were retreating in many areas, giving-way to a landscape where clusters of trees alternated with grassy plains.

The open areas were the domain of the large and powerful mammals, and, deeper into the forests lived many species' that were better adapted to life in the trees. The anthropoids had already begun to run from one cluster of trees to the next, and their legs and feet had become adapted to locomotion on the ground rather than holding-on to branches. These animals were cautiously scooting from one tree to the next, while their hands, freed from the constant need to swing from branch to branch, could be used to pick-up a stick, a stone or a bone.

All flexible animals developed the need to become good parents, because many mammalian species' required a long learning period. Often, their central nervous system was not even fully developed, as yet, at the time of birth, because the off-spring had to pass through a narrow birth-canal, and, it was important that the head was not too large at the time of birth. Mammalian, and especially, anthropoid youngsters were, therefore, vulnerable creatures, especially, because they needed, also, a long learning period after birth, before reaching maturity and full viability.

The emphasis on learning from experience and parental example created the need for a prolonged childhood and adolescence. In the human species, this period has become as long as fifteen years, or more. This made it imperative, that the parental generations became good protectors and educators, because the viability of the species began to depend on the capabilities of behavioural flexibility and good parental example.

We are talking, here, about developments that took place well before the origin of conscious awareness, and, the traits of good parental behaviour became genetically encoded. The anthropoids show, indeed, strong emotive and instinctive behaviour-patterns promoting a sheltered environment for their infants and youngsters.

The human species is heir to this anthropoid background, and, the same long maturation period and prolonged need for protection plays a role in the behaviour of human parents. If people have been spared the confusing influence of an ignorant and erroneous cultural heritage, we see, that a mother is naturally loyal, protective and affectionate towards her off-spring, and, that the father is protective and responsible towards mother and child. These trends do not have to be "learned" in the form of conscious beliefs. On the contrary, we are usually confusing our natural emotional and instinctive trends, whenever we try to rear and educate our children "by the book", because our conscious, psychological insights are still fragmentary, and, often, in error.

The kinship bonds between the members of a family arose, primarily, because of the vulnerability of the anthropoid infant and its need for a long maturation period. We see, indeed, that the infant starts life in a state of complete dependence upon its environment. At the same time, parents experience satisfying emotions when caring for a helpless infant. These mechanisms are still operating in essentially the same manner, because the helpless infant and the trusting child release a powerful protective instinct in the parents and guardians of human infants.

Under normal conditions, the blind attitudes of trust, shown by infants and youngsters, become gradually more selective, as the child learns not to trust everyone and everything. However, by and large, the healthy, happy and normal child remains trustful of its parents or protectors, as well as of those with whom it has forged bonds of friendship. This ability to give and receive trust forms an essential element in the ability to form meaningful relationships with other people, as we see in the tensions, loneliness and socially abnormal behaviour-patterns of those, whose bonds of trust have been scorched by painful experiences and bitter disappointments, leading to an equally blind and undifferentiated mistrust or hatred for the outside world.

We know, now, something about the mechanisms that lie behind a stunted personality and defective bonds of inter-dependence. We are dealing, here, with circumstances and experiences that have, somehow, been deeply traumatic for a growing child. It is not clear, however, why seemingly trivial experiences can sometimes have such a profound effect upon the development of a personality, and, why others can take the same experiences in stride. This points to the fact, that we still have no reliable method to measure the subjective intensity of an experience, nor, do we know, to what extent one experience predisposes to a specific bias in the interpretation of subsequent experiences; neither, do we know, to what extent genetic influences play a role in the make-up of a personality.

We do know, that the spectrum of personality development is extremely varied, in particular, if the cultural code is tolerant or lax. We also know, that it is often difficult to predict the development of a personality, and, we know, that the accentuation of certain attitudes and beliefs may take place, quite suddenly, without a clear understanding of the chain of events that led to a particular development.

However, our ignorance and lack of predictability are due to the fact, that we are not sufficiently aware of all the factors that play a role in the development of a personality. There is no reason to believe, that we will always remain ignorant about these matters. Once we have clear-cut criteria, how to measure and chart the development of a personality, we should not have too many difficulties predicting the capabilities and overall psychological profile of a particular human being. It would be wise, however, to remind ourselves, that it is always possible for seemingly insignificant and haphazard happenings to play a crucial role in the development of a personality.

We see the same difficulties in nature, where we can visualise, dimly, a series of conditions and circumstances guiding a complex event, but, in essence, these conditions and circumstances are still beyond our grasp and prediction. As a result, we are rarely able to have a clear image of all the factors involved in a particular event, and, we know even less about the importance of the various factors in relation to each other.

The bonds between parents and off-spring change continuously. From a total dependence as an infant, the child learns, gradually, to become more independent, and, wise parents neither regret nor impede this development. There is a continuously varying mix between protection, affection, stimulation and discipline, and, upon reaching early maturity, wise parents hope, that the child or adolescent will have grown into a personality that is not only capable of forming friendly and trustful relationships, but, that it has also developed a healthy dose of parental instincts, so that it can provide the same quality of guidance and protection to its own off-spring.

All anthropoids, including early man, lived in small groups in which kinship relationships played a dominant role, but, the bonds of kinship and friendship began to cover a much wider range of activities than the up-bringing of youngsters. Experience taught the living organisms of natural evolution, time and again, that cooperation may be an extremely successful way to enhance viability, but, we see, also, that this method of increasing viability with the help of consciously chosen patterns of cooperation, has profound consequences for the behavioural repertoir of the members, who are poised to participate in a socially integrated unit.

Let us first go back to the basic principles of competitive existence, as well as the solutions of predation, parasitism and symbiosis. Whenever natural evolution produces a successful organism, the number of organisms quickly increases, until an equilibrium sets in. The rapid growth of a population produces, quickly, counter-pressures, until a balance is reached between the factors and conditions that sustain a certain rate of growth, and, other factors, leading to the death of an equal number of organisms. The population, then, remains "static", or in balance with its natural surroundings.

The factors that promote growth of a population of living organisms, are the availability of food, energy and building materials, together with a suitable range of environmental conditions, while factors that tend to inhibit growth are harsh environmental conditions, making life nearly impossible for the older and weaker members. These are the less efficient organisms of a population, and, they have more difficulties than the younger and more vigorous organisms to obtain their food and utilise the available energy-supplies. These existential pressures may be aggravated by the factor of predation, whenever there is another species that feeds upon this population. Finally, there is the important factor of the accumulation of harmful and poisonous waste-products, either in the natural surroundings or within the body of a living organism, because these waste-products make living conditions more difficult.

If a number of organisms have to compete for the available energy- or food-supply, a part of the energy to sustain life and integrity is used-up by this competitive struggle, and, this "internal friction" between the members of a dense population represents a burden, as well as an increase in the level of "maintenance energy". This conditions characterises the state of "competitive inhibition".

If nature has produced an extra-ordinarily successful species, we talk about a "break-through". The population density and the geographical spread of the organism may become gigantic, and, in many areas, the competition for food may become so fierce, that a sudden collapse occurs of the environment, greatly reducing the density of the population it can sustain. The size of the population is, then, "adapted" to the available food-supply, leading, once more, to an equilibrium.

The debris of dead organisms, as well as the weak and dying members, become tempting sources of energy, inviting the processes of scavenging, parasitism and predation. Scavenging is the utilisation of organic materials from deceased members. The parasite saps the energies of a still living "host", and the predator kills another organism in order to feed on its body.

There is also a process of "intra-species predation", where the intense population pressures lead to a level of friction and competitive strife, where the only solution is a "combat to the death". "Man" is a prime example of intra-species predation, in spite of the fact, that man rarely "eats", literally, those he kills of his own species. Yet, the permanent elimination of a competitor is, frequently, the most important solution to an intense conflict of competitive strife.

There are other, less common solutions to the threat of over-crowding, such as a stampede into a mass-suicide, which is, probably, the result of a leaderless panic, and, there is the solution of the mass-migration in a search for new feeding grounds. After man spread over the entire inhabitable world, the process of migration became much more difficult, because a migrating group or tribe would then start to encroach upon the territories of another group or tribe, whenever it was looking for new hunting grounds.

Besides, the nomadic way of life became impractical for the more densely populated areas, because the cultivation of plants and animals became the foundation for a reliable, enlarged and sustainable food-supply, requiring a settled existence.

However, this process of increasingly sophisticated techniques to sustain life also brought-about a gradual enlargement of the social unit, but this has never been an easy process. It will probably never be considered an easy or natural way to live together at close quarters, and in large numbers, because we have no natural affinity to live in such densely populated clusters.

Our biological heritage prepared us quite well for a nomadic existence in small groups, where the attitudes of parental concern and kinship relations provided the basis for flexible and temporary patterns of cooperation. These attitudes were rewarded with viability, because they brought the larger animals of the plains within reach as a source of food, and, at the same time, mastery over these large animals provided an extra measure of security and dominance over the environment.

For millions of years, man lived in such small, nomadic groups and learned to follow the declining herds of the larger animals. Eventually, the point was reached, where numerous small, nomadic groupings came continuously in conflict with each other, competing for the same food-supplies, and, we can visualise, how the qualities of courage, ferocity and weapon handling, which had already been accentuated by man's increasing mastery over the larger mammals, became now directed against other human beings during ever fiercer clashes of competitive strife.

Man never really reached a stage of "competitive inhibition", because its population continued to grow, slowly, but steadily. This was due to a steadily increasing mastery over the environment. Many of man's "near-cousins", who were also on the road towards conscious awareness, became a casualty of these rising tensions of competitive strife, and they became extinct. This was not a sudden event. Rather, the increase in competitive strife was a slow build-up of tensions and ran parallel, be it in inverse proportions, to the slowly declining availability of food and inhabitable space. A number of anthropoid species' became extinct; others were driven back again, deeper into the jungle, and, it is indeed remarkable, that, only one single species made the transition to conceptualised awarenesses and symbolic communications. At least, we have no evidence that other anthropoids made this step, fully, before they lost-out in the competitive struggle with man.

It is, indeed, difficult to be certain, when man made this step towards conscious awareness or symbolic representation. If we take as the criterium a rather fully developed speech and culture, modern man is, indeed, the only species to have reached "manhood", but, it is likely, that many close relatives to man developed the ability to recall memory-traces by symbolic representations, and, it is likely, that they also developed a rudimentary repertoir of conscious awarenesses and symbolic representations, without reaching the virtuosity of language communications or full, symbolic speech.

The development of symbolic mastery, culturally determined behaviour-patterns, together with the conscious manipulation of belief structures, is, probably, responsible, at least, in part, for the remarkable level of inter-necine warfare that developed between the members of the species of mankind. We keep emphasising the fact, that mankind remained a single species. At least, we see, that all human beings on earth are still genetically compatible, and, this is the crucial biological criterium for considering mankind a single species, in spite of the fact, that, many regional differences in habitat have given rise to specific racial characteristics.

It is rare for a sophisticated and large multi-cellular species to kill its own kind as a solution to the tensions of competitive strife. Yet, the human species has adopted this technique with "great success", and, it still practices this solution with undiminished vigor and enthousiasm, in spite of the indescribable suffering such practices are causing. Why is this?

The occurrence of internal or intra-species predation is, in essence, self-defeating, because it negates the efforts of reproduction, and, it poses an additional burden upon the ability of the species to survive. It is, therefore, a "luxury" that only an abundantly populated species can afford. Almost all species' are in some sort of a fluctuating balance with their surroundings, and, under these conditions, nature has provided rather strong inhibitions against internal predation. Yet, on occasion, this inhibition falls-away, especially, when "recognition mechanisms" fail. For example, we know, that a wounded or strangely acting member of a species may suddenly become "prey", and, it will then be killed by members of its own species.

However, no other species in the large, complex and behaviourally flexible animals has made a break-through on the scale of man, and, we see, rarely, such an intense and sustained level of competition between members of the same species, as we see in the species of mankind. It seems logical to assume, that man has also been endowed with inhibiting behavioural mechanisms that prevent man from killing and devouring his own kind, in particular, since man seems to have been adequately endowed with the instincts of parental care and concern.

Is it possible, that "natural recognition mechanisms", responsible for triggering this inhibitory behaviour, have been obscured by the marked divergence in behaviour between human beings? Could it be, that the phenomenon of "cultural diversity" obliterated or overshadowed these natural inhibitory instincts? Could this be the reason, why people have a tendency to kill each other in a dispute?

Indeed, it is possible that cultural divergencies and a wide-ranging spectrum of beliefs, attitudes and reality perceptions that occurred with the break-through of conceptualised awareness, are, at least, partly responsible for the fact, that man has such great difficulties in recognising another human being as a member of the same species. It is likely, that the many thousands of years of continuous inter-necine combat has engrained in us the awareness, that our most formidable and feared enemy is, now, another human being!

We have conquered our natural predators, but, in the process, we have become predators for each other. In a cultural sense, we have become differentiated into many widely divergent "cultural species`". These species' hardly ever, "recognise" each other as human beings with similar needs and aspirations, and, they show, often, the same tendency to prey upon one another, just as the species' of nature.

Are there other solutions than competitive inhibition and inter-necine warfare, when dealing with a sustained and intense level of competitive strife between the social units of mankind? One of the solutions has been the forging of much greater social units, but, we see, that this "solution" has, often, been very difficult and rather tentative.

In many ways, natural evolution seems to have lost its surefootedness and methodical approach, when trying to solve the problems of human viability. It seems, as if nature has become somewhat confused. In a way, this is indeed the case, because nature had already selected, with the behaviourally flexible forms of life, a mode of genetic encoding, where the responsibilities for both individual and species viability, were partially removed from the genetic code and placed into the hands of individual and communal behaviour. The ability to finely-tune a response with intelligent and alert behaviour became the main avenue for survival of the behaviourally flexible species`.

Through the mechanisms of natural selection, nature provided the necessary instinctive and emotive traits to make man a successful nomadic hunter, grouped-together into small, flexible social units of relatives. However, the success of this pattern of evolutionary development, coupled with the fortuitous break-through of conceptual and manipulative mastery, "surprised", even, the forces of evolution and left it with the problem of an essentially unbalanced species; at least, it is virtually unbalanced, because it has shaken-off its natural predators, (except a few, stubborn pathogenic micro-organisms), and, this species has learned to manipulate natural conditions in such a way, that it is able to extract resources and pollute the environment at an ever faster rate.

Man's manipulative dexterity, coupled with the destructiveness of his weaponry, has increased so rapidly, that the forces of natural selection have not been able to encode a successful pattern of conduct for behaviour within a much larger social framework. Actually, it is on theoretical grounds highly unlikely, that such a process of encoding could have taken place, even, if the experimental scale and time-frame would have been large enough to make this possible. The success of the larger social organisation can not depend, anymore, on an instinctive biological heritage of genetic endowments, but, it has to depend upon a consciously constructed, or "created", and executed set of conceptual guidelines, which understands, clearly and precisely, the nature of the contradictory trends in man's personality.

The evolution of a large-scale social unit is one particular solution to the continued escalation of competitive strife between small social units, but, we have seen, that this solution is difficult, and results, often, in additional tensions and feelings of injustice, because we lack a "natural affinity", or a biologically encoded pattern of behaviour, for living peacefully in a large social organisation. We should not be surprised, then, to see, that man has never abandoned the more primitive solution of settling a conflict of interests with the methods of violent combat; a struggle to the death, where the winner takes all and the loser is permanently eliminated. We should not be surprised to experience, that this solution of combat has a strong instinctive appeal. In our healthy vigor, we love to settle a conflict with force, and, only slowly, are we becoming aware, how disastrous the consequences of such attitudes can be, especially, if we have been weakened and are at the receiving end of a "solution by violent conflict".

Let us go back to an analysis of the basic reasons, why human beings could be enticed to attempt a solution of the tensions of competitive strife with the attitudes and practices of cooperation and integration. This avenue goes so strongly against the primitive lure to use force, whenever possible, that it must have powerful advantages, indeed, to seek a solution in cooperation and compromise.

The earliest attempts to integrate a number of small, nomadic groupings into a larger society must have relied upon this remarkable mechanism of "hierarchical ordening", which is the basis for the existence of the small grouping. We should review, here, briefly this aspect of our "biological heritage", because nature made it possible for some members of a single species to come together by the compromise of "hierarchical ordening". The hierarchical order became an important key in the search for an alternative mechanism to the solution of an all-out struggle to the death. As a matter of fact, hierarchical ordening became the corner-stone of the solution of "social integration".

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The phenomena of "dispersion" and "territoriality".
Territoriality may be a temporary attitude.
The tendency towards an equi-distant dispersion and territoriality can be mitigated by the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening.
The need for "escape mechanisms".
The transition from dominance to leadership.
Social integration around the family nucleus.
Dominance, and the evolution of caring and protective instincts.
A balance of interests.
The "sense of justice".
Occupying a position on the basis of individual merit.
The "position at birth".
Inherited social positions, and the sense of justice.
Hierarchical stratification is based on an essential fluidity of the hierarchical position, based on the quality of personal abilities.
The polarisation between a ruling elite and an oppressed majority.
A complex mosaic of groupings and sub-groupings.
The limitations of natural leadership.
Favouritism, and its disruptive effects on social harmony.

We have seen, that a successful life-form reaches, quickly, a maximum population density for the environment in which it exists, and, in order to diminish the tensions of competitive strife, it is natural for identical life-forms to fan-out over as large a territory as possible. This phenomenon of "dispersion" is already visible in non-living forms of existence, e.g., when a locally concentrated substance in a fluid medium "diffuses" into the surrounding environment.

The tendency to diffuse or disperse may be even more pronounced, if there is an active element of mutual repulsion, such as the dispersion of a cloud of negatively charged electrons. Life-forms behave in the same way, and, many of the more complex multi-cellular animals develop a behaviour-pattern that lets the individual organisms spread-out and claim or defend a certain "territory".

In birds, the behaviour of "territoriality" is often temporary. It is, primarily, a phenomenon of the nesting period, because during migration, birds need to group together in search of suitable feeding grounds and easier climatic conditions. In all social animals, including man, the instinct of territoriality has become somewhat subdued, but, it is still there, and, we still need a certain distance between each other, in spite of the fact that we do not always claim, individually, a certain territory to sustain our existential needs. Actually, we still claim a certain space to live in, e.g., when we look for a place to live in privacy, and, collectively, we are strongly territorial, as we can see in the behaviour of national entities and their inclination to conquer other territories.

The point is, that, the mechanisms of secondary socialisation could only take place, when the tendency to equi-distant dispersion and to fight territorial intruders was softened, somewhat, by the ability to submit to the dominance of a stronger individual, and gain his protection in return for having submitted one's territory to him. This is the essence of the process of hierarchical ordening.

The process of hierarchical ordening allows close contact, as well as an increased density of life-forms on a fertile territory, and, it is, at the same time, a very useful adaptation to mounting population pressures. The hierarchical order is still established by a sort of contest, but, it is not a contest to the death, and the loser is not driven-away from the territory as long as he or she accepts the dominance of the stronger party.

If hierarchical relationships are not clear, there will be a contest to clarify these relationships, and, therefore, a certain "pecking order" develops in most flocks or herds, even, if it is not always clear to an observer in what way the order of dominance has been established.

The transition from a territorial contest, where the loser is driven-off, to a hierarchical ordening, where everybody "knows his place", opens-up great possibilities for the mechanisms of cooperation between life-forms that are, essentially, antagonistic or hostile towards each other. It is the first differentiation in function between essentially identical members of a species, and, the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening or stratification have become the foundation for a viable and useful social organisation of large, behaviourally flexible organisms.

Certainly, if the dominated members are ruthlessly exploited, the benefits for those who have submitted themselves, will disappear, and, the exploited members will then break-away from the hierarchical or social order, as soon as there is a chance to do so. If the dominating individual is getting weaker, there will immediately be a challenge to the "leader", and, we see, therefore, how the strongest individuals occupy, automatically, the highest hierarchical positions, while the dominated individuals behave in accordance with the wishes and demands of those who can dominate them, while enjoying the protection of the stronger members, whenever there are external threats and attacks.

You may want to ask me, how a position of dominance was transformed into the functions of leadership. This is obviously a gigantic step in the evolution of behaviour, at least, in our concepts about these matters, because, in the concept of dominance we still see a purely egocentric orientation of the dominant personalities, while in the concept of leadership, we imply an important change in this orientation. In the function of leadership, the concerns of the dominant individual do not remain entirely egocentric, but, they begin to encompass, increasingly, the interests and well-being of the entire group.

How did such a change in attitude come-about? The answer to this question has to remain somewhat tentative, but, it is important to form, at least, a few ideas about this monumental change in behavioural orientation, and, we should spend, therefore, some time discussing a plausible tranformation of the dominant personality into a benevolent leadership behaviour. Perhaps, we can sketch the background of behaviour-patterns that made this transformation, not only, plausible, but logical.

Let us begin by questioning some of our assumptions. The concept that dominance in a hierarchical order was initially completely egocentric may not be entirely correct, because natural selection may have helped to shape the characteristics of natural leadership, already, before the emergence of the small social unit. Probably, the origins of leadership qualities go back to the behaviour of parental care and concern, because we see, that the mechanisms of secondary socialisation go hand in hand with the development of parental care and concern for their vulnerable offspring.

As we discussed before, it seems reasonable to assume, that socialisation developed around the family nucleus, and, it is likely, that adult members "failed" to develop fully their territorial instincts and did not separate completely from their parents. It is not difficult to imagine, how a group of related adults would have a tendency to stick together, because they retained some of the natural dependencies between parental generations and their off-spring.

The hierarchical ordening between members of the same generation is, most likely, based on a combination of physical strength and personality characteristics, and, perhaps, on the hierarchical position of the parents. There is some evidence to believe, that anthropoid youngsters and adolescents, coming from "lowly placed" parents, tend to occupy lower positions compared to the off-spring from more highly placed parents.

Watever the exact mechanisms are, it seems logical to see hierarchical positioning develop as a natural extention of the family unit, where the distinctions in the positions of authority are based, primarily, upon relationships between parents and off-spring. The ability to extend the sphere of concern to those who acknowledge superiority in the hierarchical order, is, after all, a logical extention of the instincts of parental care. We have seen, that nature sharpened an instinct of care and concern for the helpless infant, and, perhaps, the submission to a hierarchically superior power, excercises essentially the same appeal to instincts of parental care and concern, because the submissive individual assumes, in essence, a position of helplessness and defenselessness.

It becomes logical, then, that the most dominant members of a group receive the strongest stimulation of their caring and protective instincts. Besides, the instinct of territoriality is also strongly developed in these dominant individuals, but, the territory now includes the territory of the entire group, comprising, perhaps, a dozen or so individuals.

Indeed, the defense of the territory against intruders and predators is the main task of the dominant personalities, and, in return for this "service", they assume, automatically, a position of privilege and power. If a strong individual does not perform well in his tasks of leadership, or, as a "parent" for the whole group, he or she jeopardises the viability of this group, and, we have discussed how the long period of nomadic existence in small groupings provided an opportunity for natural selection to sharpen, in the dominant personalities, the most valuable and viable traits of behaviour for such a position of dominance.

These behavioural traits are, courage, aggressiveness, and, even, ferocity in the defense of a territory and its dependents, as well as intelligent leadership in the search for shelter and food. These traits are the same as good parental behaviour. In essence, parental attitudes have been extended towards the group as a whole, and, this means, an attitude of care and concern for the submissive and cooperative members of the group, the ability, and willingness, to squash devastating fights and weakening quarrels amongst the membership, as well as the ability to inspire the small community to an attitude of cooperation, hard work and a sense of confidence and well-being during the daily struggle for survival.

Perhaps, we are somewhat freely attributing psychological awarenesses to the development of natural leadership, which were not really present, but, I sense, here, remarkable possibilities for a coherent explanation. It seems fruitful to interpret the forces that maintain a healthy grouping of socially integrated animals, as a balance between the interests of individual members and those of the group as a whole. I am convinced, that it is correct to interpret these mechanisms as the basis for the evolution of this all-important, if subconscious, "sense of justice".

Indeed, what is the sense of justice? In its verbalised form, it is obviously limited to sophisticated conscious awarenesses, but, as a "behavioural organiser", as a powerful emotive and instinctive force, we see the sense of justice emerge, long before we can see any evidence for the development of conscious or conceptual awarenesses. In essence, the sense of justice is closely related to, and an immediate result of, the phenomenon of hierarchical ordening.

We have seen, that hierarchical positioning, or ordening, is based upon the recognition, that the other members of the group can be divided into those who dominate, and those who can be dominated. Each member is therefore assigned a position on a hierarchical scale, and, the position we occupy, as a member in this hierarchical order, has been tested and tried-out.

Circumstances change continuously. If we become stronger when growing-up, we may challenge a number of people "above" us, and, we will have to engage in a test-fight. If we grow older and weaker, we may have to give-up a position of dominance, but our position does not only depend upon physical strength. As a member of an older generation, we may compensate, with knowledge and insight, what we lack in strength, and, it is more accurate to see the social position of a member in a hierarchical scale as the result of a large number of factors, ranging from position at birth, behaviour in relation to others, physical strength, persuasiveness and manipulative abilities, moral strength, insight and knowledge, as well as the record of past deeds and accomplishments.

This is only a rough and tentative enumeration of the factors that may play a role in the establishment of a hierarchical or social order in the more sophisticated early societies of mankind, and, we will not pursue the matter any further, because we only want to emphasise the fact, that the social position of an individual is, at least, initially, determined by factors that are largely dependent upon the behaviour, personality and physical capabilities of the individual.

True, the position at birth is not under the control of an individual, and, we see in the larger human societies many more factors that do not reflect the concept of a "personal merit" in the determination of a social position. As long as the hierarchical position reflects, primarily, the factors of "personal merit", the individual will be able to accept this position as "justified". In particular, if the position can be tested, frequently, by a test-fight, the individual can "convince himself", so to speak, that the position he or she occupies, is indeed justified. However, if increasingly arbitrary factors, such as origin of birth or special relationships with the leadership, distort the social position and do not reflect, anymore, a factor of personal merit, then, the feeling of justification and the ability to correct the situation by a test-fight, disappears.

In the animal hierarchy, there seems to be a rather simple formula; the individual with the strongest personality, together with the physical strength and endurance to back-up the instinctive tendency to impose his will, will occupy the highest positions, but, at the same time, we see, that those, who occupy the highest positions will automatically assume leadership responsibilities. There is little room for the deliberate exploitation of the other members of a herd or flock, and, if the herd or flock becomes too large, it breaks apart into a number of separate social groupings, giving more dominant animals a chance to become leaders.

When human societies became quite numerous and the territories into which larger groupings would have to expand, were already occupied, the ability to relieve tensions by splitting a social unit, disappeared. At the same time, the intense competitive strife between social units would penalise any social unit that would allow itself to be weakened by internal strife. There were always envious neighbours, ready to move-in and exploit an opportunity for easy conquest.

Yet, if groupings could not split-off anymore, and, if the members were dissatisfied with the conditions under which they had to live, a whole new range of possibilities and mechanisms would arise. Some of these mechansisms would be beneficial to everyone, but, most of them would only favour a dominant elite.

In the early stages of the socialisation of behaviourally flexible animals, the relinquishing of territorial behaviour in favour of a group-territory, with hierarchical relationships between the members, was an advantage to all participants. As soon as a member would experience a disadvantage in comparison with the previously solitary existence as a territorial animal, the animal would automatically revert back to a solitary form of existence. We see, then, that the flexibility of a tentative social arrangement ensures the conditions of mutual advantage and acceptability, but, as soon as a group becomes locked into a particular social hierarchy, this element of flexibility and mutual advantage begins to disappear.

If the members do not have the ability to go back to a territorial and solitary life-style, or, if they can not break-away to form a new grouping with their own territory, we see, immediately, the mechanisms of "exploitation" emerge. Indeed, what prevents the dominant grouping to use its powers in such a way, that the other members are forced to do all the hard work, while the dominant group assumes a parasitic or exploitative life-style?

Such developments have certainly been common in nearly all the larger human societies, and, the only factor limiting the practice of exploitation, is the balance of power between a dominant elite and the exploited majority. With modern weaponry and the ability to equip and feed a hired army, it becomes relatively easy to maintain a position of dominance over a large number of people, and, it is possible to keep exploiting the economic possibilities of a large society for the benefit of a small upper crust.

Eventually, oppressed people always rise-up, whenever the tensions reach unbearable levels and the people have nothing else to lose except a miserable life. If their existence has been poisoned by a chronic and severe situation of injustice, as well as a feeling of hopelessness about the chances of peaceful change, then, they will inevitably challenge the ruling elite, regardless of the sacrifices and loss of life resulting from an armed struggle. Revolutions are the most common means by which the powerful grip of a dominant elite is loosened, often, only to be replaced by a revolutionary elite that continues a form of oppression and injustice of its own making.

Unfortunately, an amalgamation of a number of culturally or ethnically diverse groupings will always give rise to serious and chronic tensions, as these groupings tend to jockey for a position of dominance amongst themselves. Yet, at the same time, this jockeying creates a measure of internal stability by establishing a hierarchical order of sub-groupings. Society becomes, then, a complex mosaic of groupings and sub-groupings, locked into hierarchical power-struggles that assume, often, a serious and bloody character.

It is clear, that the capabilities of natural leadership become quickly overwhelmed by the complexities of large and diverse societies. Within a natural grouping of a dozen or so people, hierarchical problems are settled, quickly, by testing each other's strengths and weaknesses, and, sometimes, by the imposition of a settlement by the leader. The group is small enough for each member to know the others well, and, the leader knows each member of the group intimately. This familiarity with each other's behaviour, as well as the transparence and fluidity of hierarchical relationships in a small social grouping, ensure an automatic satisfaction of the sense of justice, and, the leader can step-in and settle conflicts competently, whenever they threaten to get out of hand.

In the much larger societies, the ability to know each member well becomes severely strained, and, eventually, the members are only familiar with those who live in the immediate environment, while the others blur into a grey and undifferentiated mass of people, who are of little concern to the individual. Most members know only their immediate social surroundings, and, the rest of society, including the leadership, is looked upon with a feeling of suspicion and alienation.

The inability to oversee the crowds, makes the leadership also more defensive, and, the leaders are tempted to fortify their position of power and privilege with the loyalty of "special people", who have been "bought" with favours and bribes. Certainly, many members are quite willing to "sell" their loyalty and pledge unquestioning support in return for such favours.

However, the emergence of "favouritism" has a profound effect on the stability of hierarchical relationships. These relationships had already become strained because of the fact, that a large membership makes it more difficult to establish meaningful hierarchical relations. Favouritism distorts the hierarchical positioning even further, because changes are now brought-about arbitrarily by the leadership and its policy of "picking favourites".

These changes are felt as a grave injustice by those who are passed-over or left behind, and, as a result, the level of discontent, suspicion and resentment rises. The leadership has to resort to ever more forceful measures to maintain a position of power and privilege, and, it does not take long before the ultimate solution to such tensions and conflicts is used. Those, who are against the leadership or challenge the elite in power are eliminated by assassinations, exile, imprisonment, etc.

The ruthlessness of lawless competitive strife has then re-asserted itself within the large social environment, and it has re-asserted itself with an intensity that is not usually seen between members of the same species. The reasons are, on the one hand, the forced togetherness of peoples in social units that surpass, by far, the natural ability of the members to identify with each other. These trends towards alienation are aggravated by the mechanisms of "cultural divergence". The absence of "normal" escape mchanisms, such as the social break-away, leads to a level of hostility that can only be settled by an all-out conflict, as well as the physical elimination of the loser.

However, before it comes to an all-out conflict of internal warfare, we see many different levels of intimidation and oppression, as well as genuine efforts to defuse tensions by persuasion, compromise and attempts to correct, at least, the most glaring incidences of injustice.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Defusing social tensions with just and far-sighted regulatory mechanisms.
A stroke of genius; the concept and implementation of a contract of "essential equality".
The problem of knowing everyone in a large-scale social environment.
Essential equality implies, also, the will-power, and the determination, to squash parasitic or exploitative behaviour.
Our "heroes".
Factors that facilitate the growth of large and complex societies.
The effects of efficient task-specialisations.
Cellular specialisations in form and function.
A difficult balancing-act, necessary to preserve the conditions of essential equality.
Special-interest groupings and their fragmenting influence upon society.
The phenomenon of "inflation".
An analysis of social and economic factors in a large and affluent society.
We all "feed" the large corporations, because we have become dependent upon them.
We are democratic "big spenders".
The consequences of a dependence on a high level of consumption.
It is tempting to let the debt-load rise.
A high level of vulnerability.

Let us look at some of the methods a leadership may use to defuse dangerously high levels of frustration, resentment and injustice amongst the members of a large and complex society, and, we think, here, primarily, about the measures, regulations and guidelines far-sighted leaders can institute in their social environment. Successful laws and guidelines may bring-about a dramatic reduction in tensions and frustrations, and, they may increase the vitality of a society that has the good fortune to get an intelligent and innovative leadership at a crucial moment in its history.

One of the foremost problems larger societies have to solve, is the question of less relevant hierarchical relationships. We have seen, that it becomes increasingly difficult to know all the members, and, it becomes very difficult to know our rightful position in society. It becomes increasingly difficult to find a place in society, where we feel, intuitively, that it corresponds with our abilities and ambitions. It also becomes more difficult to form a realistic appraisal of our limitations, because the chances to test and challenge, who-ever stands in our way to advancement upon the social ladder, becomes more difficult. Last, but not least of the problems people in a larger society have to face, is the practice of favouritism, because it destroys, completely, this fragile sense of justice.

It was a stroke of genius by those early leaders, when they introduced the idea to replace the hierarchical order with the concept of essential equality. Certainly, the implementation of such a concept in practice has always been difficult, and, it has never succeeded completely, but, we should not underestimate the powerful influence of the concepts of social equality on the efforts to regulate and guide inter-personal relationships.

The introduction of the ideas of essential equality made it also possible to re-establish a graduated differentiation between people on the basis of merit and contribution, while it exposed the practice of favouritism as unjust, unworkable, and, in essence, self-defeating. Let us see, what the concept of essential equality means, especially, for the feelings and awarenesses of the ordinary citizens of a large-scale social environment.

What a glorious moment was it, when a concerned and caring leader stepped into a dispute and said; "You are equal. There is no need to fight, because I will make sure, that you will all have the same rights, the same privileges and the same duties. I will not treat anyone different from the others, because you are all equally dear to me".

Yet, has nature in its wisdom of natural selection not fore-shadowed these same attitudes and practices, when it sharpened the instincts of parental care and concern? Does a concerned parent not treat the members of his family with equal care and attention? Therefore, the conscious solution of establishing a state of essential equality is a "natural" one, or, rather, it is a re-discovery of a "natural truth".

However, it is so difficult to maintain a conscious contract of essential equality on a large scale, because people are not equal in their talents and motivations, and the large numbers of people make it impossible to cultivate an intimate contact between the members and their leaders, which is such an essential characteristic of good family relationships.

Some people will be more helpful and cooperative than others, and, some will be more willing to work hard for the common good. There is nothing easier than to let the people of good-will and idealism do all the hard work, while others sit-back and reap the benefits. Equal treatment of the membership by the leaders does not mean, therefore, only a guarantee of equal rights and equal opportunities, but, it also means, that the burdens of society have to be distributed equally, so that the tendency to parasitic behaviour is rigorously squashed.

Fairness and equality means, that a differentiation in position and authority on the basis of merit is, not only, natural, but necessary, and, it is a trend that is stimulated and wanted by the people themselves. Do we not see a natural tendency for people to worship and adulate their heroes? Are heroes not people, who have been given a special position of honour and privilege, because their deeds and achievements are widely admired? We have every indication, that such a differentiation is, not only, completely acceptable to our sense of justice, but, we all have a need to elevate certain people as outstanding examples of desirable behaviour-patterns and admirable achievements.

We should make sure, that we can give the same spontaneous support to our leaders of the larger social entities, and, we can only do this, if we, the people, can chose our leaders in free, fair and informed elections.

Far-sighted leaderships of the past recognised, intuitively, that the sense of justice could be satisfied by treating all members equally, and, by making sure, that any judgement of a dispute would be fair, competent and impartial. Therefore, a system of judgement developed that looked towards precedents for guidance, and, later, the abstract formulation of the principles of justice made it possible to organise a sophisticated judicial apparatus that was specifically designed to treat every citizen in society, equally and fairly.

However, when access to specialised legal expertise and knowledge became, once again, a matter of financial resources, the principles of justice, as well as the application of the rules of law and order shifted, once again, in favour of a privileged and wealthy minority.

There are other factors that encouraged the development of the more complex societies, because, in addition to the rather negative factors of "economic necessity" and a lack of suitable territory, there are positive factors as well, such as the increased ease of existence that comes with a successful division of chores.

It is a basic fact of existence and performance, that it is easier to carry-out one task ten times, compared to ten different tasks once, provided, of course, that all tasks are roughly equal in level of difficulty and energy-expenditure. If we can perform a task many times, we get an opportunity to "stream-line" the performance or execution of this task. A task becomes easier, as soon as familiarity with the task from previous experiences reduces the amount of conscious effort needed to bring it to a successful conclusion. We can, then, streamline our performance, and, the difference in time and effort between a task done for the first time and one that is being performed, routinely, for the tenth time, can be enormous.

The factors of familiarity and streamlining may result in a remarkable reduction in energy, time and effort, and, it is obvious, that we become far more efficient, if we can divide amongst each other the necessary chores and tasks to keep us alive and well. If we can distribute the tasks of securing our food-supply and safety over ten different people or groups of people, we should, eventually, be able to secure our food and safety at a fraction of the time and effort necessary, when each group or individual would have to carry-out all the tasks.

From the earliest beginnings of human socialisation, including the period of small nomadic groupings, task-division and specialisation in function have played an important role in the viability of a group, and, we see, that these principles also play a role in groupings of socially integrated animals. Actually, the entire development of multi-celluar life is based upon the same principles. Here, we see, not only, that cells become strictly specialised anatomically and functionally, as they group into organ-systems, but, we see, also, a much broader principle arise; nl., that the social organisation of cells into strictly regulated multi-cellular units has created a range of existence possibilities transcending far beyond what would have been possible without the socialisation of cells and their organisation into specialised and inter-dependent organs or cellular colonies.

The specialisation in function, together with the exploration of new modes of existence that take place in multi-cellular units, are "natural experiments" by the forces of natural selection. The successful results of these experiments have been genetically encoded and are guided by the genetic code during the processes of reproduction, as well as during ordinary existence. Our own multi-cellular existence as a single individual is heir to the same natural experiments of evolutionary development and genetic encoding.

In the social togetherness of human beings and other socially organised mammals, there is a similar trend towards seeking an enhanced viability through the mechanisms of cooperation and task-division, but, we see, also, that the level of cohesion is far less stringent than between the cell-groups of a multi-cellular individual. We are not born "specialised", but, we have the capability, and the choice, to become a specialised expert in one or other function. This specialisation in function takes place after birth, and, after the organic specialisation of our body has already taken place.

It is clear, that such a secondary specialisation in function during maturation and adult life, only takes place, if the development of such a specialised function is rewarded and made possible by suitable social circumstances.

If such a specialisation is rewarded with an increased ease of existence, as well as an acceptable measure of security, such specialisations will occur, but, it is worthwhile to examine, closely, what conditions are necessary to make the acquisition of special skills worthwhile, and, which factors may inhibit or impede such a process of functional specialisation by members of a socially integrated grouping.

Here, we come back to the primary criterium for the success and viabiliy of a social organisation; nl., that this organisation has to be beneficial to all participants. The same criterium applies to the inter-dependencies that develop during task-specialisations. The benefits of the increased ease of existence must be shared by all, but, all too often, the benefits of functional specialisation are skimmed-off by a powerful, parasitic elite that begins to lead a life of ease and pleasure, while belonging to society, means, for the working classes, a state of poverty and enslavement.

We know, all too well, how difficult it is to maintain a balance of power between the members and sub-groupings of society, even, after the leadership of a social entity has instituted special regulations and measures to safeguard the essential equality of the members. We have discussed, on previous occasons, how the processes of task-division and the manufacture of desirable and useful consumer goods in our modern societies, tend to disrupt this precarious balance of essential equality. We see, immediately, that a specialisation in function when making goods or providing services, leads to inequalities, because some goods and services are far more important and valuable than others, and, they become, therefore, powerful bargaining tools in the hands of those, who make these desired goods or provide these valuable services.

The level of dependence upon essential or valuable items or services increases rapidly, as we see, when workers migrate to the city in search of employment. They have to rent a dwelling, buy all their food and pay for transportation, and, at the same time, they become rapidly dependent upon their weekly pay-cheque or income. They are at the mercy of everyone who charges them for the necessary facilities and consumer items, while the individual worker has little power to demand higher wages or better working conditions.

At least, this was the case, before the disastrous consequences of such a marked inequality in power between employer and employee had been recognised. Now, after many decades of progressive labour legislation and the ever-increasing influence and power of trade-union organisations, we see, that the balance of power has swung into the opposite direction. Not only, are employers forced to keep increasing the wages they have to pay because of the threat of strikes or work-stoppages, but, the strike is increasingly directed at society itself.

Democratically elected leaderships are held more and more often to ransom by these collective work-stoppages, or "strikes", and, we see increasingly disruptive effects of the interruption of important and essential services. This situation gives the unionised worker a legal tool or weapon elevating his position of power far above that of the average citizen, and, this event distorts, therefore, the essential equality between people.

It is true, that many other groupings, such as the monopolistic professional organisations, are achieving equally disruptive hikes in earnings, and, we do not forget the massive bureaucracies of inefficient governments and the secretive but ostentatious company executives, who also excercise a disruptive influence upon the mechanisms and principles of essential equality.

Let us look, for a moment, at the disruptive effects of the phenomenon of "inflation". The inflationary spiral of ever-increasing government deficits with high levels of borrowing and spending, has led to the complete abandonment of one of the primary tasks of governments; nl., to guarantee the value of their currencies. Add to this the fact, that the benefits of competitive marketing have been replaced by the emergence of cartels and near-monopolies that can virtually dictate the price of consumer items and services under their control, and, we become aware of the reasons, why the attitudes of frugality and the practices of restraint have been abandoned by so many people.

The evolution of labour-unions and pofessional organisations, business cartels, bureaucracies, as well as an unstable currency, all these factors have conspired to erode the basic contract of essential equality in our modern, affluent societies. Yet, the dream and the illusion linger-on, and, we desperately point to the practice of universal voting rights in order to sustain our hopes and expectations of living in a just and democratic society.

However, in reality, our practices and attitudes have already reverted to a fierce, competitive strife, which is fought with a ruthless and rising intensity between the members of these societies of "equal opportunity". We do not fight for an increase in pay, because we really need it, but, because we are suspicious, that, someone else, or some other group is fighting even harder, or, worse, is being treated more favourably than we are. We are willing, without any hesitation, to paralyse the most important functions in society, because we suspect, that we are not getting a fair deal. Our lives are poisoned by mistrust and suspicion. We do not know, whom to believe. We are afraid to be hoodwinked, and, we think, that an attitude of moderation and reasonableness is a sign of weakness, as well as an opportunity for someone else to defraud us.

In spite of all our technological expertise, and, in spite of the fact, that most members are locked tightly into the mechanisms of financial dependencies, most affluent societies are boiling with discontent, and they are nearly paralysed by inefficiency, inertia, corruption, as well as an attitude of egocentric defensiveness.

Most of us are enslaved and caught in the position we are in, because, in part, our skills are specialised, and, our ability to find work and generate an income depend upon a continuation of this "economic momentum" that supports the various specialised functions and entices us to keep consuming at a high level. We all have been goaded and indoctrinated by the existential requirements of this economic momentum and its protagonists, the advertising industry, to live in a floriant life-style of consumption and debt-financing.

Initially, the processes of task-division and specialisation in function led to a flourishing trade, and a general increase in the level of well-being, especially, when the laws of society ensured, at least, a measure of fair income distribution, but, we have now reached a situation, where we all have become enslaved to the needs of the large multi-national corporations. We fail to see, with clarity, how we all "feed" these multi-national corporations, because we have allowed ourselves to adopt a life-style of consumerism. This means, that we struggle ever more desperately to have jobs, in particular, to have jobs that pay well, and, because most jobs are now provided by the dinosaurs of big government and big business, we can not afford to tamper with their growth, or to question the reasons for their existence.

Yet, these dinosaurs need ever more cash in order to sustain their existence, and, we, the ordinary members of society, are urged to spend ever more and faster in order to make it possible for the governments and the multi-national corporations to continue their lumbering existence.

It is ironic, that we have, finally, avoided, at least, to some extent, the pernicious division, where an upper crust consumes and the poor majority does all the work. Certainly, there are still many countries, where there is such a division between the rich and the poor, but, the large, affluent nations have reached a high level of consumption in which the great majority of the people, still, participates. We are democratic "big spenders", and, the ordinary workers, the professionals, and, even, people on social assistance, all spend lavishly and recklessly, because it does not make sense, anymore, to save.

Let us review the consequences of a high level of consumption. If an organism needs a high level of energy in order to sustain its existence, it is obviously far more vulnerable to deprivation and starvation, compared to an organism that is able to maintain a state of health with a much lower level of energy consumption. We see the same vulnerability in an individual, who carries a debt-load. This debt has to be paid-off, an interest-charge has to be paid over the outstanding account, and, the failure to maintain a high income of cash jeopardises the well-being of this individual.

In the sophisticated, affluent societies, most people, certainly those, who are cloistered in an urban and sub-urban environment, have to pay dearly for the basic necessities of housing, clothing and food. They require, therefore, a high level of minimum cash-flow to sustain themselves in their social environment, and, any outstanding debts have to be paid-off in regular installments. Failure to do so may mean the loss of a home, furniture, appliances, or the family-car, which are all basic commodities in such an environment. Perhaps, these things are not really essential necessities in the strict sense of staying alive, but, certainly, in the sense of maintaining a social position and going to work, in order to bring-in this all-important pay-cheque.

Certainly, inflationary pressures and the high initial costs of buying a home make it inevitable in our contemporary, affluent societies, that a young couple, at the beginning of their earning career, buys a home with the help of a loan or mortgage, and, once the psychological barriers against having a debt over their head have been overcome, it is tempting to let the debt-load rise in a wild spending spree and a rapidly escalating, sumptuous life-style, until almost all income is taken-up by the re-payment of loans.

This makes costly sickness and accident insurance a necessity, and, it makes the occurrence of a loss of income, a disaster. Such people become pre-ocupied with their financial obligations, and, they can only look with envy and resentment to those, who can still buy more and consume more. Unhappiness and dissatisfaction become chronic, while life is spent in a useless round of wasteful trivialities. The moral backbone withers-away, and the attitude of frugality is laughed at, but the realities of entrapment remain.

Any individual who lives this way, is extremely vulnerable to set-backs, such as a disease, the loss of a job, drug or alcohol dependencies, a rise in interest-rates, an economic slump, high costs and taxes on income and property, etc., etc. These are all examples of unhealthy dependencies sharing a common denominator in the fact, that there exists an unnecessarily high level of consumption.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Natural parallels with the trappings of an affluent life-style.
The dependence on a "job".
Fiscal, physical and psychological dependencies.
A number of other dependencies.
The benefits of becoming more versatile and more broadly skilled.
We are social beings, be it, primarily, "small-scale".
Neurotic dependencies.
Emotions do not constitute the "highest" forms of human behaviour.
The conditions that are necessary for a superb performance.
The emergence of a "supra-individual unit".
The attitudes of "symbiosis".
A balance between contribution and reward.
Measuring productivity.
Incentives and existential anxieties.

The entrapments and dependencies associated with an affluent life-style are mirrored, at least, to some extent, in nature. A successful evolutionary break-through leads to a rapid population growth, increasing its dependence upon a large and reliable food-supply, but, sometimes, the solution to a problem in survival is found in the development of a very large size. Here, too, a dependence upon a large food-supply has been formed, because a large animal has to consume an enormous amount of food to sustain its hulk. It becomes susceptible to minute climatic changes that may, suddenly, alter the availability of this large but obligatory food-supply. A dangerous dependence has, then, developed in the search for an existential advantage, size, and, this dependence may lead to a rather sudden demise.

Natural selection frequently adapts a species rather precisely to a particular ecological niche, or a specific set of environmental circumstances. As long as these conditions are maintained, the species lives quite well and nearly free from severe stress, because it dominates this particular ecological niche so completely, that it is relatively free from competition. However, if this niche is disturbed, for one reason or another, the species may not be flexible enough to adapt to the changing circumstances because of its high degree of specialisation. Extinction usually follows.

The same mechanisms play a role in society, where a large number of people may allow themselves to become highly dependent upon a particular "ecological niche"; e.g. a job. If the job disappears, the results may be disastrous, and, while actual extinction or death is unlikely, the disruption may be quite traumatic for the individual and his dependents.

A consumptive life-style, the need for a high cash-flow, too narrow a spectrum of marketable skills, and, too great a psychological or physical dependence upon a certain environment, are all factors or dependencies that make us vulnerable. As long as all these circumstances and conditions are intact, we function well, but, as soon as the conditions change, we begin to experience a rather severe form of stress, and, the more dependent we have become, the less flexible we are, and the less able we are to cope with, or yield to, the various forms of stress we are being exposed to.

Such dependencies are certainly, not only, financial in nature, but, financial obligations belong to the most important and obvious dependencies of an affluent life-style. We may develop severe physical dependencies upon specific types of consumption, e.g., when body and mind become dependent upon the consumption of alcohol and other habit-forming drugs, or, we may become dependent upon the sensation of eating, consuming ourselves into a state of obesity.

We may become dependent upon a large variety of sensual gratifications, ranging from sexual pleasures, gambling and violence, to a variety of pleasing experiences in sound, sight and other sensory or sensual experiences. We may become dependent upon tobacco or coffee, but, these are, in essence, part of a dependence on drugs, like alcohol.

We may also become dependent upon the help and support of other people. In our specialised societies, it is so easy to do only the job we have learned, and, to let other people take care of all other needs; from building and maintaining our house, growing and supplying our food, to maintaining our car and household appliances, and providing us with all sorts of services, sources of energy and entertainment.

The plumbing and electrical wiring in our homes, the repair of tools and instruments, as well as the numerous chores in and around the garden are done by others. We have our hair cut, our food prepared, etc. There is an endless series of goods and services that cater to us, at least, in the densely populated areas of affluent life, but, the more we have done for us, the more we have to pay.

We can gradually and partially work our way back to a more independent mode of existence, by learning to do many of the simpler jobs ourselves. We do not need to be so dependent upon others. Besides, by doing things for ourselves, we gain self-confidence and broaden our field of competence. There is excitement in learning new skills. We discover, that many things are not as difficult or as mysterious as we thought, but, we also realise, that each one of these efforts to regain a measure of independence, costs energy and time, and, we learn, that we have to make a genuine effort, before we can expect success.

There are other, primarily, psychological dependencies. We may need people around us, partly, just to talk to, and, partly, to do things for us; to support us, when we are depressed; to share our joys and fun, or our difficulties and efforts to find solutions. No-one is perfectly happy, when always alone, but, most of us require a shell of privacy, where we can be alone and undisturbed for short periods of time, whenever we want to think and relax.

After all, we are social creatures, be it on a small social scale, and, most of us have frequent and meaningful contacts with other people, in particular, those we are related to. Most of us find a balance between relationships, where we are, primarily, supporting others, and, where other people support us.

If the balance weighs heavily towards a contact where we receive, rather than give support, we belong to those neurotic people, who rely, heavily, for their emotional sanity upon the support of others. If we thrive in a situation, where we are continuously called-upon for support, we are somewhat "masochistic" in nature, and, we gain a sense of importance and self-confidence by being constantly needed.

We manipulate each other constantly, emotionally, as well as psychologically, but, if these manipulations are strongly emotional and egocentrically oriented, we live in an unhealthy hot-house of tensions. It is far better to take a little distance from each other, because it is, then, much easier to remain rational and controled in our relationships.

A rational approach, together with a more objective reality perception, lets us see the common denominators between us all, and, we can, then, recognise, much easier, the broad similarities in behaviour, including our aspirations and emotions. When we are emotionally wrapped-up in each other, we lose our perspective and objectivity. In a rational approach, we can give each other the dignity of being human, without the need to fall into those polarising love-hate relationships that form so quickly, whenever we react emotionally to the people around us.

Let us get rid of the erroneous idea, that our emotional feelings and reactions constitute the highest forms of contact between human beings, or, the most rewarding experiences we can have. The most rewarding experience we can have is to see a human being, or a group of people, react to a variety of difficult and taxing circumstances with controled emotions and a finely tuned, rational response.

It is good to recognise the need to help each other, as well as the need to look after our own interests. It is refreshing to see an individual try to solve problems on his or her own, neither reaching helplessly and neurotically for immediate assistance, nor, proudly and stubbornly refusing all help and cooperation.

Man functions at his best, when he is flexible and innovative, calm, yet sensitive to all the finer details of what is happening; ready to help and cooperate, when necessary, but anxious to do as much as possible himself, and, willing to let others help themselves as much as possible.

Certainly, the degree of independence and inter-dependence will always be a flexible balance-point that is going to shift, whenever the circumstances are changing. If a group of people has to work closely together, or accomplish a difficult task in a confined environment, where the existential requirements run parallel, it makes sense to integrate the personalities to such an extent, that we see the emergence of a "supra-individual behavioural unit". Look, e.g., at the behaviour of people, when a small team has to pilot a space-flight, or make a difficult journey in a sub-marine.

In other circumstances, it is much more natural, and far healthier, to emphasise individual achievement, as we see in many sports or artistic activities, or, the routine tasks of daily existence. If we seek help, because we do not want to make the effort to learn and do things for ourselves, our pleas for support will generate an atmosphere of reluctance and condescension, but, if we ask for assistance, because we really are unable to do anything more for ourselves, help will be readily forthcoming, and, it will be mixed with a feeling of admiration for the effort that has been made to overcome difficulties independently.

This last attitude represents a condition of symbiosis, where we cooperate and help each other in a spirit, that recognises the right of other people to be as free and independent as is possible under the prevailing circumstances. If we rely unnecessarily upon other people, our own talents wither-away. We start to depend on this help and our personality becomes useless and irritating, because the relationship becomes parasitic rather than symbiotic.

Everyone in society should ask the question; "Is there a fair balance between the goods and services I receive from others and the quality and quantity of my contributions to society?". Often, this question is difficult to answer, and the equation is difficult to measure, because we may try to make a precarious living by artistic efforts. Then, we do not produce something others need. At best, we hope to make, or do something, that others like and are willing to spend some money on. Let us, then, measure the equation between contribution and return by gauging the efforts we put into our achievements, and, we can be sure, that, even, those artists or sports-people, who never make the headlines, earn their modest returns on the basis of sincere efforts and hard work.

True, we can not always equate a sincere effort with a contribution to society, but, we know, also, that many of us receive far more in pay or equivalent goods and services, than we give to society. The need to have a balanced equation between input and return seems to escape many people, who draw large salaries without being able to show a worthwhile productivity in return.

How are we going to measure the productivity of a bureaucrat, an elected representative, or, anyone else, who fulfills a function that can not be measured, specifically, in terms of goods or services produced? This question is often asked, but, in a way, it is misleading. We should be able to measure, at least, qualitatively, and, to some extent, quantitatively, everyone's function in society, and, the productivity of a bureaucrat, a politician, a teacher, or a leadership, should be measured according to the objectives of their tasks.

We should learn to apply criteria of efficiency to our government bureaucracies, and, we should learn to sweep-away the gross redundancies and inefficiencies of many government departments. We should learn to control the growth of bureaucracies and their impenetrable complexity. We should learn to control the spending powers of our leaders and politicians, because, in our modern, affluent societies, the growth and proliferation of bureaucracies is reaching paralysing levels of inefficiency and redundance.

Bureaucracies may become organisms that have escaped nearly all controls, and, they are likely to behave like a cancer, sapping the energies of society, confusing the people, and becoming centers for power and corruption, as soon as chaos reaches such a level, that the social machinery begins to fall-apart.

We have to come to grips with the problems of existential anxiety, because these anxieties make every bureaucrat a fighter for his or her particular job or position. We have outlined, before, how we can overcome the tendency towards such unhealthy attitudes. It can be done by removing the dependence upon a job as the primary source of financial security and social standing.

"How else are we going to get people to work?", you may ask, "unless we make them work with the threat of being left behind or feeling a bit hungry? Look at the disastrous effects of many of our social assistance programs, where the level of financial support erodes the incentive to go to work". Indeed, incentive is an important factor, but, we are wrong, if we consider a financial gain the only significant incentive to do good work. Our incentives should be geared towards the fulfilment of potentials, as well as the rewards of prestige and responsibility, rather than the acquisition of assets and money.

The rights of belonging to society are only meaningful, if we have the transparence, as well as the means, to make sure, that we also share, equally and fairly, the responsibilities of duties, chores and obligations. Without this essential equation between rights and duties, we can not maintain justice and a stable, viable social environment.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A summary of what has been discussed.
All events, including those of the living organisation, depend on the internal potentials of the participating elements, as well as the conditions and circumstances in which these events take place.
Life is a series of on-going, largely complementary events.
Behavioural flexibility is a major tool in the search for viability for large and complex organisms.
The cultural code, and the potentials of intelligent behaviour.
Man, the manipulator, became his own, most dangerous enemy.
A rudimentary anlage for social cooperation.
Mechanisms of stress.
The problems associated with a "closed society".
Attempts to slow-down the accumulation of privileges, power and wealth.
The judiciary.
We know more, now, about the requirements of individual and collective viability, as well as the mechanisms of social decay.
The importance of our outlook on life.
Possibilities for a globally integrated social environment.
The many faces of justice.
A basic package of rights and obligations.
The doctrine of complete social transparence.
Using the same conceptual language.
Do we really want Peace and Justice, or, do we want to preserve an advantage or a privilege.
We have to educate our leaders and aspiring leaders.
The benefits of a sober life-style.
The potential of creating nearly ever-lasting life for mankind on a carefully managed planet earth.

Let us summarise, then, the conditions, factors and circumstances that have the potential of providing a stable and viable existence for the whole of mankind, and, let us define the trends and developments that jeopardise the sense of justice and the vitality of human beings, individually as well as collectively. It seems reasonable to make the sense and concept of justice the central point in a discussion about the essence of long-term survival.

We know, now, that all events happen as a result of the internal potentialities of the event itself, as well as the conditions under which the event takes place. The inter-actions between human beings, and the relationships between man and his environment, are also events, that are guided by the nature of the participants in these events, together with a series of external conditions and factors making these events possible in the first place.

Life is an event, or, rather, a system of on-going events that have found a possibility of existence. The events of the living organisation became, gradually, more complex and inter-dependent because of an on-going search for viability and adaptability. Life has, indeed, been successful, because the original circumstances that made the origin of life possible, have long since disappeared, but a profusion of species' still exist.

Because of the evolution of the cellular unit, together with the many possibilities for specialisation in function and symbiotic inter-dependence, specialised uni-cellular units, as well as multi-cellular organisms, have been able to penetrate into environmental circumstances and conditions that are far removed from the original conditions under which life arose.

Behavioural flexibility is one of the many methods nature has employed in its search for viability and a continuing expansion into previously unexplored ecological circumstances. The human species is a prime example of the capability to master and manipulate environmental circumstances and conditions with the grasp of concept-formation and structures of belief or interpretation.

The genetic code functions as an instrument to create especially favourable circumstances for the existence of organic compounds and their inter-actions. These especially created conditions and circumstances are necessary for a complex series of inter-related events to occur without interruptions or deviations. We know, now, that the reproduction of a complex organism would not be possible, without carefully controled conditions, nor, would the existence of a living, multi-cellular organism be possible without a carefully controled "internal environment".

The cultural code of intelligent behaviour allows man the possibility to grasp and manipulate circumstances and conditions with a similar degree of efficiency as the genetic code, and, the results of this cultural faculty are reflected in the dramatic spread of the human species all over the world, and, even, into nearby space. Man ranged far from his tropical homelands, and he learned to live in damp and cold climates, thanks to this cultural code and the transmission of knowledge, skills and insights.

Man mastered the use of fire, learned to clothe and protect himself, and, he learned to store food through the winter and other lean periods. Man fashioned all sorts of tools that helped him hunt and control the animals of the plains, and, he managed to harvest and utilise, eventually, even, the biggest trees of the forests.

The successful mastery over a large variety of natural conditions and events led to man's unsurpassed supremacy in the hierarchical scale of predatorial life. Man became the hunter of everything, and, he was hunted by no other species except his own. Another man became man's most dangerous enemy, but, another human being could, also, be his most valuable ally.

The evolutionary success of man, together with a marked increase in the size and number of social units, led to the need to cultivate food-supplies, because the natural supplies, available to forageing, nomadic groupings, were insufficient to feed everyone. Fortunately, man had a rudimentary inclination to cooperate on a larger scale, but the requirements for a stable and viable, large-scale social environment were beyond the scope of man's biological heritage.

Our biological heritage includes a complex package of drives and instincts, reflexes and other behaviour-patterns, which is part of the genetic code, and has been shaped over many hundreds of millions of years by the forces of natural selection and evolutionary change. These instinctive patterns of behaviour form a genetic heritage, together with all the anatomic and physiological characteristics that determine our existence.

Man searched, and still searches, rather desperately, for a viable way to organise himself into large-scale social groupings, because the increase in population, as well as the ever more stringent limitations on the ability to expand into new territories and find new food-supplies, led to a sharply increased level of strife within and between groups of people.

These competitive pressures and frictions between individuals, as well as small and large groupings, led to a situation of chronic warfare, as well as the practice of oppression, approaching the ruthless mechanisms of strife between living organisms in "raw nature", which lack any form of social organisation.

The phenomenon of hierarchical ordening had taken place long before the emergence of the human species, but, the need of human groupings to fuse into larger conglomerates, showed the inadequacies of the hierarchical order as an instrument to avoid severe internal strife in large-scale social entities. It became very difficult to know everyone within a social environment, and, it was impossible to become familiar with everyone's strengths and weaknesses. Hierarchical positions became vague and confused, and they were increasingly determined by arbitrary factors that did not reflect, in any way, the strength and merits of an individual.

There was a tendency for members to become "pegged" within a social stratum on account of their origin of birth, and, certain members would be arbitrarily elevated to a position of great influence and power by the practices of favouritism, bribery or flattery.

The loss of the ability to break-away from a social unit, and, to seek new possibilities of existence in virgin territories, became a source of severe stress, because all fertile lands had already been occupied. Only after a period of widespread conquest, and the elimination of inhabitants in a sparsely populated area, was it possible to break-away and "expand", once again.

The processes of task-differentiation and specialisation in function also undermined the traditional and emotionally satisfying manner of determining a hierarchical order by test-fights. The fortuitous results of a successful product, or a useful service, created, rapidly, a measure of dependence upon this product or service, and, this gave extra-ordinary powers to the providers of these successful products and services. In a "closed" society, people could not break-away anymore, and the population would begin to differentiate into an "upper crust", with nearly complete control over economic and political mechanisms, and, a large majority, that was exploited and had to slave in poverty, ignorance, deprivation and a dull sense of resentment.

Throughout the period of literate or recorded history, leaders and thinkers have been concerned with, and baffled by, these trends. They have tried to correct these seemingly inevitable and irreversible mechanisms of differentiation and polarisation. Slowly, man's understanding improved, and guidelines emerged that slowed-down, at least, to some extent, the accumulation of power, privileges and wealth into the hands of a small elite.

Slowly, people began to understand something about the conditions and factors that led to "polarisation", or disparities, within the larger social entities, and, far-sighted leaders began to introduce rules and regulations to maintain a measure of equality, justice and stability. Slowly, people began to realise, that the subconscious sense of justice could be used as a basis to build a more durable and equitable arrangement of social relationships. The sense of justice evolved, slowly, into an articulated concept of justice, but, it became also clear, that the judgement of what is fair, equitable and just would differ widely from one person to the next, and, from one group to another.

Firm, but intelligent leaderships were able to create specialised institutions to settle disputes in the most thorough and equitable manner possible. However, if disputes occurred between citizens and their leadership, or, if conflicts arose between powerful groups that were independent from each other, without any over-riding authority, then, the judicial institutions failed in their efforts to bring-about a peaceful, just, equitable and mutually acceptable settlement, because there would be no authority to make the belligerent parties abide by such a judicial decision. Conflict could, then, only be resolved by serious and honest negotiations. If this failed too, the conflict would inevitably harden the attitudes of the belligerents, as the chain of events accelerated towards a violent confrontation.

Now, we know better than ever before, how necessary it is to avoid the polarisation of attitudes, and, to halt the slide towards a violent confrontation. Sometimes, we are tempted to believe, that man has, indeed, learned to live together on a much larger scale than was possible at the beginning of "civilisation", but, then, what is the basis for such an optimistic conclusion? Indeed, for short periods, prosperity and reason seem to prevail, but, the ravages of a prolonged period of affluence and well-being seem to be so devastating, that no society has managed to escape the processes of decay for long. After a few generations have been born into easy and affluent circumstances, people begin to undermine their conditions of privilege and security, once again.

Indeed, it seems, as if nature has already abandoned any concern for the viability of modern man. Perhaps, the human experiment has already failed, and, we may be on an irreversible course towards extinction. Yet, as long as we exist, we have the possibility to break through this impasse, because, after all, nature has promoted the cultural code as a co-sponsor of the criteria of viability, and, it is still possible, that long-term viability can be regained, or established, by constructing an enduring and successful cultural code with global relevance as the pillar for this quality of long-term viability.

Perhaps, future generations will look upon their times with more optimism. Perhaps, we will again see more hope-giving political and cultural developments in the future, and, we should do, what we can, to keep alive the insights that have the potential to bring-about a stable and viable society of mankind on a global scale.

Certainly, it is within our reach to create a durable global society, but, we will have to make a fundamental decision. Do we, indeed, want to minimise tensions between ourselves by giving each human being a scrupulously implemented and adhered-to package of opportunities, rights and obligations, or, do we want to perpetuate a position of privilege and advantage, by force? If we are not going to give-up, voluntarily, at least, some of our privileges, assets and fortunate circumstances, then, we opt, in essence, for an all-out conflict, and, we make it inevitable, that our positions of privilege will be challenged, eventually, with the instruments of violence.

We may think, that it is completely justified to occupy the position we are in, because, we, our family, or our forefathers, have developed the country or the area to what it is, now. Certainly, there are many reasons, why we may feel justified in holding-on to what we have, and, we, our family and forefathers, may also have made many serious attempts to help those who were less fortunate. We may have been disappointed by the reactions of those we tried to help. We may have come to the conclusion, that some peoples can not be helped, and, that their ignorance is engraved by an inferior genetic make-up. We may genuinely believe that man is destined to be divided into rulers and followers; that some people will always be poor and ignorant, while others have to carry the responsibilities and burdens of leadership and government.

Yet, do we understand all the reasons, why people with a long history of poverty and oppression can not suddenly be transformed into enlightened and responsible citizens, willing to cooperate with those, who have been their superiors for so long? Many of us can go back in history and see, how our fathers and forefathers were looked-down upon as ignorant peasants. It is not all that long ago, that Europeans were looked-down upon by the Greeks and Romans as "barbarians", and, how long ago were the immigrants to North America looked-down upon by the established elites in their countries of origin?

Certainly, justice does not mean an indiscriminate confiscation of privileges and property. The attitudes of hatred and class-warfare, where the workers and the peasants rise-up with an attitude of outright hatred against the established elite, should be shunned for its destructive and polarising effects, but, the attitude that an elite should determine the criteria of justice, law and order, as well as the nature of the social order, is just as destructive and polarising.

We have to know, why these polarisations and disparities occurred in the past, and, we have no right to consider any part of society, nor, any part of mankind, as an "arch enemy" who has to be eliminated. We may fight erroneous attitudes and incidences of ignorance, and, we may condemn elitism and self-righteous fanaticism, but, we should not forget, that, every human being, from the poorest peasant to the richest land-owner, may become an elitist and self-righteous fanatic, or, a saint; the epitomy of responsibility and good-will.

Each human being should be given this basic package of rights and obligations because of the fact, that we are human beings, regardless of our status, beliefs and origins.

Certainly, behaviour can become criminal, and, after a competent judicial inquiry and judgement, sentencing and rehabilitation, a persistent and incorrigeable criminal may have to be eliminated, but the practice of summary trials and executions is, in essence, an act of primitive murder that is primarily directed towards rivals. These practices represent a regrettable step backwards in the evolution of attitudes and relationships between human beings, who have learned to recognise the mechanisms and consequences of all-out competitive strife.

As a matter of fact, the time has come, that we can not tolerate, any longer, the indiscriminate slaughter by a fanatic and dictatorial regime, or a lawless and uncontroled army. The time has come to do something about the injustices that are being perpetrated, be it in another country, or, in our own backyard. However, before interfering, let us examine, soberly, whether or not we can be accused of opportunistic or abusive practices; whether or not we have, indeed, the moral right to interfere in the affairs of other people. We know, that we can never be right, if we interfere, primarily, for our own interest or benefit.

A package of scrupulously equal rights and obligations has to be protected against abuse, and, this means, that we have to have a great deal of transparence in our dealings with each other. Why should any transaction have to be secret? Why should our assets and incomes be hidden? Why should we not have the right to know, exactly, what goes-on within a business, a government department, between leaders and their followers, or between societies?

The doctrine of complete transparence seems radical and frightening, because we still think in terms of privacy and privileged information, but, it will become clear, that justice can only be guaranteed, if we can deal with each other in an atmosphere of openness and trust. We can only generate and maintain trust, if each one of us is able to check, at any time, whether or not someone else, or some other group, business or institution, is also "playing by the rules".

If we have been honest in our transactions and the way we make a living and gathered our assets, why, then, should we resent the fact, that someone else may know, exactly, how much we have, how much we earn, how well we live, or, what difficulties we have to cope with?

On other occasions, we have dealt, in more detail, with the requirements for a just society, and, we will only recapitulate, here, the broad principles. Before we can even begin to discuss with each other what we mean by a "just society", we will have to agree, in overall terms, about our interpretations and reality perceptions, and, this includes broad agreement about our origins and nature. However, we also know, that we can not bring unity of thought and belief with force, and, the Age of the Crusades and Holy Wars, is, really, over, in spite of the fact, that we see some disconcerting signs, that man's behaviour could regress, again, to such a primitive level.

We have to learn to talk the same conceptual language, and, we have to learn to accomodate and compensate for regional and cultural differences. As long as we behave as if we are the only group or individual in possession of the truth, we will continue to alienate others by our ignorance, and, we will perpetuate feelings of injustice and resentment.

We will have to generate a discussion on a global scale, where we define, methodically and precisely, what we really mean with the words we use. We will also have to face, squarely, this crucial question, time and again; do we really want global justice and peace, or, do we only want to hold-on to what we have?

If we want to be somewhat successful in our efforts to understand each other, (and about the ways we can work towards a global harmony), we will have to set-up a global network of information, where we can educate ourselves, together with the younger generations, about the most pressing needs, the best possible grasp over specific problems and realities, as well as a thorough and honest evaluation of all the arguments that are brought for or against a particular point of view.

We will have to persuade and educate our leaders, because they tend to hold-on to their territorial instincts. They are inundating us with their concerns for their own particular region and peoples, but, often, leaders behave like stubborn goats and recalcitrant youngsters, especially, when they are faced with the task of forming a consensus, or, to work-out a solution for the common good of their combined territories and peoples.

We will also have to get hold of our multi-national dinosaurs, because they have too much power, as well as a disastrous influence upon the attitudes and habits of ordinary people. We have to learn to slow-down the economic exploitation of our natural resources, and, we have to abandon the erroneous philosophy, that we have to stimulate economic growth, continuously, in order to cope with unemployment and a restless populace.

We have to learn to live frugally, carefully consuming what we need, abandoning unnecessary luxuries, until we are sure, that it is possible to let everyone have a little more, without jeopardising our supplies and long-term prospects for a healthy and decent existence. We will have to learn to reject any argument, that gives the right of ownership over natural resources to the people who happen to live there, or, who happen to have control over an area by previous conquest or some other historic event. This may be one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish, because ownership of land and resources is so intricately tied to feelings of communal and individual security.

However, when we think about the requirements of equality of opportunity and justice on a global scale, we can not arrive at any other conclusion. We have to agree, that, all natural resources, as well as all natural and man-made problems, are the ownership, and responsibility, of the human species as a whole.

This does not mean, that all personal property has to be abolished. It will be advantageous, even necessary, to have many smaller belongings for which we carry a personal responsibility, and, nobody will begrudge an individual or group the fruits of hard work and frugal attitudes, but there is absolutely no justification for the privileges and luxuries that are the wind-fall of a fortunate inheritance.

If we think along these lines, we will see a light, even, many lights, where there appears to be only darkness and confusion. There is good reason to believe, that an intelligent appraisal of our existence, our relationships with the environment, as well as the many dependencies and inter-dependencies we are subjected to, will show us, clearly, how we can create a nearly ever-lasting life and viability for mankind, right here, on earth. At the same time, we will also develop a much clearer idea about those trends and developments which will lead to a precipitous catastrophe and a total collapse of the ability to survive.

.......

Summary

1. Inter-dependence and symbiosis; definitions.
   Symbiosis, parasitism and predation.
   Relationships between people.
   The evolution of organisational patterns.
   The "cell".
   Inter-dependencies between radiant and orbital energy-forms.
   All events require a set of suitable conditions, before they can take place.
   Testing, fluidly, every niche of existence possibilities.
   The conditions of existence.
   A conglomerate of inter-dependence may overcome individual vulnerabilities of the participating members.
   Pre-cellular evolution.
   The tendency to re-establish an equilibrium of opposing force-fields.
   The break-through of "complementary events"; the chain-reaction.
   
   
   
2. Fluctuations in conditions and circumstances.
   Excited electrons.
   The barriers of "night-fall".
   A difficult imagery to work with, or believe in.
   The whole machinery must have "clicked together".
   A Creative Intelligence, versus an Evolutionary Search.
   A confluence between the concepts of creation and evolution.
   Mechanisms and consequences of polymerisation.
   Duplicating a structure with complementary strands.
   Growth in the living and non-living systems.
   The protoplasmic primordium has disappeared.
   Reproduction depends on the "creation" of specific, favourable circumstances.
   A "nest" of very complex inter-dependencies.
   Evolutionary adaptations.
   The evolution of creative designs.
   
   
   
3. The bibilical concept of Creation.
   Can something come from nothing?
   The origin of God.
   The appearance of randomness in the occurrence of numerous similar and simultaneous events.
   Scattering grains of sand.
   The summarising functions of the mind, and the concept of randomness.
   Randomness and Guidance.
   A deliberate, creative act of the human will.
   Behavioural flexibility, and the need to finely tune our behaviour-patterns.
   A brief outline of awareness, consciousness, symbolic representation, and a willed, intelligent, behavioural response.
   The relativity of knowledge.
   A number of questions.
   An essential equivalence between the creative functions of human existence and the forces of natural selection.
   Neither one, nor the other, is perfectly random or completely guided.
   The mechanisms of social inter-dependence.
   
   
   
4. Building upon the concept of a "biological heritage".
   The anthropoid species'.
   A need for excellent parental behaviour.
   Trying to rear children "by the book".
   Emotional mechanisms between parents and off-spring.
   The ability to give and receive trust.
   Unraveling the mechanisms of a developing personality.
   A continuously varying mix between protection, affection, stimulation and discipline.
   Mechanisms playing a role during an increase in population density.
   The internal "frictions" of competitive strife.
   A static population, and its internal dynamics.
   Intra-species predation.
   The stampede into a leaderless panic.
   The mass-migration.
   Limitations of the nomadic way of life.
   Rising competitive pressures and tensions.
   The inhibition of intra-species predation by "recognition mechanisms".
   When recognition mechanisms fail to operate adequately.
   The mechanisms of "cultural divergence" between human groupings interfere with natural recognition mechanisms.
   In a cultural sense, we have become differentiated into widely divergent "species`".
   Man has shaken-off his natural predators, except for a few, stubborn, pathogenic micro-organisms.
   The background of the contradictory trends in man's personality.
   Why human beings are willing to explore the possibilities of cooperation and social integration.
   The break-through of the "hierarchical order".
   
   
   
5. The phenomena of "dispersion" and "territoriality".
   Territoriality may be a temporary attitude.
   The tendency towards an equi-distant dispersion and territoriality can be mitigated by the mechanisms of hierarchical ordening.
   The need for "escape mechanisms".
   The transition from dominance to leadership.
   Social integration around the family nucleus.
   Dominance, and the evolution of caring and protective instincts.
   A balance of interests.
   The "sense of justice".
   Occupying a position on the basis of individual merit.
   The "position at birth".
   Inherited social positions, and the sense of justice.
   Hierarchical stratification is based on an essential fluidity of the hierarchical position, based on the quality of personal abilities.
   The polarisation between a ruling elite and an oppressed majority.
   A complex mosaic of groupings and sub-groupings.
   The limitations of natural leadership.
   Favouritism, and its disruptive effects on social harmony.
   
   
   
6. Defusing social tensions with just and far-sighted regulatory mechanisms.
   A stroke of genius; the concept and implementation of a contract of "essential equality".
   The problem of knowing everyone in a large-scale social environment.
   Essential equality implies, also, the will-power, and the determination, to squash parasitic or exploitative behaviour.
   Our "heroes".
   Factors that facilitate the growth of large and complex societies.
   The effects of efficient task-specialisations.
   Cellular specialisations in form and function.
   A difficult balancing-act, necessary to preserve the conditions of essential equality.
   Special-interest groupings and their fragmenting influence upon society.
   The phenomenon of "inflation".
   An analysis of social and economic factors in a large and affluent society.
   We all "feed" the large corporations, because we have become dependent upon them.
   We are democratic "big spenders".
   The consequences of a dependence on a high level of consumption.
   It is tempting to let the debt-load rise.
   A high level of vulnerability.
   
   
   
7. Natural parallels with the trappings of an affluent life-style.
   The dependence on a "job".
   Fiscal, physical and psychological dependencies.
   A number of other dependencies.
   The benefits of becoming more versatile and more broadly skilled.
   We are social beings, be it, primarily, "small-scale".
   Neurotic dependencies.
   Emotions do not constitute the "highest" forms of human behaviour.
   The conditions that are necessary for a superb performance.
   The emergence of a "supra-individual unit".
   The attitudes of "symbiosis".
   A balance between contribution and reward.
   Measuring productivity.
   Incentives and existential anxieties
   
   
   
8. A summary of what has been discussed.
   All events, including those of the living organisation, depend on the internal potentials of the participating elements, as well as the conditions and circumstances in which these events take place.
   Life is a series of on-going, largely complementary events.
   Behavioural flexibility is a major tool in the search for viability for large and complex organisms.
   The cultural code, and the potentials of intelligent behaviour.
   Man, the manipulator, became his own, most dangerous enemy.
   A rudimentary anlage for social cooperation.
   Mechanisms of stress.
   The problems associated with a "closed society".
   Attempts to slow-down the accumulation of privileges, power and wealth.
   The judiciary.
   We know more, now, about the requirements of individual and collective viability, as well as the mechanisms of social decay.
   The importance of our outlook on life.
   Possibilities for a globally integrated social environment.
   The many faces of justice.
   A basic package of rights and obligations.
   The doctrine of complete social transparence.
   Using the same conceptual language.
   Do we really want Peace and Justice, or, do we want to preserve an advantage or a privilege.
   We have to educate our leaders and aspiring leaders.
   The benefits of a sober life-style.
   The potential of creating nearly ever-lasting life for mankind on a carefully managed planet earth.

.......