One Big Organism



T

Tim Tyler

Guest
Here's my essay on the possibility of life defeating the process of natural selection.

As usual, it's probably best to read it in HTML on the WWW - rather than here in raw ASCII.

If you feel you can manage that, the URL you need is:

--> http://alife.co.uk/misc/one_big_organism/ <--

One Big Organism
================

The horrors of nature
---------------------
Some authors have expressed horror at the evolutionary process that created us - and expressed the
desire to "escape" from it - usually in some unspecified way.

Prominent among these are Richard Dawkins [1] - who describes nature as "the ruthlessly cruel
process that gave us all existence", and describes the process that made us as "wasteful,
cruel and low".

He says that nature gave us a brain capable of "understanding its own provenance, of deploring the
moral implications and of fighting against them".

He describes humanity as "the only potential island of refuge from the implications of [evolution]:
from the cruelty, and the clumsy, blundering waste."

Defeating natural selection
---------------------------
Is what Dawkins talks about remotely possible?

It is certainly clear that /individuals/ can opt out of the evolutionary process - but that doesn't
seem to do them very much good - and merely creates a world without their kind in it.

However there /is/ another approach to defteating natural selection which seems more worthy of
investigation.

Natural selection relies on /competition/ between agents.

/Without/ such competition it has no variation on which to act - and it loses the ability to select
between variants - and so it can no longer direct evolution.

So - if the dominant organsms all fused together into one big organism - then perhaps they would no
longer be the subject of evolutionary forces.

...and perhaps if all life fused together - into one big organism - then perhaps natural selection
would completely come to an end.

Will all living things fuse?
----------------------------
The process of evolution seems to be characterised by building ever more deeply-nested heirarchies
of organisms.

I have argued elsewhere that humans and machines will form composite organisms - that the companies
of today will come to increasingly resemble composite organisms - with their own inheritance
mechanisms.

Similarly, I regard it as possible that whole governments will also come to play the role of
organisms - with companies acting as their organs.

Today there are already some elements of global cooperation. There is - in some areas - a global
marketplace. While this is more like an economy than an organism, an economy could turn into an
organism over time.

So, looking at our planet, it seems at least vaguely possible that it will /eventually/ be occupied
by a dominant organism that spans the entire planet.

Natural selection within organisms
----------------------------------
In practice natural selection doesn't just occur /between/ organisms. It also happens /within/
organisms - where it's referred to as somatic selection. In the process of development many more
cells are born than survive - and those that are not needed die or are killed.

So it seems /unlikely/ that natural selection can be eliminated completely. However, this sort of
natural selection would probably be considered to be not so bad. The cells don't /mind/ dying. They
even /deliberately/ commit suicide so that other cells have more space and nutrients. There's not
really any suffering involved - and it seems to be the suffering that is found to be aesthetically
displeasing.

Selection within the organism need not happen very much. Some bits of the creature will inevitably
die and need replacing through accidents and wear and tear. However, such problems can hopefully be
minimised. Selection between components within the organism can be kept at low levels - and care
could be taken to ensure no errors or variation are introduced.

The end of parasites and symbiotes
----------------------------------
For /all/ living organisms to fuse (and without this there's an ever-present risk of one of the still-
evolving creatures coming to dominate), the dominant creature would need to eliminate all its
parasites and symbiotes. Is that remotely feasible?

Normally, there's no selection pressure to eliminate parasites beyond a certain point. When they are
of little threat, the threat is hardly worth defending against. So it seems unlikely that a creature
would normally bother wiping out all its parasites.

However, let's suppose that the creature decided to make this its mission in life.

The experience we have with creating engineered complex systems suggests that any complex
organism is likely to be prone to parasite infections - and that eliminating them is very
challenging - and while we have had some successes we are still nowhere near wiping out the
parasites of our own species.

However, it doesn't seem logically impossible. Maybe - with sufficient effort and application -
perhaps the dominant creature could succeed in eliminating all its parasites and symbiotes.

Cosmology
---------
One world is an old dream. However as a matter of fact that there /is/ more than one world.

In particular our solar system has multiple worlds in it - and it seems likely that life will
visit them.

Similarly, there are multiple stars in the galaxy - and it seems likely that many of them too will
also harbour life.

Can the idea of nature as one large organism /possibly/ survive being physically divided by such
impressive physical barriers?

After all, the ants in a nest can survive some degree of physical separation - and yet they still
remain united as a single creature.

Perhaps /even/ this can't /totally/ be ruled out.

/Maybe/ one day - in the far distant future - the whole /universe/ will be filled with a single
living organism.

It could call itself "The winner".

After the race is over
----------------------
What force would then drive the resulting system? Self- directed "mutations" would probably
determine the course of the system after that point. The organism could do as it liked - without
fear that some other organism would eat its lunch.

There would be no particularly obvious motivation towards self-improvement any more - unless the
organism dissolved into separate components again and they began to compete with one another once
more, that is.

The future
----------
Regardless of whether all this eventually happens - or whether it is merely an extremely far-fetched
and elaborate fantasy ;-) - it seems unlikely to happen for many /billions/ of years to come.

I reckon we'll be looking at the effects of natural selection /at least/ until then.

References
----------
[1] - Richard Dawkins - A Devil's Chaplain (the essay)
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> For /all/ living organisms to fuse (and without this there's an ever-present risk of one of the
> still-evolving creatures coming to dominate), the dominant creature would need to eliminate all
> its parasites and symbiotes. Is that remotely feasible?
>
Parasites don't damage their hosts out of spite, but because doing so is a consequence of their
reproductive strategy. However benefitting the host is also good for the parasite. Mitochondria may
have at one stage been parasitic organisms that have become so symbiotic that they are now
effectively the same creature as the host.
 
Well, you're little piece comes across as just sarcasm rather than any elaborate farfetched fantasy.
I would state the idea of "one big organism" is patently absurd. We are a competing species and
natural selection will be around for some time. How long nobody really knows but likely for millions
of years if not longer. It seems, however, when a species reaches certain points in its evolution
where it is very much "out of whack" cataclysmic events can occur which bring things back to
homeostasis. I think there is such the possibility of such a cataclysmic event with our species. It
could be natural or through nuclear weapons.

Some authors have expressed horror at the evolutionary processes that created us and have expressed
a desire to escape from it. I think it is moot to attempt to apply morality to Darwinian evolution.
Certainly the evolutionary processes which created us were necessary. The question is are all of
these "processes" still necessary and is there any way to possibly modify them in the future? If one
acknowledges not all of these "processes" of Darwinian evolution are necessary, that in fact some
are no longer adaptive and threaten our survival as a species...then it becomes an issue of
continued survival...not morality or expression of horror at natural selection.

I don't think there is any way to "escape" from natural selection but there is the possibility,
albeit hundreds of years from now, for science to play more of a role in shaping and guiding human
evolution. The "key" is genetic engineering and despite what horrors occur in the world the field of
genetics will continue to make advances.

Eliminating genetic disorders through genetic engineering, removing aggression, augmenting certain
aspects of intelligence, etc. would certainly not eliminate natural selection but it would gradually
influence it.

But you seem to be "rooted" in what you can't help but be. I expect things to get worse in the
world. Party while you can!

Michael Ragland

Here's my essay on the possibility of life defeating the process of natural selection. As usual,
it's probably best to read it in HTML on the WWW - rather than here in raw ASCII. If you feel you
can manage that, the URL you need is:     --> http://alife.co.uk/misc/one_big_organism/ <-- One
Big Organism
================
  The horrors of nature   --------------------- Some authors have expressed horror at the
evolutionary process that created us - and expressed the desire to "escape" from it - usually in
some unspecified way. Prominent among these are Richard Dawkins [1] - who describes nature as "the
ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence", and describes the process that made us as
"wasteful, cruel and low". He says that nature gave us a brain capable of "understanding its own
provenance, of deploring the moral implications and of fighting against them". He describes humanity
as "the only potential island of refuge from the implications of [evolution]: from the cruelty, and
the clumsy, blundering waste."   Defeating natural selection   --------------------------- Is what
Dawkins talks about remotely possible? It is certainly clear that /individuals/ can opt out of the
evolutionary process - but that doesn't seem to do them very much good - and merely creates a world
without their kind in it. However there /is/ another approach to defteating natural selection which
seems more worthy of investigation. Natural selection relies on /competition/ between agents.
/Without/ such competition it has no variation on which to act - and it loses the ability to select
between variants - and so it can no longer direct evolution. So - if the dominant organsms all fused
together into one big organism - then perhaps they would no longer be the subject of evolutionary
forces. ..and perhaps if all life fused together - into one big organism - then perhaps natural
selection would completely come to an end.   Will all living things fuse?   ----------------------------
The process of evolution seems to be characterised by building ever more deeply-nested heirarchies
of organisms. I have argued elsewhere that humans and machines will form composite organisms - that
the companies of today will come to increasingly resemble composite organisms - with their own
inheritance mechanisms. Similarly, I regard it as possible that whole governments will also come to
play the role of organisms - with companies acting as their organs. Today there are already some
elements of global cooperation. There is - in some areas - a global marketplace. While this is more
like an economy than an organism, an economy could turn into an organism over time. So, looking at
our planet, it seems at least vaguely possible that it will /eventually/ be occupied by a dominant
organism that spans the entire planet.   Natural selection within organisms   ----------------------------------
In practice natural selection doesn't just occur /between/ organisms. It also happens /within/
organisms - where it's referred to as somatic selection. In the process of development many more
cells are born than survive - and those that are not needed die or are killed. So it seems
/unlikely/ that natural selection can be eliminated completely. However, this sort of natural
selection would probably be considered to be not so bad. The cells don't /mind/ dying. They even
/deliberately/ commit suicide so that other cells have more space and nutrients. There's not really
any suffering involved - and it seems to be the suffering that is found to be aesthetically
displeasing. Selection within the organism need not happen very much. Some bits of the creature will
inevitably die and need replacing through accidents and wear and tear. However, such problems can
hopefully be minimised. Selection between components within the organism can be kept at low levels -
and care could be taken to ensure no errors or variation are introduced.   The end of parasites and
symbiotes   ---------------------------------- For /all/ living organisms to fuse (and without this
there's an ever-present risk of one of the still-evolving creatures coming to dominate), the
dominant creature would need to eliminate all its parasites and symbiotes. Is that remotely
feasible? Normally, there's no selection pressure to eliminate parasites beyond a certain point.
When they are of little threat, the threat is hardly worth defending against. So it seems unlikely
that a creature would normally bother wiping out all its parasites. However, let's suppose that the
creature decided to make this its mission in life. The experience we have with creating engineered
complex systems suggests that any complex organism is likely to be prone to parasite infections -
and that eliminating them is very challenging - and while we have had some successes we are still
nowhere near wiping out the parasites of our own species. However, it doesn't seem logically
impossible. Maybe - with sufficient effort and application - perhaps the dominant creature could
succeed in eliminating all its parasites and symbiotes.   Cosmology   --------- One world is an old
dream. However as a matter of fact that there /is/ more than one world. In particular our solar
system has multiple worlds in it - and it seems likely that life will visit them. Similarly, there
are multiple stars in the galaxy - and it seems likely that many of them too will also harbour life.
Can the idea of nature as one large organism /possibly/ survive being physically divided by such
impressive physical barriers? After all, the ants in a nest can survive some degree of physical
separation - and yet they still remain united as a single creature. Perhaps /even/ this can't
/totally/ be ruled out. /Maybe/ one day - in the far distant future - the whole /universe/ will be
filled with a single living organism. It could call itself "The winner".   After the race is over
  ---------------------- What force would then drive the resulting system? Self- directed
"mutations" would probably determine the course of the system after that point. The organism could
do as it liked - without fear that some other organism would eat its lunch. There would be no
particularly obvious motivation towards self-improvement any more - unless the organism dissolved
into separate components again and they began to compete with one another once more, that is.   The
future   ---------- Regardless of whether all this eventually happens - or whether it is merely an
extremely far-fetched and elaborate fantasy ;-) - it seems unlikely to happen for many /billions/ of
years to come. I reckon we'll be looking at the effects of natural selection /at least/ until then.
  References   ----------
[1] - Richard Dawkins - A Devil's Chaplain (the essay)
--
__________
  |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to
reply.
 
Michael Ragland <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:

[ http://alife.co.uk/misc/one_big_organism/ ]

> Well, you're little piece comes across as just sarcasm rather than any elaborate farfetched
> fantasy. I would state the idea of "one big organism" is patently absurd. We are a competing
> species and natural selection will be around for some time. How long nobody really knows but
> likely for millions of years if not longer.

I do think the largest organisms will continue to grow - without much
limit. Maybe when they are the size of the planet they will reach a bit of a natural limit
for a while.

All life fusing - or, equivalently, perhaps a few agents entering into a cooperative cabal where the
members swear not to compete with one another
- seems to me to be about the only way natural selection could be ended - without the death of all
sentient organisms.

I was suprised it was remotely possible (without new physics being involved). The idea of far-
future complex adaptive systems not being subject to natural selection at all was not previously
familiar to me.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove lock to reply.
 
Tim,

Beleive it or not, I wrote a response to your other post on the future of the genome, and suggested
much the same single organism you did here. Strangely enough, I had not read this before writing the
other - but look how similar they are.
 
"Tim Tyler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael Ragland <[email protected]> wrote or quoted:
>
> [ http://alife.co.uk/misc/one_big_organism/ ]
>
> > Well, you're little piece comes across as just sarcasm
rather than any
> > elaborate farfetched fantasy. I would state the idea of
"one big
> > organism" is patently absurd. We are a competing species
and natural
> > selection will be around for some time. How long nobody
really knows but
> > likely for millions of years if not longer.
>
> I do think the largest organisms will continue to grow -
without much
> limit. Maybe when they are the size of the planet they
will reach
> a bit of a natural limit for a while.
>
> All life fusing - or, equivalently, perhaps a few agents
entering into a
> cooperative cabal where the members swear not to compete
with one another
> - seems to me to be about the only way natural selection
could be ended -
> without the death of all sentient organisms.
>
> I was suprised it was remotely possible (without new
physics being
> involved). The idea of far-future complex adaptive
systems not being
> subject to natural selection at all was not previously
familiar to me.
> --
> __________
> |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ [email protected] Remove
lock to reply.

I think if it happens, the "winner" is more likely to be slime mold rather than something like us.
:) Climate and general environments will continue to be one of the primary driving force for evolution--
however, if humans do manage to survive without regressing technologicaly for a few more kiloyears,
tech will allow full control of the environment (here, and on other planets,) and on all genomes as
well. I think it's possible that someday we'll be able to modify genomes "on the fly" so to speak
(i.e., on our living selves,) but even if that's not possible, we'll certainly guide our progeny to
myriad genetic and morphological forms suited to any desired environment. Curing today's genetic
disoeders is only scratching the surface of our biological future. ...tonyC
---------------------
see: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=3&u=/ap/20040302/ap_on_he_me/stem_cells

Support stem-cell research--vote Bush out of office!
 
Michael Ragland wrote:
>
> Some authors have expressed horror at the evolutionary processes that created us and have
> expressed a desire to escape from it. I think it is moot to attempt to apply morality to Darwinian
> evolution.

For one, Darwinian evolution doesn't reduce to competition and natural selection ; the more
competition there is, the more dynamic evolution is, and the more dynamic evolution is, the more
unstable the playing field. The common natural pattern of response to competition is specialization
that leads away from competition.

For two, while "applying" morality to Darwinian evolution indeed looks like a fruitless idea, one
can on the other hand "apply" the wisdom of Darwinian evolution to morality. With fruit.

This doesn't mean at all justifying a social jungle promoting competition, it means noting that
"let's kill death" pretty much describes in a nutshell the natural dynamics of darwinian evolution -
whence "life of death" describes a correlation of premature mortality with the genetic setup.
Evolution drives populations away from regular causes of premature mortality as it gets measured by
a correlation with the genetic setup.

From this, one can ascribe to morality the role of cultural implementation of this "let's kill
death" dynamics of genetic evolution. And then note that the lamarckian and sociologic nature of
cultural evolution doesn't by itself guarantee such a dynamics. And in the end, one can side with
Dawkins on the task of killing stale morals sacralized away from the government of current
mortality facts. Epidemiology replaces theology, public health organizations replace churches.

Regards, MC
--
666 ?? -- 666 ~ .666 ~ 2/3 ~ 1 - 1/3 ~ tertium non datur ~ the excluded middle
~ "either you are with us, or you are against us" !!
 
TomHendricks474 wrote:
> << For one, Darwinian evolution doesn't reduce to competition and natural selection ; >>
>
>
> No but it does reduce to nurturing (and later symbiosis) or protection (and later competition).

You mean mom (and later wives) and dad (and later colleagues) ? Now that's precisely what I called
fruitless. Attempts to "apply" morality to darwinism, rather than the converse. So I guess your post
I need to read as written against this judgment of mine.

>
> Specifically once there is a membrane then we have inside and outside the membrane.

Mon stays at home while dad goes to work, ok.

> And both can be divided to two actions.
>
> Individual acting or reacting with what's outside membrane (either for what nurtures, or against
> what doesn't)

Dad, ok.

>
> Individual acting or reacting with what's inside membrane (either for what nurtures, or against
> what doesn't)

And mom, ok.

>
> Now look closer. Individual acting or reacting with what's outside membrane
>
> 1. move towards - for nurturing of any kind = nurtures
> 2. move against - to protect = competes (self against environmental dangers outside membrane)

Dad does good at work but it's a risky life for him, especially if he is a soldier. Ok.

>
> Individual acting or reacting with what's inside membrane
> 3. hold what nurtures = nurtures
> 4. move against what does not nurture and excrete out = competes (self against non-self inside
> membrane)

Mom keeps the fridge full and rules over the kids, ok.

>
> These 4 options of the cell membrane - can evolve forward to all types of behavior

If you really want to put this that way, but I don't think it fits the meaning of "to evolve"
implied by the name of the newsgroup.

Regards, MC
--
"On nait tous les metres du meme monde"
 
TomHendricks474 wrote:
> << You mean mom (and later wives) and dad (and later
> colleagues) ? Now that's precisely what I called
> fruitless. Attempts to "apply" morality to darwinism >>
>
>
> No. I'm saying that the basic drive of all living things
> to food in - waste out led to all the rest.
>
> With the 4 options being
> 1. food taken in
> 2. food not taken in
> 3. food held in
> 4. food not held in
>
> Can you name any evolutionary step that wasn't a
> refinement of these 4 options?
>

Ok, this means you claim you can picture any evolutionary
step as a refinement of the above.

Let's see... hmmm there exists some parthenogenetic species
of lizards,

Explain it as a refinement of the above. And please don't
confuse semen with food.

Regards, MC
--
"What's F(Syracuse) if F(Eureka) is the = in E=mc^2 ?"