Back • Return Home
TECHNOLOGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS
Lane Tracy
Department of Management Systems
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701, U.S.A.
Abstract
Technology is a double-edged sword. It helps living systems to protect themselves and maintain the necessary steady state of negentropy. It also provides the impetus for evolution of higher levels of living systems and creation of new kinds of social systems. At the same time it accelerates the consumption of natural resources and hastens the day when existing kinds of living systems will no longer have a habitable environment. Sustainability of the environment is a worthy goal, yet it may inhibit the future development of living systems. Systems science demands a balanced consideration of the benefits and dangers of advanced technology.
Keywords: Technology, living systems, evolution, sustainability, systems science
1. Introduction
Technology is sometimes viewed as an aberration in the natural order of things. Life and living systems, on the other hand, are generally considered to be part of that natural order. Yet living systems have been greatly influenced by technology and some forms of life probably would not exist today without advanced technology.
Is technology truly an aberration and a danger to the long-term survival of life on Earth? Or is it a necessary byproduct of the evolution of living systems and a requirement for the continued existence of higher-level forms of life?
1.1 Effects of Technology
Fey and Lam (1998) define technology as "the accumulated knowledge and methods created and used by humanity to provide all of the material things we consume." Humanity is not the only creator of technology. Other animals build dams, webs, nests, and burrow, and use objects as tools. Nevertheless, it is certainly true that humanity is responsible for most of the technology on Earth. Fey and Lam further note: "Technology is a positive feedback process in which theories and products that have resulted from scientific research produce benefits and disbenefits, both of which motivate more research and more trained people to do more research. This process produces hyper-exponential growth in the breadth and speed of new technology which provides new products and processes that induce us to consume more."
The dangers of the growth of technology cannot be denied. Yet some of the supposedly deleterious effects of technology are actually aspects of life itself. In particular, if technology tends to accelerate entropic processes, so does life. Living systems maintain a steady internal state of negentropy by importing matter and energy that is higher in complexity or negentropy than their outputs, thus increasing entropy in their environment (Miller, 1978). At the same time through the process of photosynthesis life captures and stores energy that would otherwise be dissipated quickly. Technology simply magnifies these processes, enabling living systems both to exploit their environment more intensively and to capture and store more energy through artifacts such as hydroelectric dams, windmills, and photoelectric cells.
Indeed, living cells, organs, and organisms may be viewed as technology created by genes to exploit their environment in aid of the process of replicating themselves. Dawkins (1976) called organic living systems "survival machines" for the genes. Genes employ complex chemical and informational technology to build biological systems that are capable of reproduction.
Even without treating the concept of technology so broadly, however, there are strong links between living systems and technology. Human living systems employ technology extensively to enhance their capacity to do what they do naturally. Furthermore, technology provides the impetus and the means for development of new forms and levels of living systems, including organizations, communities, and nations.
For living systems, technology has both good and bad effects. Technology gives existing living systems greater control over their environment, thereby protecting them and enabling them more easily to maintain a steady internal state of negentropy. Yet technology also increases entropy in the environment, shortening the span of time in which that environment can support life. As Fey and Lam (1998) describe it, technology is part of a set of causal feedback loops which tend to increase world human consumption of natural resources. Since the resources are limited and irreplaceable, the period of sustainability of life on Earth is shortened by technology.
1.2 A Hierarchy of Living Systems
Living systems are arrayed in a natural hierarchy from the simplest form of life, the single cell, to the most complex forms, societies and supranational systems. This hierarchy also represents a chain of evolution. Organs and organisms evolved from cells, organisms developed into groups, groups into organizations, and so on. In this evolutionary "fray-out" process each higher-level system copied the basic structure of the lower-level system but added complexity (Miller & Miller, 1990).
Every living system must have a template. The template of a living system is "the original information input that is the program for its later structure and process, which can be modified by later matter-energy inputs from its environment (Miller, 1978, 34)." Genetic templates are composed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), whereas charters are encoded in language and behavior.
Living systems can be divided into two categories according to the nature of their template. Biological systems have genetic templates. Social systems are primarily based on charters, although certain social systems (e.g., among the social insects) may have a genetic basis. Cells, organs, and organisms fall into the category of biological systems, whereas the social category consists of groups, organizations, communities, societies, and supranational systems.
1.3 Technology and Evolution
Evolution of DNA-based biological systems is a "natural" phenomenon that has been occurring over millions of years. Social systems are a much more recent phenomenon, generally demanding as a prerequisite the development of some method of symbolic communication across generations. Groups, organizations, communities, societies, and supranational systems have originated in response to conditions created by technology and, in comparison with biological systems, have evolved very rapidly, usually with the aid or impetus of technology. Technology has also changed the path and rate of biological evolution through mechanisms such as selective breeding, artificial insemination, and genetic engineering.
Higher levels of living systems generally consume more resources than lower levels. Organisms consume more than do the cells and organs of which they are composed. Organizations consume more than their component organisms and groups. Societies consume more than the individual people, groups, organizations, and communities that populate them. The greater complexity of higher levels of living systems can only be maintained by accelerated consumption of resources.
Higher levels of living systems also tend to employ technology more intensively. Organizations employ capital to obtain and operate sophisticated machinery that can accelerate the processes of resource consumption. Societies create large arsenals of sophisticated weaponry whose only use is to destroy opposing resources. Indeed, many higher-level living systems would not exist in their present form without advanced technology. This point will be developed more fully later in the paper.
The aim of this paper is to explore the linkage between development of technology and the evolution of living systems. The evolution of social systems through technology will be examined first, followed by a look at bioengineering and its effects on biological systems. Finally, an attempt will be made to assess the importance of technology in the continued evolution of living systems.
2. Evolution of Social Systems
Technology has greatly influenced the evolution of social systems. Modern forms of organizations, communities, societies, and supranational systems could not exist without the technologies of agriculture, energy, manufacturing, transport, communication, and health care that exist today. Obviously, these levels of social systems came into existence long before our current technology was developed. Yet some sort of technological innovation may have been necessary for these levels of living systems even to exist. Let us examine the links between technology and the evolution of each level of social systems.
2.1 Groups
Miller (1978, 515) defines a group as "a set of single organisms, commonly called members, which...relate to one another face-to-face." The earliest, most basic social system is the family group. It consists of reproductively-linked organisms that maintain a continued relationship. The relationship is governed by the template of the group, consisting of shared genes, values, and norms that are passed from one generation to the next.
Although the formation of family groups is a natural phenomenon found in many species of plants and animals, technology clearly has had an effect on such groups. Among humans the development of agriculture transformed wandering hunter-gatherer bands into stable communities. In the process many of the rules of kinship were changed in order to accommodate problems such as inbreeding and inheritance of land. At the same time horticulture and animal husbandry altered the natural groupings of plants and animals. For instance, new organisms and thus new families of organisms (e.g., corn, mules) were created through deliberate crossbreeding.
More recent advances in communication and transportation technology have further transformed human groups. The human family might be hardly recognizable to our early ancestors. For example, offspring no longer routinely live with their parents, extended families often exist only on the telephone, rapid change has exacerbated the generation gap, marriage has become less stable, and single-parent families are becoming the norm. For children raised by a single, working parent having little contact with other family members, much of the "family" template comes from peers and institutions such as the schools.
New types of human groups have arisen as a result of technology. The agricultural revolution transformed hunting parties into groups of planters and harvesters utilizing shared implements. Groups of warriors arose from such developments as land ownership, capital formation, the rise of settled communities, domestication of horses, and invention of implements of war such as cannon. The building of large sailing vessels required crews to operate them. The industrial revolution led to work groups replacing the individual artisan. Invention of various games necessitated the creation of teams to play them. Evolution of music and the written word led to formation of bands of musicians and actors.
Technology has on occasion also reversed the trend toward development of new groups. Automation in factories sometimes permits a single individual to control all of the processes formerly carried out by a work group. Modern communications technology allows many employees to work at home, eliminating office groups. Virtual groups of workers connected only through the umbilical cord of the telephone or internet have replaced many traditional face-to-face groups. Groups of worshipers may be connected only by television. The world of human groups is still evolving rapidly as technology opens new doors and closes old ones.
2.2 Organizations
The organization level of living systems evolved in order to accomplish objectives that were beyond the reach of individuals or groups. In many cases these objectives involved exploitation of resources in a way that was either more efficient or vaster in scope than an individual or group could accomplish. For instance, both the building of a complex device such as a locomotive and the operation of that locomotive in a railroad system required the coordinated effort of a large, often widely-dispersed set of people. Likewise, the waging of war on a large scale with infantry, cavalry, and artillery required coordination beyond the scope and capabilities of groups. Organizations supplied the necessary planning and coordination for such activities.
The earliest organizations were limited in size and scope by the lack of ability to coordinate activities beyond the line of sight. Early business firms consisted of single shops or factories. Military units were limited to a size that could be coordinated through voice commands, bugle calls, or signal flags. Development of the telegraph allowed organizations such as railroads to become larger and more complex. Railroads in turn made possible the development of larger, more complex manufacturing and retailing firms.
New forms of organization emerged in response to such technological developments as the telephone, air transport, fax, computer networks, and email. Global organizations spanning the oceans and virtual organizations whose members meet each other only in cyberspace have emerged as new forms. Today’s organizations bear little resemblance to the forms that began to emerge with the growth of empires and later the Industrial Revolution. Nevertheless, the basic purpose of most organizations, to exploit resources in ways beyond the capability of individuals and groups, remains intact, and the development of new technology spurs the development of new forms of organization.
2.3 Communities
Communities began to form when groups of people moved from a hunter-gatherer culture to the new technology of agriculture. Farming and animal husbandry called for new systems to cope with the need to preserve land and water resources. Common interests of several families could be pursued more efficiently and effectively through the development of some form of governance. Often this involved the building of infrastructure based on technology: roads, granaries, irrigation, fortifications, etc.
Further transformation occurred as communities shifted to an industrial base, requiring massive investment in infrastructure and preservation of political and economic stability. As communities shifted away from immediate contact with land resources, they became more dependent for survival on transport of various kinds, water and sanitary systems, and methods of importing energy. Religious, legal, and educational institutions developed to pass on the community template.
More recently communities have entered a post-industrial phase in which knowledge and communication facilities have become king, as evidenced by the development of community cable systems. In response to advances in transportation technology, communities have developed new structures such as suburbs, shopping malls, and municipal airports.
2.4 Societies
Societies were a further outgrowth of the desire to exploit the environment. As communities became larger and began to vie with each other for territory, water resources, outlets to the sea, and labor resources, they found it useful to form coalitions with other communities. Common interests in such matters as language, religion, commerce, and mutual protection led to a need for a higher level of governance and control of common activities.
Technology enabled the formation of societies by providing means, such as roads and writing materials, for coordinating activities over a wide area; it also motivated societal development by requiring more diverse materials and talents, and greater coordination for the more complex efforts of the society.
For a while societies followed a trend of merger and consolidation, as nations developed into empires and exported their language, religion, and system of government to less organized parts of the world. The technology of armament favored the rise of centralized power and exploitation of resources on a global scale. More recently there has been a reversal toward fragmentation, with reemergence of many small, closely-knit societies, as in the former Soviet Union. Technology initially enabled consolidation, but more recently has provided small but powerful weaponry, cheap mass-communication facilities, and other means of support for small societies. This trend has been aided by the rise of supranational systems in power and importance, spurred in general by growth in communications and transportation technology.
2.5 Supranational Systems
The clearest example of a living system that would not even exist without modern technology is the supranational system. Systems such as the United Nations, NATO, and the World Court make use of the latest communication technology in pursuing their task of coordinating international activities, often aimed at defending the rights of smaller societies. Supranational systems have also been developed to try to control the exploitation of global resources and to protect such resources as clean air, fish and whale stocks, and undersea mineral deposits.
At the supranational level efforts seem often to be directed at controlling or curtailing the use of technology, rather than maximizing its effectiveness. On the other hand, economic supranationals such as the European Union should not be overlooked; their aim is to accelerate commerce, and thereby the exploitation of resources, through international coordination of market economies.
3. Technology and Biological Systems
Cells, organs, and organisms originated without the aid of technology, but it would not be correct to say that technology has played no role in their development. Humans employed the technologies of horticulture and animal husbandry to create and shape many of the species of plants and animals that exist today. Corn was developed from maize, cows were bred to produce more milk or leaner meat, roses were hybridized to create new colors and shapes, and so forth. At the same time various forms of lethal technology were used to cause the extinction of the woolly mammoth, the dodo bird, and many other species. Pests and infectious diseases were controlled and eliminated entirely in some areas by pesticides, herbicides, and vaccines, while disease-resistant strains of other biota were bred to enable them to flourish.
Advanced technology now threatens to revolutionize the biological systems. Genetic engineering offers the possibility of altering the characteristics of existing species much more effectively and thoroughly than cross breeding ever could. We have the capability of creating whole new species or introducing characteristics from one species into another. We can create bacteria that clean up oil pollution or atomic wastes.
The effects of technology on individual organisms have also been extensive. It began with small things such as the invention of eyeglasses and dentures. Surgical instruments made it possible to remove or repair diseased components. Development of bandages, sutures, and artificial skin enhanced the ability to treat wounds and burns. More recently techniques have been developed to replace organs and even whole subsystems. Meanwhile a panoply of medicines has been engineered to aid the adaptive processes of organisms in fighting diseases. A variety of technological advances has dramatically lowered infant mortality rates in most of the world. Thus, many organisms that might have succumbed before attaining the ability to procreate have survived to pass on their genetic heritage.
Technology is now beginning to offer us the ability to correct genetic defects in individual organisms by making alterations at the cellular level. We have long had the ability to repair organs with nonorganic parts, as with replacement of heart valves. Cloning technology promises to make it possible to generate whole new organs to replace those that have worn out. Thus, genetic living systems are acquiring the ability to extend their lifetimes by replacing components, just as the social systems have been able to do. The normal life span of human individuals may soon be extended beyond 100 years.
The effects of medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, and bioengineering technology on the environment are well known. Longer lifetimes and lower infant mortality rates mean larger populations and increased demand on natural resources. Elimination of natural predators means that some species will proliferate at the expense of others. But it also means that, in the short run at least, the world is a less dangerous place for human beings.
4. Synergy of Technology and Living Systems
It is obvious that technology and living systems exist in a synergistic relationship. The needs of living systems drive the creation of technology. Technology in turn generates new needs and new forms of living systems. Technology and living systems have spiraled upward together toward greater complexity.
All levels of human living systems are now highly dependent on technological infrastructure. Without communications satellites, jet planes, powerful computers, steady sources of energy, high-tech health facilities (to control the rapid spread of diseases), and improved crop yields many of these systems could not exist in their present form. Human individuals and social systems alike have become dependent on technology.
Advanced technology has created new environmental niches which have quickly been filled by newly evolved forms of organizations, communities, societies, and supranational systems. For example, computer technology has generated several new industries and thousands of new organizations aimed at filling needs for hardware, software, networks, and service. Many of these organizations are virtual, operating online and just-in-time, working directly with customers in the design of products or services. At the same time existing organizations, such as banks, stock markets and retailers, have been transformed by the new technology.
At present, human social systems have not developed the sense of self that characterizes human organisms. The components of social systems are not as specialized, their channel and net subsystems are not as fast and dependable, their decider subsystems are not as loyal, they are not as intelligent, nor have they developed the self awareness of human beings (Tracy, 1994). Yet technology may eventually solve all of those problems. Already information technology has greatly speeded the flow of data in social systems, has increased the channel size, reduced transmission error, provided larger and cheaper memory capacity, and made modern social systems more responsive to their environment. In other words, artifacts have been created to augment the functioning of the human components.
The history of the evolution of social systems is a story of continually increasing reliance on technology and continual improvement of that technology. It is much easier to replace and improve the components of a social system than to do the same for an organism. Thus, it is not too difficult to imagine a day in which organizations, communities, societies, and supranationals, through the magic of technological enhancement, will reach a level of intelligence and self-awareness that surpasses that of human individuals.
Is such continued development of social systems a threat or a boon? We are not really in a good position to answer that question. Just as early shopkeepers and craftspeople felt threatened by the development of retail chains and manufacturing organizations, we may dread the thought that a society might someday be smarter and more capable than we are. Yet the development of smart societies and supranational systems may be the only way we can ever hope to create a system that can formulate and implement a global plan with respect to all living systems and their environment. Sustainability in the long run may first require further technological development.
5. Sustainability or Evolution?
The creation of new forms of living systems as well as the technology that makes their existence possible brings not only opportunities but also many new problems, especially for the environment. There is no doubt that higher levels of living systems, relying on ever more sophisticated technology, accelerate entropy in their environment. Concern for sustainability of the environment has brought forth many proposals to limit or slow the growth of technology. Yet evolution of living systems is a natural phenomenon, one that both spurs and benefits from the development of new technology. Thus, technological growth cannot be viewed purely as an unnatural assault on the environment. Rather, we must consider the effects on all levels of living systems if we seek to control the development of new technology.
Current thinking about technology and the environment is often deficient from a systems perspective because it focuses only on biological living systems and their environment, and seeks some sort of homeostasis. The discussion should be expanded to consider the linkages between technology and social systems as well, and should examine the relationship between living systems and their environment from a dynamic and evolutionary perspective.
Suppose, as I have done in a companion paper, that the ultimate aim of the evolution of living systems is to transform the entire world into a living system (perhaps called Gaia) with a world government coordinating all human activities for the benefit of the whole. We might further imagine that this global living system will seek to reproduce itself through some sort of propagation of Earth-based organisms and/or their templates to other planets. With or without this reproductive process the enterprise would require far more advanced technology and much greater exploitation of resources than we have today. It would probably require that virtually all human beings be connected into the system and provided with the means of realizing their potential. Large amounts of matter and energy would be consumed in the process, thereby hastening the death of Earth itself in the process of attempting to fully develop (and perhaps propagate) its living heritage.
5.1 Assumptions
This scenario for the future may seem arbitrary or fanciful, but it is no more so than a scenario that calls for sustainability of the world as it exists today, or for restoration of the world to its pristine "natural" state. Each of these scenarios starts with an assumption about which system is to be optimized. The sustainability scenario assumes that everything exists for the ultimate good of living organisms, and that we must strive to preserve an environment that can support those organisms as long as possible. The restoration scenario assumes that the good of the Earth itself is what is at stake. The global living system scenario is based on an assumption that the templates of life on Earth are most important, and that they should be developed to their full potential, perhaps then to be spread into the universe.
If we seek at this point in our development to halt the advance of technology and curtail the exploitation of Earth's resources, perhaps to a level of indefinite sustainability, we should be aware that we are choosing a particular assumption as to what life is all about. We are assuming that the same Earth that generated and nurtured life in the first place has no interest in developing life beyond its current level of sophistication. We are assuming that there is some inherent good in sustaining Earth's current life forms as long as possible.
The sustainability scenario also seems to deny that the evolution of higher levels of living systems, most of which accelerate the development of technology and the exploitation of Earth's resources, has any valid purpose. Yet human organisms, operating at the top of the food chain, accelerate entropy even without advanced technology. Human organisms do not capture the sun's energy through photosynthesis; instead, they eat the plants -- or the animals that eat the plants--that do the work of preserving energy. Was nature wrong to evolve human life? For what is the use of human intelligence if it is not to invent things and coordinate events? Intelligence is not needed if the purpose of life is to preserve itself as long as possible on this planet. Plants and bacteria could do the job much better than we can.
5.2 Toward a Global Living System
If human beings are not a dead end, then there is no reason to suppose that human social systems are, either. So far, living systems have shown a remarkable penchant for evolving into higher levels, carrying the principles of life even beyond the original genetic base into entities whose templates are built upon language and behavior and whose purposes and goals serve to guide those of their human components.
Human organizations, communities, societies, and supranationals do not yet possess the levels of intelligence and self-awareness that human organisms have attained, but their evolution has been much more rapid than human evolution. Who is to say that human social systems, with the aid of improved technology, will not soon evolve into entities of greater intelligence and self-awareness than we now possess, beings capable of solving the problems of sustainability that now so mystify us?
We do not yet have a system capable of thinking for the Earth as a whole and implementing decisions on a global scale. If we had such a system, we would be able to balance the needs of plants and animals, of biosphere and lithosphere, of present and future generations, of sustainability and evolution. But further development of technology and evolution of living systems are necessary in order to obtain such a global living system. Nor should we assume that is the end of evolution, for such a system may need to reproduce itself.
Systems science calls for a balanced consideration of the needs of all systems, living and nonliving. It also requires that we look beyond homeostasis toward change and dynamism. Obviously, evolution cannot occur in a dead world. Sustainability cannot be ignored. Yet a premature rejection of advanced technology in favor of indefinite sustainability would preclude the possibility of evolution of higher forms of life. It might also prevent us from really solving the problems posed by sustainability.
6. References
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fey, W. and Lam, A. 1998. "A System Dynamics Perspective of Sustainability." In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of The International Society for the Systems Sciences, Atlanta, GA.
Miller, J. G. 1978. Living Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Miller, J. G. and Miller, J. L. 1990. "Introduction: The Nature of Living Systems," Behavioral Science Vol. 35:157-163.
Tracy, L. 1994. Leading the Living Organization. Westport, CT: Quorum Books