Einstein's
Enlightenment
Chapter 3:
Knowledge
The word ‘knowledge’ is usually used in a human context.
It can mean the human characteristic of modeling aspects
of the outside word as mental states. This usage would
apply to our knowledge that e=mc2, a
component of many of our best models of physical
processes including energy production in stars.
‘Knowledge’ also is used in connection with our ability
to construct useful designs in the outside world as in
‘He knows how to build a house.’
But it is not only humans that have knowledge; knowledge
is also evident in the natural world. Birds can be said
to know how to fly, cells how to extract energy from
glucose. Perhaps it even makes sense to say that the
earth knows how to make diamonds.
How did this knowledge come to exist in the world? We
know that although humans can construct knowledge
bearing entities in the world, nature was not
constructed by man. How then? The most common answer is
that something similar to a human (one was constructed
in the image of the other) only much more powerful used
these powers to construct all the evident knowledge in
nature. This is not a bad answer to a very hard
question when you have very few clues.
Some recent, very exciting evolutionary theorizing has
put forward an alternate answer: that creation of
knowledge is solely an evolutionary process. That is,
the existence of knowledge is a sure indication that
evolution has been at work. This answer is a good
answer supported by a vast array of solid clues and
compelling evidence.
For the purpose of this discussion we will define
knowledge as: All processes that exist for the
purpose of persisting complexity.
It may seem strange to include the word ‘purpose’ in a
scientific definition. What we mean is that as
complexity is rare and extremely vulnerable it only
occurs in special situations. One situation where
complexity can persist is when the complex entity
contains processes specifically designed for the
persisting of its complexity; for prolonging the
lifetime of the complexity. They are designed in the
sense that their own continued existence is due to their
role in persisting the existence of the complex entity.
In other words if they ceased to be effective in
contributing to the persistence of the complex entity
their own existence would end.
The odds are stacked against the persistence of complex
entities. A central component of physics demands that
order be steadily reduced across all systems. The Second
Law of Thermodynamics states that any energy flow within
a system results in some destruction of order. On the
face of it this law seems to preclude the possibility of
long term complexity. Fortunately the law has a
loophole. It requires only that the order of the system
as a whole is reduced but allows order to increase in
some components if this increase is offset by a larger
decrease in other components. Evolution has exploited
this loophole extensively. All complex entities have an
existence only because they are able to avoid the burden
of order reduction by shifting this requirement to other
entities. Knowledge exists only in complex systems and
at the core of knowledge are adaptations that evade
thermodynamics’ order reduction imperative.
For example, evolution on earth is powered by the sun’s
energy. The sun’s energy producing mechanisms result in
a huge reduction of order. This reduction in the suns
order allows the production of complex entities on
earth, which although to us seem hugely complex,
technically possess an insignificant amount of order
compared to that lost by the sun. A constraint of
Universal Darwinism is that all sustainable designs
represent special situations where order is gained at
the expense of greater loss of order elsewhere. The
history of evolution of complex design in the universe
can be seen as a cumulative discovery of methods for
growing order by diverting larger losses of order to
other entities. This cumulative ability of complex
entities is the root of knowledge in the universe.
Complexity is bought and maintained at a cost of
shifting greater disorder somewhere else. This
procurement of complexity is in essence knowledge that
exists only for the purpose of persisting complexity.
Two main strategies are effective discoverers of
persistent design. The first is the ‘Build it stronger
than any force in its environment and it will last’.
This strategy is the key to all persistent entities from
quarks to organic chemistry that evolved prior to life.
The second is ‘Make copies faster then they are
destroyed and it will last’. This strategy builds upon
the first and is the evolutionary strategy of life and
culture.
The more complex and fragile entities are, the narrower
the range of environments they can exist in. At some
point and in some sense the entities are so perfectly
reflective of their environments that they serve as a
source of knowledge of these environments. Their
intricate order fits like a key in a lock. Any
significant change in the environment is likely to
permit a different set of complex entities to persist.
The new set is composed of those that can find
protection from the Second Law in this new environment.
Knowledge encoded in these complex entities is the
knowledge of how complexity can exist in the specific
environment. In this sense the entities are ‘in-formed’
by their environments. This is a common feature of
knowledge as has been discussed by Henry Plotkin
regarding the knowledge inherent in biological
adaptations.
This direction can only result if adaptations are
‘in-formed’ by features of the world; they are highly
directed kinds of organization and not random, transient
structures that may or may not work. Adaptations do
work, and they work precisely because of this in-forming
relationship between organismic organization and some
aspect of the order of the world. This in-forming
relationship is knowledge.[i]
Chemical design space is vast. The number of possible
combination of atoms composing potential molecules is
nearly infinite. Physical law eliminates many of these
from actualizing as they cannot form stabilizing bonds
that would allow persistence under any circumstances.
Still, after eliminating those combinations unsupported
by physical law, we are left with a vast expanse of
possibilities. The reactions that do occur are dominated
by their circumstances. Chemistry is a science of
probability, different reactions rates for different
chemical pathways leading to different equilibriums for
each set of circumstances. Turn up the temperature and
we arrive at equilibrium, turn it down and a different
equilibrium occurs. Chemical evolution towards greater
complexity in design space utilizes this power of
circumstance. The line that is crossed from chemical
evolution to the evolution of life occurs with the
appearance of new mechanisms controlling the chemical
environment and thereby determining the exact chemistry
that can occur within that environment much as a
laboratory controls chemical reactions through
controlling the environment in which the reactions take
place.
Fragile hydrocarbons tolerate a narrow set of
circumstances. The complex molecules that eventually
evolved into life are extremely fragile and exist only
in specific protected environments. Candidate
pre-biotic environments include tide pools, deep sea hot
vents and liquid ocean water protected beneath a thick
sheet of surface ice. These specialized environments
were amongst the few safe harbours as they combined a
liquid medium, moderate constant temperatures and a
source of raw materials and energy. It might be said
that complex molecules are adapted for existing in these
environments.
One key chemical precursor of life is
ribonucleic acid
(RNA). RNA is a highly complex, second law defying,
molecule that performs some of the core functions of
life. An RNA molecule is composed of many simple units
called monomers bonded together to form a polymer chain.
The monomers, although quite complex themselves, are
chemically stable in many environments and have been
detected in deep space as well as in meteorites. As the
Earth, along with the rest of the solar system, formed
from cosmic debris less then a billion years prior to
the evolution of life, it is plausible that the
pre-biotic earth was rich in RNA monomers.
Getting from
monomers to polymers is tricky. Polymers are less stable
than monomers. An input of energy is required to create
a polymer from monomers. Polymers are more ordered then
a collection of monomers and constructing them requires
a greater destruction of order elsewhere in the system.
Adding water to a free polymer will cause it to break
down into monomers and yet water is the only plausible
medium for monomer congregation.
With all these
barriers, the creation of polymers of even a few
monomers in length is extremely unlikely let alone the
50 or more monomers required for molecules demonstrating
biological functionality. Extremely unlikely, that is,
in most environments. As key experiments have shown,
there is one environment, likely a common one on the
early earth that is a polymer factory.
That environment
is a muddy tide pool. A tide pool may not seem a very
specialized environment for performing such a delicate
chemical feat but it may be all that is needed:
1)
A pool
basin lining containing clay minerals.
2)
A concentration
of RNA monomers in the pool
3)
A cyclical
bathing and drying of the pool (hence a ‘tide’ pool).
In rough outline
the hypothesized production process of RNA polymers in a
tide pool is:
1)
When
the tide comes in, monomers bond to the clay minerals in
the pool basin forming dense patterns of adjacent
monomers. The monomers are held in contact with one
another by their bonds to the clay.
2)
When the tide
goes out the monomers dry and chemical bonds form
between adjacent monomers, forming small polymers. This
step, commonly called ‘drying’, utilizes the suns
energy, to remove a water molecule bonded to two
monomers and replace it with the polymer bond.
3)
When the tide
comes back in additional monomers bind to the clay
adjacent to the small polymers.
4)
When the tide
goes out the polymer grows by drying and bonding to
adjacent monomers.
James Ferris, a
bio-chemical researcher, performed a series of
experiments simulating tide pool conditions and
demonstrated their fecundity in producing RNA polymers.
We might be tempted to say that a tide pool ‘knows’ how
to make RNA polymers. Although the tide pool is a
process that persists complexity it was not designed for
this purpose and so by our definition, although some
aspects of knowledge are present, true knowledge is not
involved.
A
defining characteristic of the transition from chemistry
to life is the construction and maintenance of an
environment designed to produce specific chemical
reactions. What the tide pool was to RNA production, the
life form is to a host of specific chemical reactions
and processes. A life form is an environment that
defines the chemistry that may occur within it. The
relationship is circular: the life form is constructed
and maintained by the chemical reactions that occur
within it and the chemical reactions are caused by the
environmental peculiarities of the life form. All life
forms are environments highly adapted to deflect the
destructive requirements of the second law from
affecting their intricate internal chemical order. This
deflection can take many forms. Some widely employed
methods are:
1)
A
membrane separating the life form from the outside world
that limits diffusion across the boundary to specific
molecules. This boundary allows substantially different
chemical environments to exist inside the boundary as
opposed to outside it and hence represents an increase
of order.
2)
The
use of enzymes to select only specific chemical
reactions from the potentially vast number of reactions
possible amongst the reactants.
3)
Mechanisms for obtaining energy rich molecules from the
outside world and using them to perform work such as
producing chemical concentrations against the force of
gradient pressures.
Life’s chemistry is informed, by its environment, as to
what it must do in order to persist. The most directly
‘in-formed’ entities are the genetic molecules sculpted
by previous generations in a cumulative trial and error
manner to retain those designs capable of persistence.
Central to all biological reproduction is DNA/RNA
molecules utilized as information storehouses. These
genetic molecules’ sole function is to store information
coding for protein molecules. The cell knows how to
‘read’ this information and construct the proteins
specified. Some of the specified proteins are enzymes or
catalysts that serve to make specific chemical reactions
many orders of magnitude more likely to occur than they
otherwise would. Some function to maintain the cell
membrane. Some serve to switch on or off the production
of other proteins. In this manner, through protein
mediators, information stored in genetics molecules
orchestrates the chemistry of the cell.
A
thorny problem for explanations of the origin of life is
unravelling the dual, mutually dependent characteristics
of life: chemical orchestration and reproduction. Both
are defining characteristic of life. In all modern life
forms DNA stores the information for protein synthesis;
proteins that catalyze and thereby orchestrate life’s
chemical reactions. One of the chemical processes
mediated by proteins is the production of DNA. So life
needs DNA to produce proteins and it needs proteins to
produce DNA. Which one came first and how could one come
before the other?
A likely candidate
key to this conundrum is the RNA from our tide pool.[ii]
Let’s take a closer look at the dual functions of
storing reproducible information and catalyzing chemical
reactions. Life’s ability to reproduce is dependent on a
long polymer composed of a specific series of monomers
being used as a template to construct a second polymer
with almost exactly the same sequence of monomers. The
polymer is used to construct a copy of itself. Life’s
ability to orchestrate chemical processes is largely
accomplished using a type of catalyst called an enzyme.
Enzymes are also long polymers that have a complicated
three dimensional shape due to their patterns of
folding. Their shape is specific to the reactions they
catalyze; often they bond to two other molecules,
holding them close to each other and provide the
necessary electro-chemical stimulation to form a
chemical bond between the two captive molecules. The
freshly produced molecule is then released and the
enzyme is ready to receive the next set of precursors.
It turns out that RNA is a polymer that can serve both
functions: reproduction and catalyst. It can store
genetic information that can be copied and it can assume
a three dimensional structure that is effective for
catalyzing a wide range of chemical reactions. In fact
experiments have shown that RNA can catalyze its own
reproduction.
The details of a plausible scenario for the evolution of
life to chemistry are now being sketched by scientist.
This ‘RNA World’ envisions environments like our tide
pool, rich in RNA polymers that catalyze their own
reproduction. This would be a Darwinian process as those
RNAs most effective at reproduction would leave more
offspring. The drive towards reproductive success may
have supplied these processes with a surrounding
membrane and the other complexities of more modern life
forms.
Aspects of this ‘RNA World’ more closely conform to our
definition of knowledge. The successful RNA molecules
are those best able to reproduce; those best adapted to
their environment. Competition arises between variant
RNA molecules for monomers, energy and other materials.
Effective RNA molecules could be said to contain
processes whose purpose is the RNA molecules persistence
and in this sense contain knowledge.
Modern cells no longer use RNA for storing reproductive
information or for catalyzing chemical reactions.
Reproductive information is stored in DNA molecules and
proteins serve as catalysts. RNA still performs an
assortment of functions. Perhaps its role as messenger
RNA is most indicative of its former centrality.
Messenger RNA is created from a short section of DNA
coding for a protein. The section of DNA serves as a
template and its code is copied to RNA via the catalytic
action of a number of proteins. The RNA carries this
information to a cellular body called a ribosome to
which it binds. The ribosome assembles amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins, of the type and in the
order specified by the information coded in the RNA. In
this manner RNA still bridges the dual functions of
information storage and catalyst.
Life’s ability to reproduce introduced the ‘Make copies
faster then they are destroyed and it will last’
strategy. In its simplest form, employed by one celled
asexual organisms, the only organisms existing for most
of evolutionary history, reproduction is achieved by
producing an excess of the cell’s internal molecules and
then reconfiguring the cell membrane to encompass two
separate volumes.
With reproduction the in-forming of chemistry by the
outside world really took off. Theorems in information
theory show that it is impossible to transfer
information without errors. Reproduction is a form of
information transfer and as such can never be perfect.
Variations must occur. Some organisms with a variant
trait will be more capable of persisting than those
without it, they will have more offspring, many of their
daughter cells will share the advantageous trait and
individuals with that trait will become more common in
the population. With each generation the internal
chemistry of the population will become better in-formed
by the outside world as to requirements for persistence.
It is at this stage, with the appearance of variable
reproduction, that true knowledge makes its debut. Of
the variable attributes within a population, those of a
given generation will be preferentially reproduced that
contribute the most to the persistence of the
individual. In this sense the surviving attributes or
adaptations ‘exist for the purpose of persisting
complexity’ and meet our criterion as knowledge. As
organisms are no more than an aggregation of
adaptations, it is in this sense true that organisms are
composed wholly of knowledge.
Single celled
organisms were the most advanced life forms for two
thirds of life’s history. They spent over two and a half
billion years extending their knowledge in countless
ways. A consistent system of storing information in DNA
and translating it into proteins via a single code was
developed. Most of this system is currently used by all
life forms. Human genes involved in complicated tasks
like embryo development can be inserted into fruit flies
where they will work perfectly attesting to the
universal aspects of this knowledge.[iii]
Single celled life learned to use energy rich sulphide
metals in the vicinity of oceanic hot vents to power
life. Expanding their scope they learned to use the
sun’s energy to convert hydrogen sulphide, a more
commonly occurring molecule, into a suitable energy
source. Eventually they learned the trick of using the
suns energy to convert water molecules into glucose, an
energy source, by the process of photosynthesis. As
water and sunlight are widely available, this knowledge
allowed life to spread to all corners of the planet.
Single cells further discovered the process of
respiration whereby glucose and a number of other
organic molecules are converted into the ATP molecule
which is used as life’s universal energy source.
Over this long period of cell evolution countless pieces
of knowledge where gained enabling life to persist more
effectively. Each piece of knowledge was recorded in DNA
and translated into cellular mechanisms by succeeding
generations.
About 1.2 billion years ago a new type of cell, the
eukaryotic cell, evolved with its entire DNA contained
within a membrane forming the cell nucleus. This
configuration allowed for more effective control of
replication. Eukaryotic cells were also able to engulf
other simpler cells and exist with them in a symbiotic
relationship. Over time the engulfed cells lost many of
the functions duplicated in their host and retained only
some specialist functions lacking in their host. In this
manner, chloroplasts, mitochondria and other specialist
mechanisms of cell knowledge were incorporated. In
effect these eukaryotic cells became libraries of
knowledge incorporating adaptations from numerous
lineages of simpler cells.
This new type of conglomerate cell also discovered how
to join together in colonies and then to specialize
their functions within colonies to form multi-cellular
organisms. Multi-celled organisms could incorporate many
different cell types each with its own specialist
knowledge for a particular function within the organism.
The challenge of specialized knowledge and complex
communication amongst cells within multi-cellular
organisms was met by new evolutionary designs.
As life became more common and diverse it increasingly
affected the physical processes of the planet. As the
oxygen produced by photosynthesis increased in
quantities it was at first consumed in the oxidation of
exposed materials such as iron. Then it began to
accumulate and came to form a substantial proportion of
the earth’s atmosphere. At first this prevalence of
oxygen was lethal for many non - photosynthesising life
forms but eventually adaptations evolved to take
advantage of the increased respiratory efficiency made
possible by an oxygen rich environment. Animal life
became totally dependent on the oxygen produced by
plants and plants on the carbon dioxide exhaled by
animals. In a similar manner numerous materials were
cycled between life forms, each one finding a use for
the other’s waste materials. These material cycles such
as carbon and nitrogen cycles form the basis of ecology.
They imply that each species involved has gained a deep
knowledge of the materials available to them and the
process required to use these materials for the purpose
of persistence.
Knowledge was accumulated not only for more effective
internal cell processes but also for external
orientation. Organisms were able to direct their
movement within the external world according to chemical
gradients, light levels and temperature. Some
single-celled organisms use light to orientate
themselves as to which way is up. With the increasing
knowledge exploitable by multi-celled organisms this
ability to detect features of the external world and to
react to them accelerated. Present day Jelly Fish, close
relatives of what may have been the first multi-cellular
life forms, have light sensitive patches they can use to
respond to ‘light on’ and ‘light off’ conditions.
In his seminal book
In a blink of an Eye[iv],
Andrew Parker documents the revolutionary effect that
the evolution of sight may have had on the acceleration
of adaptations. Up until the end of the Precambrian
period, 540 million years ago, there was no true sight
in the sense of the ability to form an image of an
external object and react to it. When this ability
evolved in trilobites, an extinct arthropod, it changed
everything.
Before this point in biological evolution predation
mostly occurred when a predator like a jelly fish bumped
into its prey or when one like a sponge filtered a prey
from the water circulated through its body. With sight,
these passive forms of predation, where supplemented by
active predation where a predator could detect its prey
at a distance and actively pursue and consume it. This
new knowledge led to an immediate arms race known as the
Cambrian explosion where predators rapidly evolved
mechanisms to more effectively use sight and prey
species rapidly evolved defensive counter measures.
The evolution of senses, the processing of sensory
information in the nervous system and the execution of
behaviour based on it introduced a new type of
knowledge; instinct. Instincts are genetically
programmed behaviours that utilize the nervous system.
Instinctual knowledge provided organisms with access to
a wealth of real time information concerning their
changing environment and how they should react to it in
order to enhance their own persistence. As an example of
the efficiency of instinctual knowledge Andrew Parker
describe the instinctual behaviour exhibited by
dragonflies:
In the air, dragonflies are expert hunters. They have
three pairs of grasping limbs positioned near to their
blade-like mouthparts, large wings to provide speed and
manoeuvrability. But first the helpless prey must be
found, identified as prey, and then tracked…. The
compound eyes of dragonflies contain several hundred or
even thousand facets, not all of which are equal. There
are one or two acute zones, the ‘sights’. Larger facets
provide higher magnification and better resolution –
they see with greater sensitivity. One acute zone is
positioned at the top of the eye, and this is used to
identify prey insects against the sky. When a prey
insect has been spotted, the dragonfly moves into its
horizontal plane and tracks it with a forward facing
acute zoned – the prey is now locked into a line of
fire.[v]
One can only marvel at the level of complexity of this
instinctual knowledge, the refined coordination of sight
and flight that often succeeds in delivering a prey
insect into the dragonfly’s mouthparts.
Much of the dragon
files neural ability is genetically determined and the
resulting insect hunting is instinctual. Most animals
including ourselves have forms of instinctual neural
knowledge, for instance the neural stimulation of our
hearts or our instinctual fear of heights. Complementing
this instinctual knowledge is knowledge gained by
learning. Even the lowly sea slug is capable of a
limited repertoire of sensitisation, habituation and
associative learning.[vi]
This coincidence of instinctual and learned knowledge in
creatures with primitive nervous systems suggests that
neurons served these dual functions almost since they
first differentiated as a distinct type of cell.
Learning enables a dramatic shortening of the cycle
required to acquire knowledge. Instinctual knowledge is
inherited from ancestors via genetics. A gain of
instinctual knowledge necessitates a range of variation
amongst a generation in the manner in which their
nervous system reacts to some environmental stimuli.
Some of these variations will provide the individuals
possessing them with a reproductive advantage over the
other members of the population lacking the variation.
The offspring of these individuals will compose a larger
proportion of the next generation and will tend to
inherit the advantageous variation. Thus over many
generations this variation will come to be a dominant
trait of population and can be said to be incorporated
into the instinctual knowledge of the population.
Although the ability to learn is inherited, the learned
content is not. Learning is done by individuals in the
course of a single life time and is often composed of a
change in the likelihood of linking a given stimuli to a
given behaviour. One type of learning, habituation, is
the lessening of a behaviour, for example flight,
provoked by a given stimuli, for example a loud noise,
when the loud noise is often repeated but not
accompanied by any threatening events. Another type of
simple learning is association where an instinctual
behaviour, for example flight, that is instinctually
linked to a stimuli , for example an electric shock, may
become associated with another stimuli, say the ringing
of a bell if organism experiences a number of situations
where the electric shock is preceded by the ringing of
the bell.
Learned knowledge is gained by individuals during their
life time whereas instinctual knowledge is gained during
the course of a number of generations. Instincts and
learning often work closely together. For instance an
organism may have an instinctual preference for sweet
food and learn the best locations for finding fruit in
its vicinity. Learning provides a mechanism for
organisms to adapt their behaviour to phenomena that are
specific to their individual experience such as their
particular vicinity in both time and space.
Neural knowledge provided by the evolutionary moulding
of instincts and learning proved to be generally
beneficial in promoting survival. With the passing of
evolutionary time emergent species continually set new
records for the amount of neural mass. Many different
routes were taken such as the social insects whose
neural knowledge was not stored in individuals but
rather in communities.
Increased neural knowledge allowed more sophisticated
behaviour including more intensive care of young and
complex social behaviour amongst larger groups. As the
ability to learn evolved it sometimes encompassed the
ability to learn from other members of the same species,
in other words to mimic some of their learned
behaviours. Some young birds learn their songs from
adults and many young carnivores learn hunting behaviour
from adults. The advantages possible through mimicking
were realized most extensively amongst primates. With
species such a Chimps it is possible to talk about
‘cultures’ where individual Chimps have learned some
behaviour such as fishing for ants or using rocks to
crack nuts and then this behaviour is mimicked by most
members of that individual’s resident group.
Human knowledge springs from both our biological and
cultural inheritance. During our nine month gestation
our development parallels the hard won adaptations
discovered by the entire line of descent of our
biological ancestors spanning the range from single
celled life to fish to mammals. After our birth we are
exposed to and we absorb, in general outline, the
cultural accomplishments accumulated by our human
ancestors, those in our cultural line of descent, since
the dawn of the human species.
Our cultural knowledge may be based on our ability to
imitate or mimic others. Humans have taken mimicked
behaviour and made it their trump card. It is likely the
primary reason we have been able to dominate the planet.
With us mimicry has been elevated to the status of a
replication mechanism that can participate in the
Darwinian process of progressive design. It has allowed
us a much faster evolution of knowledge than other
animals because the ability to mimic allows us to adopt
new successful behaviours without undergoing a genetic
mutation or learning the behaviour on our own. We can
and do simply mimic successful behaviour we witness in
others.
Humans are very good a mimicking. New styles in
everything from clothes to hairstyles to cars can sweep
nations. New jargon, received wisdom from business
authorities, styles in music or details of a new health
diet are all easily mimicked and spread. We are all
intensely attentive, especially when we are young, to
the latest trend. We are all great as mimics.
Imitation cannot escape being a Darwinian replicator. It
is a type of reproduction. It displays heredity;
offspring have similar characteristics to their parents.
The copied offspring are variable, with some of the
variable memes being more adapt at surviving than
others. All three requirements check, we don’t need to
consider the matter any further, meme replication is a
Darwinian process.
During the five
million years since we had a common ancestor with the
great apes, the most notable biological divergence from
them has been the remarkable increase in the size of our
brains. Our common ancestor with apes had a brain
capacity of 400 to 500 cubic centimetres while our
species from around 100,000 years ago, had a brain size
of around 1350 cubic centimetres.[vii]
Why did we evolve this three fold increase in such a
biologically costly organ?
The answer postulated by memetics is that our huge brain
size evolved in order to allow us to be better mimics.
The ability to mimic or imitate allows successful
cultural adaptations to spread quickly and benefit all
those able to mimic them. Other than our big brains
humans do not have any outstanding biological traits. We
can’t run the fastest and we do not have huge teeth and
claws for defending ourselves. We do have the ability to
use tools and it has been our use of tools that gave our
early ancestors the ability to succeed and spread over
the planet. The use of tools requires the many skills
required for identifying the raw materials used in tool
making, making the tools, maintaining the tools and
using the tools effectively. All of these things are
much more easily accomplished if we can mimic this
behaviour in those that have already adopted the
successful techniques rather than each one of us having
to discover our cultural repertoire on our own. To be
good mimics is not easy, it requires a big brain. Our
ancestors found this winning move in design space and we
have been running with it ever since.
When modern humans first spread out from Africa and
began to inhabit the rest of the world about 70,000
years ago they were accomplished tool makers and had a
rich cultural inventory. Since then our species has
discovered the behaviour required to inhabit almost all
areas of the planet except those in the most extreme
latitudes. Colonization of each new habitat required
variations on existing tools and other cultural
adaptations. As this knowledge evolved it quickly became
widespread through our ability to imitate successful
behaviour.
The human habitation of the planet has only recently
been completed. The Americas were probably not inhabited
until about 17,000 years ago. More remote areas
including the far north and some of the pacific islands
were only inhabited in the past thousand years. No
sooner was the habitation of the entire planet
substantially completed then we began to even further
intensify our dependence on cultural knowledge. Our food
supply, until recently, had been largely natural food
procured through hunting and gathering. Around 10,000
years ago agriculture was discovered and our food supply
became increasing dependent on our cultural knowledge.
Population growth accelerated to consume these
increasing resources and cultural knowledge expanded
further to provide irrigation and other methods
supporting more intensive agriculture. Cultural,
political and religious memes, including the great
religions, evolved in response to the challenges of
organizing the large dense human populations made
possible by agriculture.
With this
increased freedom in their evolution memes were
empowered to explore designs providing more abstract
forms of knowledge that in turn provide better cultural
survivability. During the past
400 years the scientific worldview has evolved and
provided us with first the industrial and now the
electronic revolutions. The resulting increase in
resources has allowed human population growth to
continue at exponential rates.
Science has proven its worth as meme that exists for the
purpose of persisting complexity. Quite simply modern
cultural groups that do not adopt this meme are unable
to compete in the global arena. The recent Iraq war
underlines the decisive advantage enjoyed in military
competition by those with science well integrated into
their tool kit but science is equally decisive in
competitions involving trade, agriculture and
manufacturing.
Science in many ways is the culmination of the evolution
of knowledge through cosmic time. It is able to unleash
powers unrivalled by any other system of knowledge and
is true in a pure sense. The scientific worldview
reveals an objective reality removed from our personal
concerns and day to day preoccupations. This reality is
awe inspiring and beautiful in a mystical sense. It is
the reality identified by Einstein as the spiritual home
of history’s ‘religious geniuses’ and the source of the
‘cosmic religious experience’. Science thus provides us
with a worldview freed from the worldly concerns of our
biological nature. This worldview may provide mankind
with a fresh opportunity to chart the course of our
future evolution in a spiritual and responsible manner.

[i]
Plotkin, Henry C. (1993). Darwin Machines.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Massachusettes
[iii]
Ridley Matt. (1999). Genome. Perennial
[iv]
Parker A. (2003). In the Blink of an Eye.
Perseus Bublishing
[v]
Parker A. (2003). In the Blink of an Eye.
Perseus Bublishing
[vi]
Plotkin, Henry C. (1993). Darwin Machines.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Massachusettes
[vii]
Blackmore S. (1999). The Meme Machine.
Oxford University Press