Struggle for Existence

[Honey]

We will now discuss in a little more detail the Struggle for Existence.
-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

The Law of Requisite Variety was developed by a pioneer Cybernetician, Ross Ashby.  Originally used in Cybernetics and Stochastic Systems:

LAW OF REQUISITE VARIETY
(1) the amount of appropriate selection that can be performed is limited by the amount of information available. (2) for appropriate regulation the variety in the regulator must be equal to or greater than the variety in the system being regulated. Or, the greater the variety within a system, the greater its ability to reduce variety in its environment through regulation. Only variety (in the regulator) can destroy variety (in the system being regulated). The law was formulated by Ross Ashby. (Umpleby)

Its two interpretations are: (1) The amount of appropriate selection that can be performed is limited by the amount of information available. More information might be wasted but less information results in arbitrary decisions (see chance). (2) To confine the variety in system with input, the regulator (see regulation) of that system must have at least as much variety available as the variety disturbing the system through its inputs. "Only variety (in the regulator) can destroy variety (in the system being regulated)" (Ashby). The LAW OF REQuired model-regulator identity is a more general version of the law of requisite variety. (Krippendorff)

http://pcp.lanl.gov/ASC/LAW_VARIE.html

The Law of Requisite Variety has been used in other disciplines, Communication Theory, Systems Theory & Neurolinguistic Programming to name a few (maybe also Mike Reed's Flame Warriors system too?)

In Communication Theory it is thought that in interactions between 2 or more individuals, the one who demonstrates the most flexibility will end up controlling the outcome.

In Neurolinguistic Programming: "the Law of Requisite Variety in a given physical systems, is that part of the system with the greatest flexibility of behavior will control the system."
http://www.nlpworld.co.uk/glossary/l/law-of-requisite-variety

In Systems Theory, complex systems look different depending on perspective & most variety is thought to be absorbed through relationships with other systems.  Complex systems (like fr'instance geographical systems we call countries, states, communities, etc.) create unbelievable amounts of variety or diversity.  An objective or goal in most systems is to promote stability or equilibrium for that system, so that that system will continue to exist.  A complex system, like the United States of America, for example, uses laws, customs, cultures, religion, etc. to encourage stability. 

The United States, from the beginning, encouraged the influx of "new blood."  As a result, the people of the United States came to, & are still coming from, various other Countries.  This "melting pot" very often, in actual practice, consisted of various groups vying for prime territory.  In Manhattan, & in other parts of this Country, you can still see vestiges of these attempts by various groups of people, the Chinatowns or the Little Italys or the Germantowns, etc.  (imho these are usually the most interesting parts of any City - best food too  )  More often than not the peoples branch out & try to find their own "American Dream." 

"It's called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it".
George Carlin (1937 – 2008)

The real hilarity ensues when certain groups or individuals in a culture (or in a system, society or Country, etc.) find (sometimes it's the second or third generation, & sometimes the first) that the playing fields seems to be stacked against them.  The Cosa Nostra, the Russian, German, or Jewish Mafia, etc. form when these groups find it difficult or impossible to express their variety through the regular avenues and group together or re-group or whatever? to seek out the "dream" for themselves. 

I have witnessed the ongoing "rubbing out" of 2 of these groups in my lifetime alone (& yes I am old as sin haha).  Growing up on Long Island, NY I've observed the mansions, estates, etc. of the Old Guard (mostly the WASP NY Four Hundred Families) dismantled & either bought by the New Guard (sometimes Cosa Nostra folk or Middle East Oil money or just plain ole nouveau riche) or subdivided into a bunch of new homes for so-called middle class folk (& at a million dollars or more a pop, I wonder where that places moi on that spectrum?).  The demise of this group began with the crash of 1929 & continues its slow death to this day.  Well, that was the first group.  The second group was the Cosa Nostra.  The RICO laws, the new groups coming in competing for control of territory, mano a mano, & well, mostly the RICO laws.     

I digress.  Enuff of my little world.  On a larger scale tho I see much of the same sorta stuff?  US foreign policy?  We're running out of room here (greed) & the need? to spread out to new territories & the Empire continues?  Propping up dictators in other Countries & hoping they do or don't get stabbed in the back?  Making deals?  Mano a mano.  Witness Protection programs?  They did that here in NY with the old Mafia dons.  The government went after them & then let them out on bail, & then the hysteria, mayhem & murder madness, & especially stirring up the paranoia so that the next wannabees in line would do their work for them.  The government & the lawyers get most of the old don's money (through tax evasion gambits as opposed to the legal tax avoidance scams?) & the crime organizations get passed on to different groups.  War on Drugs?  War on Terror?  Who's on First?  War on ...       

To conclude my little rant, "Peoples are Peoples."  Capisce?  The greatest strength this Country (US) has is its diversity or the variations in its Peoples.  More flexibility (Law of Requisite Variety) & we need new blood! (oh & to stop being such greedy fucks too?).  We also need to Wake the Fuck Up!  WTFU!

Any thoughts on this?

[Kai]

+1 for realizing variation in a population may accelerate change.

-1 for quoting Darwin in a social science context

That leaves you about even.

[East Coast Hustle]

why the aversion to the idea of social darwinism, kai?

I imagine you've got a well-reasoned answer.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

why the aversion to the idea of social darwinism, kai?

Any more questions?

[Kai]

why the aversion to the idea of social darwinism, kai?

I imagine you've got a well-reasoned answer.

1. Because I don't like how the name of an esteemed biologist and the founder of evolutionary biology has become a buzz word for many unrelated topics in unrelated fields to the point where few people understand what Charles Darwin's original observations and hypotheses were about.

2. Because "social darwinism" is a rather vague corruption of the "survival of the fittest" statement that Henry Spencer coined back in Darwin's day, a term that Darwin never liked and ultimately only associated it with his work when the public use had become too large to ignore. Such ideologies in social darwinism lead to nasty amoral practices like eugenics. Fact: Human society is emergent from evolutionary biology and cannot be reduced to the theory of natural selection or even a bad reading of Darwin's work.

3. Because of Roger's answer.

In summary, it pisses me off, and for good reason.

[East Coast Hustle]

1. if someone doesn't choose to garner a basic understanding of what they're talking about, isn't that due to their intellectual laziness and not their choice of terminology?

2. nasty amoral practices like eugenics are ingrained in human nature, like it or not (I don't, YMMV but probably doesn't). If a phrase to describe this concept is widely understood (if originally misapplied), doesn't that render it lingustically valid, especially in the context of educating people who don't currently have a well-rounded understanding of the concept? Also, might human society and evolutionary biology actually be convergent? (just throwing that out there, I'm not sure I'm actually qualified to hold an opinion on that subject).

3. Roger's answer is why I asked you instead.

[LMNO]

ECH has a point, linguistically; if it's used with a certain agreed-upon definition, it's more-or-less valid.  Jenne would know more details.


However, I have a feeling that saying "Social Darwinism" has an effect on Kai similar to how ECH or I feel every time Good Charlotte is called a "Punk Band".

[East Coast Hustle]

I understand what you're saying.

I also have gone a long way towards deconstructing that particular filter for myself. Call Good Charlotte whatever you want, just don't ask me to listen to them.

[Honey]

why the aversion to the idea of social darwinism, kai?

I imagine you've got a well-reasoned answer.

1. Because I don't like how the name of an esteemed biologist and the founder of evolutionary biology has become a buzz word for many unrelated topics in unrelated fields to the point where few people understand what Charles Darwin's original observations and hypotheses were about.

2. Because "social darwinism" is a rather vague corruption of the "survival of the fittest" statement that Henry Spencer coined back in Darwin's day, a term that Darwin never liked and ultimately only associated it with his work when the public use had become too large to ignore. Such ideologies in social darwinism lead to nasty amoral practices like eugenics. Fact: Human society is emergent from evolutionary biology and cannot be reduced to the theory of natural selection or even a bad reading of Darwin's work.

3. Because of Roger's answer.

In summary, it pisses me off, and for good reason.

Hi There Kai,

I'm sorry for pissing you off.  I didn't mean to but probably should've known better.  I was really more interested in getting thoughts on The Law of Requisite Variety?  Quoting Darwin at the beginning was a bad idea.   

I am not an Evolutionary Biologist & I appreciate your knowledge in this area. 

When you try to see things as they are, you see them as you are.
-Anais Nin

Seeing evolution as a reflection of my (admitted) mythology, is (in my mind or imagination) as if the Universe is waking up!

Right, wrong, true, false, up, down - these are all relative terms.  Science, religion, philosophy, psychology, all of the arts & sciences are compelling on many levels to me.  Curiosity & desire lead me to travel to places I wouldn't normally go.  "The unexamined life is not worth living" & all.

Inductive reasoning is necessary when you are attempting to tease information from your observations of the natural world.  & sometimes when people torture the data long enough, it will eventually confess. 

Communal reinforcement is the process by which a claim becomes a strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community. The process is independent of whether the claim has been properly researched or is supported by empirical data significant enough to warrant belief by reasonable people. Often, the mass media contribute to the process by uncritically supporting the claims. More often, however, the mass media provide tacit support for untested and unsupported claims by saying nothing skeptical about even the most outlandish of claims.

Communal reinforcement explains how entire nations can pass on ineffable gibberish from generation to generation. It also explains how testimonials reinforced by other testimonials within the community of therapists, sociologists, psychologists, theologians, politicians, talk show hosts, etc., can supplant and be more powerful than scientific studies or accurate gathering of data by disinterested parties.

Communal reinforcement explains, in part, why about half of all American adults deny evolution occurred and believe that God created the universe in six days,* made the first man and woman out of clay, and a snake talked the woman into disobeying an order from God thereby causing all our problems. It also explains how otherwise rational and intelligent people can be persuaded to accept such stories as true when they are provided by a comforting community in a time of great emotional need. Every cult leader knows the value of communal reinforcement combined with isolating cult members from contrary ideas.
From
http://skepdic.com/comreinf.html

I see Humanity as continuing to evolve. I imagine (my mythology again) a Peoples who use art, science, technology, & information for the benefit of all Humanity. Technological & scientific advances (especially in recent history) occur faster than biological evolution. We, as a Peoples, struggle to make sense of the information that comes to light. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that thing should be done.  I continue to struggle to make sense of this world.  There is so much beauty here too!  My mind gets boggled! 

I would be interested in your views on specialization?  From the point of view of Evolutionary Biology or from any other place.   

[Cain]

I just want to add onto Kai's points for a moment, if I may.  My answers are a little less biological, but I think Kai would probably see there is some validity to them:

One of the problems with Social Darwinism is that it is inherently teleological, and thus utopian in its outlook.  Its very much the same old problem, humanity can be perfected, but the ideal doesn't live up to the reality, and so those bits who are ruining the possibility of utopia need to be removed.

Not all utopian systems end up this way (and indeed, several non-utopian systems have done the same sort of thing), but its incidence seems greater within worldviews that hold that humanity can be made much better and have large-range plans to go about this.

This relates to the first point, but is more scientific.  Evolution is teleological, but only in the sense that fitness is understood.  And fitness will always, always vary based on not only climate conditions, but in the case of humans, social and cultural ones as well.  Most people here would be right in saying that mental illness, such as epillepsy, are probably not a good thing to have.  But within certain societies, it was and is seen to show shamanic powers, of the individual being in touch with the gods, and thus treated with a lot of respect.  Having that gene which caused such a disease was a beneficial strategy.

And those conditions can change quickly.  Another tribe conquers the area, one whose worship is based around an entirely different pantheon.  All followers of the previous 'fake' Gods are put to death.  Suddenly, epillespy isn't looking so neat.  Its classified as demonic possession, or whatever.

Anyway, you get the point.  Social mores can go a long way to defining fitness, and social mores are suspectible to change.  You could pursue the definition of fitness du jour, but that thins the evolutionary potential of a population, making them more suspectible to change than a diverse gene pool.  I believe we see this in nature too, actually, though I'm struggling to think of any precise examples.  Kai?  Something with disease killing more creatures in a more genetically homogenous populations than diverse ones, maybe?

I know thats a lot of diverse fields there, and I probably mangled the terminology from at least two of them, but I trust my point is clear?

[Cramulus]

good point, well said.

[East Coast Hustle]

I must have a misunderstanding of the term "social darwinism".

I took it to describe a naturally occurring process in human society by which groups of humans seek to establish a stable social contract that generally enabled that group to thrive (by whatever it's definition of 'thrive' is; my concept of this idea is value-neutral).

everyone else seems to be viewing it as a system which can be imposed or not on humanity at large.

[Cain]

I must have a misunderstanding of the term "social darwinism".

I took it to describe a naturally occurring process in human society by which groups of humans seek to establish a stable social contract that generally enabled that group to thrive (by whatever it's definition of 'thrive' is; my concept of this idea is value-neutral).

everyone else seems to be viewing it as a system which can be imposed or not on humanity at large.

I've only ever heard it used in the latter sense.  It was a prescriptive doctrine, not a descriptive one, in other words it suggested measures that should be taken.  Alot of the social darwinist thinkers spent a lot of time complaining about how modern society kept producing failures who were only kept alive via the mechanisms of the state (ie welfare, subsidised healthcare etc), in effect that modern society had somehow stalled evolution.

Which is of course patent bollocks.

The former I have rarely seen touched on, and it would seem to operate from a somewhat different base of premises than social darwinism.  A better name might be "evolution within human society" or something similar, because of the implicit differences it shares with social darwinist theories.

[Honey]

As I continue to struggle & sometimes play with these ideas it comes back to haunt me that the technological & scientific advances occur much more rapidly than the biological ones.  The desire to understand this world while I'm still alive in it knowing I'm only gonna be here for so long continues to nettle.  Not saying the answer is Social  Darwinism or any other word used to describe this phenomenon.  It seems to me that a more Systems Theory approach (or any other word) or way of looking at things would allow a bit more understanding & also & especially with room enuff to play.  There are other kinds of biological organisms here that have been around longer than human beings & will most likely be here long after we're gone.  I'm not sure I would like to emulate them tho. 

Said way much better here:

To choose order over disorder, or disorder over order, is to accept a trip composed of both the creative and the destructive. But to choose the creative over the destructive is an all-creative trip composed of both order and disorder. To accomplish this, one need only accept creative disorder along with, and equal to, creative order, and also willing to reject destructive order as an undesirable equal to destructive disorder.

The Curse of Greyface included the division of life into order/disorder as the essential positive/negative polarity, instead of building a game foundation with creative/destructive as the essential positive/negative. He has thereby caused man to endure the destructive aspects of order and has prevented man from effectively participating in the creative uses of disorder. Civilization reflects this unfortunate division.

POEE proclaims that the other division is preferable, and we work toward the proposition that creative disorder, like creative order, is possible and desirable; and that destructive order, like destructive disorder, is unnecessary and undesirable.

Seek the Sacred Chao - therein you will find the foolishness of all ORDER/DISORDER. They are the same!

If you can master nonsense as well as you have already learned to master sense, then each will expose the other for what it is: absurdity. From that moment of illumination, a man begins to be free regardless of his surroundings. He becomes free to play order games and change them at will. He becomes free to play disorder games just for the hell of it. He becomes free to play neither or both. And as the master of his own games, he plays without fear, and therefore without frustration, and therefore with good will in his soul and love in his being.

And when men become free then mankind will be free.
May you be free of The Curse of Greyface.
May the Goddess put twinkles in your eyes.
May you have the knowledge of a sage,
and the wisdom of a child. Hail Eris.

I gotta go now - Bye!

[Kai]

I just want to add onto Kai's points for a moment, if I may.  My answers are a little less biological, but I think Kai would probably see there is some validity to them:

One of the problems with Social Darwinism is that it is inherently teleological, and thus utopian in its outlook.  Its very much the same old problem, humanity can be perfected, but the ideal doesn't live up to the reality, and so those bits who are ruining the possibility of utopia need to be removed.

Not all utopian systems end up this way (and indeed, several non-utopian systems have done the same sort of thing), but its incidence seems greater within worldviews that hold that humanity can be made much better and have large-range plans to go about this.

This relates to the first point, but is more scientific.  Evolution is teleological, but only in the sense that fitness is understood.  And fitness will always, always vary based on not only climate conditions, but in the case of humans, social and cultural ones as well.  Most people here would be right in saying that mental illness, such as epillepsy, are probably not a good thing to have.  But within certain societies, it was and is seen to show shamanic powers, of the individual being in touch with the gods, and thus treated with a lot of respect.  Having that gene which caused such a disease was a beneficial strategy.

And those conditions can change quickly.  Another tribe conquers the area, one whose worship is based around an entirely different pantheon.  All followers of the previous 'fake' Gods are put to death.  Suddenly, epillespy isn't looking so neat.  Its classified as demonic possession, or whatever.

Anyway, you get the point.  Social mores can go a long way to defining fitness, and social mores are suspectible to change.  You could pursue the definition of fitness du jour, but that thins the evolutionary potential of a population, making them more suspectible to change than a diverse gene pool.  I believe we see this in nature too, actually, though I'm struggling to think of any precise examples.  Kai?  Something with disease killing more creatures in a more genetically homogenous populations than diverse ones, maybe?

I know thats a lot of diverse fields there, and I probably mangled the terminology from at least two of them, but I trust my point is clear?

Yes Cain, the problem with people transfering the basic observations of natural selection (which exists in many many different systems in different forms, modified but similar), is decent with modification is so tightly twined in modern culture to Evolution i.e. unrolling, which depicts the movement upward and onwards to perfection, i.e. progress. Above, Cain nicely supported some examples of social selection (I would call it that in the human context so not to confuse the difference in observations and conclusions that would arise in that particular hypothesis), and I especially like the epilepsy one. That sort of thing nicely mirrors the non-"progressive" selective forces and happenings that occur within evolutionary biology.

If it wasn't for the association with Darwin, which always turns me off, I would have given the OP an A+, because they were riding the Correct Motorcycle. Variation in a population is one of those things, whether under social selective or evolutionary biology selective pressures, will allow the population to sustain injury. Disease is one, predation another, climatic changes, weather events, immigration or emmigration, or in the context of social selection, wars and cultural effects. For example, a war occurs because a culture invading a region has a different religion than the majority of the people in the region, those majority are forced out, the small population that shares the religion remains in the area, thus controlling all social selective pressures for that region. Its emergent human behavior so we couldn't call it natural selection and associate it with Darwin, but we /could/ call it social selection and coin our own set of observations and conclusions to explain the events occuring.

The /point/ is, variation within any population will likely be beneficial for the population overall in the long run, because this planet is seldom static and neither is human behavior. Now /theres/s a way you could tie together natural selection and social selection, and I don't even feel dirty for saying it.