endosymbiotic evolution

[BabylonHoruv]

This is spawned from a couple of 000's comments on the google thread in the tech section. 

Ok there we have it. I was staying out of this thread because it simply makes my blood boil, some of the issues are so dear to me.

Anyway, yes you're right. You hit the nail on the head.

This privacy thing is holding our species back from evolving to some sort of next level. And I like it that way. This is my species, and not that next level. I can smell what it's going to be like, and I don;t like it one bit.

Loss of privacy is one thing, but complete loss of all individuality is what we are going to get down this road. And sure, our species will have ascended to some next level, but there won't be any "me" or "you" to enjoy it.

And I will tell you now, it's not even going to be all bliss hippie "all is one, I am you and you are me and we are all together" enlightened bullshit, we should be so lucky!

No, it's going to be just the same thing as every other time it has happened in the evolution of life on this planet:

The smaller organisms (humans) will be absorbed in an endosymbiotic relationship with some larger-scale organisms (probably corporations) where individuality is a liability for the larger organism.

It happened to mitochondria, it happened to intestinal bacteria.

Every time you take a shit, you dump millions of living and dead intestinal bacteria down the sewer, we even call it "cleansing", and we don't even care or think about. That's what corporations are going to do to humans if we let them. That is your precious next level. That is indeed what I would like to hold my species back from.

"Individual" means the same thing as "single cellular organism". And in certain multi-cellular cases, "Individual" even means "dangerous cancer that must be annihilated for the greater good of the larger organism".

Sure enough those intestinal bacteria never had the consciousness to say "hey do we actually like where we are heading now?", and we are probably the first conscious species that are standing on the brink of endosymbiosis and we can ask ourselves this question.

Do you want to be an ass-polyp?

and

I dunno that the mitochondria or intestinal bacteria had much option either.  In both cases they were eaten by the larger organism.

yes that is my point. they didn't have much choice. we are conscious, and can at least give it a shot, resisting.

I'm also not sure that privacy is particularly related to individuality, aside from tangentially.

They are very related. Privacy is what keeps individuals individual. Once your data is on the street, and is shared with everyone, this everyone, this sharing will become something, a structure in which the individual is irrelevant.

And when Dok Vitriol is talking about taking our species to the next level, then that is what I fear we will become. And it is already happening. Big faceless corporations are fighting battles about abstract things we do not understand, over abstract territories, and in which humans are mere organelles, insignificant and replaceable.

One thing for such a complex organisational structure to become more powerful, is to increase communication and information transfer between its parts. That is exactly the thing that is happening right now, with the erosion of our privacy rights. I see a terrible analogy between this and the evolution of nerve cells, which did not have axons at first but could only communicate with neighbours. The power of the network grew exponentially when it did. In a similar fashion, any suprahuman organism will grow more powerful the more "transparent" the network of humans that is part of it becomes. This goes for corporations, nations, and anything. That is why it's happening. Well, one of the whys, on some level.

The point is, erosion of privacy makes the suprahuman organism more efficient, which is good for it. BUT it is not necessarily good for the individual humans. In fact, the more powerful the suprahuman organism becomes, the less important the wellbeing of the individual human becomes.

And when you're talking about where we are going, as a species, most signs that I can read, point in this direction, and not in the direction of Awesome Technology Stuff and Knowledge for All [individuals], we might get a littlebit of that, but we will be getting a lot more of the other.

First off, he's right about the privacy thing, I was wrong there, a lack of privacy makes communication on the part of the larger organism much easier.

To explore the general concept in a bit more detail though, starting with mitochondria, I believe the general consensus among biologists is that they were, originally, a free floating bacteria that was absorbed by another bacteria (eaten) but instead of being digested they were incorporated into it's body.  Some say this was what made eukaryotes possible.  In any case it looks like a pretty good deal all around.  Not for mitochondria in general, but for the specific mitochondria, instead of being digested they lived on, and are now much more widespread than they would otherwise be.

The other example is the formation of multicelled animals.  This is more confusing, since we don't see individual organs existing as separate beings and the way in which we evolved from one celled eukaryotes to multicelled beings is kind of confusing.  I can't say if our organs are really better off or not, however in the case of intestinal bacteria i think I can.  Yes, we shit them out indiscriminately, however that isn't really a negative for them, they can survive in our sewage and from there go on to enter new hosts, sometimes they do this in ways that are rather destructive to us (e-coli burgers) other times in more symbiotic ways, however in any case it doesn't look to me like the fact that some bacteria work with animals is really a negative either for them or for bacteria in general.  Of course they have not been absorbed into the corporate mass of the animal in the same way that liver cells or skin cells (skin cells get the shaft) have. 

I also really don't know that we have an option as far as some being absorbed.  Perhaps we can choose, as individuals, not be absorbed by the new supraorganism, but that doesn't mean they won't be absorbing many of those around us (often by those people's own choice) and we are left with the option of being fully absorbed (looks like a pretty shitty deal if skin cells are any example) working as independent contractors like the gut bugs, or trying to remain as wild bacteria, which may be a very difficult life.


Thank you 000 for bringing this up, it's something that had been in the back of my mind to a certain degree but you described it much more clearly than i had been in my mind and I'd love to see what other people think of the whole concept.

(I also think it is interestingly synchronicity that you posted this the same night I posted my plea for people to help me design an RPG set inside a body with the PC's as gut bugs.)

[Kai]

I thought this was going to be about Lichens! 

[Kai]

Okay, to be fair I should probably comment.

Endosymbiosis is a strongly supported hypothesis of the origination of eukaryotes and cell organelles, especially mitochondria and chloroplasts. However, the hypothesis does not extend to evolution of multicellular organisms. That has more to do with intercellular signaling and cooperation than acquisition of new endosymbiotes.

And corporations are not organisms, no matter what the government says about it.

When human societies start having the character of ant colonies (reproduction sequestered to a few individuals, autonomy of non reproductives lost, etc) then maybe you would have more of an arguement. But as far as I can see, corporations aren't living and they certainly aren't turning us into cyanelles.

[BabylonHoruv]

Yeah. Lichens are actually another example, and a really positive one.  Both the fungus and the plant generally come out ahead in that relationship as far as I can tell.

I am glad to have your scientific perspective poking a hole in 000's terrifying vision, although it still kinda scares me.

[Kai]

Yeah. Lichens are actually another example, and a really positive one.  Both the fungus and the plant generally come out ahead in that relationship as far as I can tell.

I am glad to have your scientific perspective poking a hole in 000's terrifying vision, although it still kinda scares me.

Except lichens aren't an example of endosymbiosis. It was a joke. Lichen algae and fungi are co-symbiotes, but the algae don't live physically within the cells of the fungi, nor are they obligate. In contrast, the cyanelles of Glaucophyta are obligate endosymbiotes passed between generations.

Also, no one is really sure if the mycobiont/phycobiont relationship is mutualism. Sure, the fungus gets something out of it, but does the algae really receive much benefit, if any? The fungus pierces the algal cells and derives nourishment, and the algae gets what....water? It's like saying that a prisoner in my basement benefits from me because I throw food down once in a while even though, you know, they're trapped in my basement.

[BabylonHoruv]

Yeah. Lichens are actually another example, and a really positive one.  Both the fungus and the plant generally come out ahead in that relationship as far as I can tell.

I am glad to have your scientific perspective poking a hole in 000's terrifying vision, although it still kinda scares me.

Except lichens aren't an example of endosymbiosis. It was a joke. Lichen algae and fungi are co-symbiotes, but the algae don't live physically within the cells of the fungi, nor are they obligate. In contrast, the cyanelles of Glaucophyta are obligate endosymbiotes passed between generations.

Also, no one is really sure if the mycobiont/phycobiont relationship is mutualism. Sure, the fungus gets something out of it, but does the algae really receive much benefit, if any? The fungus pierces the algal cells and derives nourishment, and the algae gets what....water? It's like saying that a prisoner in my basement benefits from me because I throw food down once in a while even though, you know, they're trapped in my basement.

*chuckle*  the joke was way over my head.  I always understood that what the algae got was roots.  Ones that are much sturdier than the sort plants usually make.  I know I have seen lichen growing on rocks that no plant would have been able to grow on.

[Golden Applesauce]

And corporations are not organisms, no matter what the government says about it.

When human societies start having the character of ant colonies (reproduction sequestered to a few individuals, autonomy of non reproductives lost, etc) then maybe you would have more of an argument. But as far as I can see, corporations aren't living and they certainly aren't turning us into cyanelles.

Biologically and technically, yes, corporations are not organisms or even alive.

But there is some value to thinking about corporations as organisms.  Corporations evolve, grow, and compete for limited resources.  The less successful corporations shrivel and die; the strategies used by winning corporations are widely copied and further built upon (kind of like descent with modification.)  When there are too many corporations occupying the same niche in the economic environment, the ones that get outcompeted die off.  There are symbiotic relationships (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer) and relationships that are parasitic (one uses great economic/legal power to force others to supply goods at too-low prices) or even outright predatory (companies that actively attempt to put others out of business).  Labor unions that go out of control are like tumors, because they demand an ever-larger share of benefits (nutrients) until they become capable of toppling even governments (like Greece, although there were plenty of other factors.)  Poor labor practices are like an autoimmune disease, killing off or driving away the very individuals (cells) that comprise the organism.

[Kai]

And corporations are not organisms, no matter what the government says about it.

When human societies start having the character of ant colonies (reproduction sequestered to a few individuals, autonomy of non reproductives lost, etc) then maybe you would have more of an argument. But as far as I can see, corporations aren't living and they certainly aren't turning us into cyanelles.

Biologically and technically, yes, corporations are not organisms or even alive.

But there is some value to thinking about corporations as organisms.  Corporations evolve, grow, and compete for limited resources.  The less successful corporations shrivel and die; the strategies used by winning corporations are widely copied and further built upon (kind of like descent with modification.)  When there are too many corporations occupying the same niche in the economic environment, the ones that get outcompeted die off.  There are symbiotic relationships (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer) and relationships that are parasitic (one uses great economic/legal power to force others to supply goods at too-low prices) or even outright predatory (companies that actively attempt to put others out of business).  Labor unions that go out of control are like tumors, because they demand an ever-larger share of benefits (nutrients) until they become capable of toppling even governments (like Greece, although there were plenty of other factors.)  Poor labor practices are like an autoimmune disease, killing off or driving away the very individuals (cells) that comprise the organism.

When we apply narrow terms to practically any situation, the terms become practically meaningless. Modeling economies after biology is not only aesthetically displeasing, it's downright misleading, and it increases our knowledge of and ability to accurately predict reality by zero.

So lets /not/ use "symbiosis" and other terms to describe corporations, shall we? Not to mention, individuals don't /evolve/, populations evolve.

[Suu]

I see the name of this thread, and I read "endometriotic solution".

[BabylonHoruv]

And corporations are not organisms, no matter what the government says about it.

When human societies start having the character of ant colonies (reproduction sequestered to a few individuals, autonomy of non reproductives lost, etc) then maybe you would have more of an argument. But as far as I can see, corporations aren't living and they certainly aren't turning us into cyanelles.

Biologically and technically, yes, corporations are not organisms or even alive.

But there is some value to thinking about corporations as organisms.  Corporations evolve, grow, and compete for limited resources.  The less successful corporations shrivel and die; the strategies used by winning corporations are widely copied and further built upon (kind of like descent with modification.)  When there are too many corporations occupying the same niche in the economic environment, the ones that get outcompeted die off.  There are symbiotic relationships (manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer) and relationships that are parasitic (one uses great economic/legal power to force others to supply goods at too-low prices) or even outright predatory (companies that actively attempt to put others out of business).  Labor unions that go out of control are like tumors, because they demand an ever-larger share of benefits (nutrients) until they become capable of toppling even governments (like Greece, although there were plenty of other factors.)  Poor labor practices are like an autoimmune disease, killing off or driving away the very individuals (cells) that comprise the organism.

When we apply narrow terms to practically any situation, the terms become practically meaningless. Modeling economies after biology is not only aesthetically displeasing, it's downright misleading, and it increases our knowledge of and ability to accurately predict reality by zero.

So lets /not/ use "symbiosis" and other terms to describe corporations, shall we? Not to mention, individuals don't /evolve/, populations evolve.

well, corporations are populations.....

[Golden Applesauce]

Evolve used to just mean 'develop' or 'expand.'  The narrowing of meaning down to exclusively describing the phenomena of 'descent with mutation and natural selection' is relatively recent and mostly limited to scientists working in a field related to biology.  For example, you can say "The situation was rapidly evolving into a full-blown disaster."

The analogy does have testable, predictive power.  In times of resource stress and rapid environmental change, we see that species highly specialized to a specific niches are more vulnerable than generalists who can survive in a variety of climates on a variety of food sources.  Afterwards, there is frequently an increase in diversity as various survivors compete to take the place of the previous apex in each particular ecological niche.  If the analogy holds well, we should see similar events - in times of great societal change, businesses that target only small markets would be more likely to close than those that were more general.  Once the dust settles, there should be new businesses that cater to the new small markets, while the businesses that were able to survive and expand should occupy much larger roles in the new economic order.  If all that isn't true, then maybe the analogy isn't that great.  I could be wrong.

I think economy and ecology are comparable as well - the statement "network of agents that controls the flow of resources" describes both.  Both are extraordinarily large, chaotic systems, where changing one part can easily destroy large portions of the rest.  Reduce sunlight to an ecosystem, and watch all the species with large energy needs die off.  Jack up the price of power...