Editor's introduction
2
Editor’s Introduction Welcome to Volume 15 No 3 of the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, in which we focus on the intersection of biology and culture in several new and traditional ways, and in which James Barham provides a major new installment in his Poincar&n evolutionary epistemology. We begin with Susantha Goonatilake’s commentary on “Biotechnology and the Merged Evolution of Genes and Culture,” in which he argues that the social contexts in which genetically engineered organisms are created-such as desirability of new food and medical products-are infusing the biological “lineage” of information with a cultural spin. Further, in as much as culture derives from the natural, the remaking of the natural according to culture constitutes a recursive loop with major effect. (As indicated in my “Technology as the Cutting Edge of Cosmic Evolution,” Research in Philosophy am Technology, Vol. 8, Green- wich, CT: JAI, 1985, I agree completely with Goonatilake, and view biotechnology, along with space travel and artificial intelligence, as one of the three leading threads in the human reshaping of existence-or in the cosmic reshaping of itself via the human-technological agency.) James Barham continues what is in effect a crucial prologue to his theory of human knowledge with his “From Enzymes to E = mc2: A Reply to Critics.” The critics are the 13 symposiasts (including me), who in Volume 14 No 2 of this Journal offered lengthy and often biting commentary on Barham’s “A Poincar&m Approach to Evolutionary Epistemology,” a highly original and comprehensive essay published here in Volume 13 No 3. Barham’s “Reply” not only addresses his critics, but offers a deeply researched bibliographic update, and a spirited development of his “systems” alternative to strict Darwinian accounts of pre- human and human epistemology. The reader will agree, I’m sure, that this is both a challenge and a beginning, and one certain to evoke a lot more contemplation and discussion on all sides of these issues. (Towards that end, I’ve added an occasional Editor’s Note to point out especially pressing areas for further investigation and argument.) Our last two articles-actually, the first an article, the second a briefer “theoretical note”-return to a theme often considered here: the social and biological matrices of aggres- sion and competition. Writing from Israel, Stein&z and Goldman see aggression as a deliber- ate attempt to damage “human survival potential” in a way that transgresses social norms (for example, incarceration of criminals would not be aggression) and-and this last element is the most original of Steinitz and Goldman’s approach-in the absence of a previous provoca- tion for which retaliation might be made (in other words, retaliation to provocation is not aggression). Steinitz and Goldman suggest that inattention to one or more of these elements has hobbled earlier attempts to understand (and presumably control) aggression on both interpersonal and international levels. Meanwhile, also from Israel (and Australia) Stone and Roberts report on the mathematical dynamics of competition and survival in “Can There Be A War Of All Against All?“-which they answer, in general, in the negative, owing to the V
Transcript of Editor's introduction
Editor’s Introduction
Welcome to Volume 15 No 3 of the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, in which we focus on the intersection of biology and culture in several new and traditional ways, and in which James Barham provides a major new installment in his Poincar&n evolutionary epistemology.
We begin with Susantha Goonatilake’s commentary on “Biotechnology and the Merged Evolution of Genes and Culture,” in which he argues that the social contexts in which genetically engineered organisms are created-such as desirability of new food and medical products-are infusing the biological “lineage” of information with a cultural spin. Further, in as much as culture derives from the natural, the remaking of the natural according to culture constitutes a recursive loop with major effect. (As indicated in my “Technology as the Cutting Edge of Cosmic Evolution,” Research in Philosophy am Technology, Vol. 8, Green- wich, CT: JAI, 1985, I agree completely with Goonatilake, and view biotechnology, along with space travel and artificial intelligence, as one of the three leading threads in the human reshaping of existence-or in the cosmic reshaping of itself via the human-technological agency.)
James Barham continues what is in effect a crucial prologue to his theory of human knowledge with his “From Enzymes to E = mc2: A Reply to Critics.” The critics are the 13 symposiasts (including me), who in Volume 14 No 2 of this Journal offered lengthy and often biting commentary on Barham’s “A Poincar&m Approach to Evolutionary Epistemology,” a highly original and comprehensive essay published here in Volume 13 No 3. Barham’s “Reply” not only addresses his critics, but offers a deeply researched bibliographic update, and a spirited development of his “systems” alternative to strict Darwinian accounts of pre- human and human epistemology. The reader will agree, I’m sure, that this is both a challenge and a beginning, and one certain to evoke a lot more contemplation and discussion on all sides of these issues. (Towards that end, I’ve added an occasional Editor’s Note to point out especially pressing areas for further investigation and argument.)
Our last two articles-actually, the first an article, the second a briefer “theoretical note”-return to a theme often considered here: the social and biological matrices of aggres- sion and competition. Writing from Israel, Stein&z and Goldman see aggression as a deliber- ate attempt to damage “human survival potential” in a way that transgresses social norms (for example, incarceration of criminals would not be aggression) and-and this last element is the most original of Steinitz and Goldman’s approach-in the absence of a previous provoca- tion for which retaliation might be made (in other words, retaliation to provocation is not aggression). Steinitz and Goldman suggest that inattention to one or more of these elements has hobbled earlier attempts to understand (and presumably control) aggression on both interpersonal and international levels. Meanwhile, also from Israel (and Australia) Stone and Roberts report on the mathematical dynamics of competition and survival in “Can There Be A War Of All Against All?“-which they answer, in general, in the negative, owing to the
V
vi - EDITORS INTRODUCTION
“enemy of my enemy” phenomenon, among others, wherein the presence of a third species in a community may improve rather than worsen circumstances for a first species by compet- ing with a second species already in competition with the fmt. Although the authors con- clude that application of the above to human affairs is “ambiguous,” we can certainly hope for some gain in our dealings with ourselves as researchers continue to probe the roots and complexities of aggression and cooperation.
We conclude with essay reviews on such topics as recent critiques of brain-hemispheric approaches (Warren Tenllouten), the philosophy-social and epistemological-of human design (Joyce Williams), and the rise of global computer-connected educational networks (Donald B. Straus). A handful of shorter book reviews on relevant topics round out this Issue.
-PL
