perhaps we can glean some
insight into better understanding the functioning of social ecosystems and
where their evolutionary pathway might still be taking them.
We just saw that
the hierarchy of needs has both an ontogenic and a phylogenic component.
Moreover, the hierarchy correspondingly reflects evolution along both those
dimensions, essentially comprising a vector of selection. From that description
alone, it suggests the similarity of the hierarchy of needs in social
ecosystems and DNA in physical ecosystems. The importance of that observation
is that it provides a foundation for a common view of evolution across the two
ecosystems. Instead of defining, as Richard Dawkins does in The Selfish Gene,
on one hand a constituent molecule of DNA with its genes, and on the other hand
an equivalent to genes called memes that is lacking a constituent
organization, we can see a parallel between physical and social ecosystems,
with DNA (physical) and the hierarchy of needs (social) as organizational
entities, where parts of each carry vectors of evolution. From our perspective,
the needs hierarchy itself, with its constituents across the ontogenic and
phylogenic dimensions of the pretergenesis table, seems to naturally map to the
well-understood function of genes in biology.
Social
ecosystems are the enablers of groups. Groups exist because they comprise
effective mechanisms for survival as judged by natural selection. Groups have
been essential to the ascendance of the human species; without groups it would
be problematic whether individual humans could long survive. A variety of group
types are found among the species today. While each type may exhibit different
capabilities, they come from a common mold and can be characterized by a
high-level model of organization and operation. The capabilities of groups or
perhaps more appropriately, of grouping mechanisms, have expanded over time due
to a series of evolutionary changes affecting the individual human and through
which have arisen enhanced capabilities for the establishment and functioning
of increasingly complex multi-person ensembles. These changes presented in the
evolutionary development of the individual and then were expressed through
groups of individuals.
We propose a
model of social ecosystems through which various grouping mechanisms can be
represented and compared; a model that offers the prospect of specialization,
allowing a characterization of each of the grouping mechanisms that have been
identified. With some degree of rigor, we can use this model to consider the
mechanisms through which interactions within the groups and among the groups
are effected. We observe that this same model provides a means for analyzing
the structure and function of computers and computer networks. The model is
that of a trust infrastructure which subsequently
encompasses one or more policy infrastructures.
In the physical
world that we experience, all activity proceeds through interactions that are
grounded in the basic laws of physical processes. The process of interactions
effects activity and the laws of physical processes posit a causality of this
activity. From the assumption of causality, we derive trust in the
conduct of interactions. Without interactions, any environment is static and
unchanging, which in turn makes the elaboration of causality problematic. As a
consequence, we have difficulty in establishing trust within a completely
static environment.
We have observed
that social ecosystems are more complex than the physical ecosystems we
experience. This derives from the fact that a social ecosystem presents a
larger number of basic forces than does a physical ecosystem. When the stimulus
for interactions comes from people, then the interactions are a function of the
needs hierarchy of humans. Consequently, interactions
|