The Global Superorganism:
an evolutionary-cybernetic model of the emerging network society
Francis HEYLIGHEN
https://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Papers/Superorganism.pdf
8. Conclusion
This paper has proposed a first sketch of an evolutionary-cybernetic model of society and its development, seen as the emergence of a global superorganism. The reasoning underlying the model can be summarized as follows.
Complex systems composed of a variety of interacting subsystems, such as chemical networks, ecosystems, or societies, tend to evolve towards more coherence and interdependence, as the subsystems mutually adapt. This makes the system as a whole less dependent on its environment, and thus increasingly “closed”. Once there is a sufficient degree of organizational closure, the system can be seen as autopoietic, and therefore “living” in the abstract sense. All such “living” or “organismic” systems combine organizational closure, realized through a network of internal feedback cycles, with thermodynamic openness, entailing the input of low entropy resources and the output of high entropy waste. This allows us to conceptually divide the system into functional components responsible for the different stages of the processing of incoming matter and energy (metabolism), and for the processing of information needed to maintain cybernetic control over this mechanism (nervous system). As the system continues to evolve, on-going adaptation and division of labor lead to an increasingly diverse, complex, and efficient organization, consisting of ever more specialized components.
This general model of complex, self-organizing systems can be directly applied to the present development of society. Since society is an organismic system consisting of organisms (individual people), it can be viewed as a “superorganism”. Conspicuous trends such as globalization, automation, and the rise of computer networks can be understood as aspects of the general evolution towards increasing efficiency and interconnectedness which makes the superorganism ever more robust. In particular, increasing efficiency explains the growing economic productivity and the decrease of friction, which facilitates all material and informational exchanges. The accompanying differentiation and integration explain the seemingly opposite trends towards outsourcing and mergers, and the growing importance of supranational rules, standards and institutions. Increasing efficiency of communication and control moreover explains the increasing functional autonomy of components (individuals or organizations), and the concurrent flattening of hierarchies and rise of heterarchies.
Although the effects of these trends are mostly positive, for both individuals and society as a whole (Heylighen & Bernheim, 2000a), some of the side-effects can be detrimental (Heylighen & Bernheim, 2000b). Reduced friction in particular increases the risk that positive feedback processes would get out of control. It also leads to increasingly complex causal chains of interconnected events, augmenting the need for information gathering and processing. Controlling these dangers requires a strengthening of the superorganism's nervous system. This control system has both centralized and distributed components. Centralization is exemplified by the growing importance of global institutions, responsible for the formulation and implementation of international standards, rules and laws.
Distributed control can be exemplified by the “invisible hand” that mutually adjusts supply and demand. Its effectiveness is boosted by the emerging global computer network. The increasing reach, capacity, and intelligence of this network allow it to automate more and more functions of the superorganism's nervous system. This will transform the World-Wide Web into a “global brain”, capable of sensing, interpreting, learning, thinking, deciding, and initiating actions. Individuals are likely to become more and more intimately connected to this intelligent network, through ubiquitous, intuitive interfaces, and eventually a direct brain-to-web connection.
The traditional view of society as an organism is controversial, as it seems to imply a restriction of freedom and diversity, and a subordination of individuals to a faceless 33 HEYLIGHEN collective. The present model, on the other hand, sees the emerging superorganism as a further step in the emancipation of humanity, increasing individual autonomy, diversity, and various freedoms of choice, movement, education, career, expression, etc., while decreasing the power of governments, corporations, or dictators to control society for their own purposes. The integration of individuals and organizations into an efficient, coherent supersystem, though, will require the agreement about a number of universal standards and rules for the exchange of goods, services and information. However, because of the greater flexibility and efficiency of a self-organizing, “global brain”-like system, these rules are likely to be less constraining than existing national laws and regulations, generally increasing the diversity of options and freedom of initiative available to individuals.
In conclusion, the picture of an emerging global organism that I have sketched, like the one of Stock (1993), is an optimistic one: although the increasing complexity and accelerating changes that accompany this social evolution may temporarily add to existing stress, conflicts and confusion, overall developments are for the better, increasing people's wealth, freedom, sense of belonging, level of knowledge, equality of opportunity, and overall quality of life (cf. Heylighen & Bernheim, 2000a,b), while creating a more flexible, efficient and sustainable society. Moreover, because of the underlying selective pressures and feedback cycles, this development appears quite robust, and can probably be arrested only by a major catastrophe such as a nuclear war or an asteroid impact.
The model throws new light on several contemporary issues such as globalization of markets, computer networks, and the information economy, and thus may help us to understand better what is going on in our complex and rapidly changing society. Moreover, it makes a number of general, qualitative predictions, such as further reduction of friction, restructuring of organizations, long-term improvement of control over the economy, increasing efficiency in production, information processing and services, greater integration and differentiation in the global socio-economic system, and the emergence of a sophisticated collective intelligence for decision-making and problemsolving supported by the computer network.
The question can be raised in how far a true organismic model is really necessary to explain these developments. Most of them could be probably be derived from a weaker evolutionary or developmental theory of society or of globalization. The strength of the superorganism model is that it allows a very detailed analysis, zooming in on specialized functional components, such as immune system, distributor, or associator, that have no obvious counterpart in non-living systems. Applying the general logic of network evolution to each of these functions allows us to produce specific predictions, such as the creation of a computer immune system, a fully automatic distribution network, or a world-wide web that autonomously learns new associations. There is no obvious way to infer such predictions from a more general model, except by including a number of ad hoc hypotheses.
Of course, proposing falsifiable predictions is not yet sufficient to make this into a good model: the predictions must also be tested and verified. The problem is that we cannot do experiments with an encompassing system such as global society. We can only wait and observe. It will take many years before any of these predictions can be convincingly confirmed or refuted. In the meantime, the model itself will undoubtedly have evolved, taking into account factors that have been ignored until now. The refutation of any specific prediction should therefore not be interpreted as a falsification of the model as a whole, but rather as an admonition to reflect more deeply about the exceedingly complex interactions within global society. The refutation of several predictions, on the other hand, would be sufficient ground to abandon the model, and look for a better one. Although the time scale is usually the most error-prone aspect of any futurological prediction, I would venture that most of these developments will have THE GLOBAL SUPERORGANISM 34 taken place within the next 10 to 20 year, whereas the global superorganism itself should have taken a shape clear enough for everybody to recognize it by the next half century.
Acknowledgments
I thank Jan Bernheim for his helpful and detailed annotations on this paper, and my Principia Cybernetica colleagues Valentin Turchin, Cliff Joslyn and Johan Bollen, together with the late Donald Campbell and the members of the Global Brain mailing list, for inspiring and discussing many of these ideas. This work was supported by the Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders. 37 HEYLIGHEN About the author Francis Heylighen is associate director of the Center "Leo Apostel" for transdisciplinary research at the Free University of Brussels (VUB). The main focus of his research is the evolutionary development of complex, cybernetic systems. He is editor of the Principia Cybernetica Project (http://pcp.vub.ac.be/), an international organization devoted to the collaborative development of an evolutionary world-view, and chair of the Global Brain Group. Dr. Heylighen has authored some 70 scientific publications in a variety of domains.