Symbolic
Systems 205 - Systems: Theory, Science, Metaphor
Winter
2002-2003
Instructor:
Todd Davies, Symbolic Systems
Conformity, Diversity, and the Global Brain
by
Sara Wampler
Global Brain: The
Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century
by
Howard Bloom
John
Wiley & Sons, 370 pp., $16.95
I.
The
influence of Darwinian thinking on the analysis of human development is nothing
new. Discussions of Charles Darwin's theories have found their way into a
variety of fields over the last century, but these analyses usually limit
themselves to the role that natural selection plays on individuals. Even the
term "social Darwinism" has little to do with the selection of
societies--instead, it is typically used as a method of describing the ways in
which individuals come to prevail in a culture or group through their own
superiority. But, while the functioning of individual organisms (including
humans) has been explored extensively in biology, sociology, psychology, and
economics, these studies offer very little data about the relationships between
societies.
Howard
Bloom steps into this void with Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from
the Big Bang to the 21st Century. This book combines a discussion of group
selection with a whirlwind tour of 3.5 billion years of organic history to
advance Bloom's theory that each individual is merely a hypothesis, an idea
formed by a "global brain." This view of human purpose departs from
typical Darwinian thinking because it implies that biology is not driven solely
by the individual's desire to propagate its own genes; rather, all of history
has been shaped by an endless array of tests that determine which paths should
next be explored by the mass mind. In another departure from traditional
thought, Bloom argues that such tests are not merely a crucible for
individuals--societies and cultures live or die based on their interactions
with the groups around them. Successful groups pass their trends and norms on
to others through conquest or other forms of dissemination, while less adept
groups eventually fall away. Future groups shy away from such failures, and so
destroyed tribes and cultures are essentially "experiments" that will
never be resurrected.
BloomÕs
theory of group selection relies on five key elements: conformity enforcers,
diversity generators, inner-judges, resource shifters, and intergroup
tournaments. In BloomÕs words, this
Òpentagram of the learning machineÓ was in place at least 120 million years ago
and comprised Òsome of the secrets of the nascent global brain.Ó At first glance, these components are
rather straightforward. Conformity
enforcers ensure that groups maintain enough similarities to actually function
as a group. These ÒenforcersÓ are
group members who, like the bully on the playground or
the informant in a police state, demand obedience to some behavioral norm in
exchange for protection from harm.
In the best sense, conformity enforcers encourage unity and the pursuit
of normalization; in the worst sense, enforcers stifle creativity and destroy
deviants. These enforcers are
balanced by another element: the Òdiversity generators.Ó These individuals each test a new hypothesis
of the communal mind, exploring possibilities that conformity enforcers would
ignore. They Òspawn varietyÓ and
open paths to new developments.
Generally, diversity generators seem overwhelmingly positive; however,
they require some amount of balance, or the individuals lose their connection
to the group. When too many members
fail to identify with and protect the group, the group dies, and is thus removed from the Òglobal brain.Ó So, some amount of conformity is
required to ensure that the diversity generators do not diversify to the point
of their groupÕs destruction.
While
conformity enforcers and diversity generators are actually individuals within
the system, the remaining three elementsÑinner-judges, resource shifters, and intergroup tournamentsÑare instead personal and group
mechanisms for development and control.
Inner-judges are, according to Bloom, the equivalent of cellular
mechanisms that encourage apoptosis (cell death). These judges, through some (rather
poorly explained) system of hormones and chemicals, create a sometimes
overwhelming feeling of despair in individuals who have failed to contribute to
the group. Inner-judges are usually
harsh, unforgiving critics who can encourage individuals to remove themselves
from the progress of the group, either through suicide or through an inability
to continue performing tasks. OneÕs
critic is often triggered by the work of a Òresource shifterÓÑsomething that
Òshunt[s] riches, admiration, and influence to learning-machine members who
cruise through challenges and give folks what they want.Ó A resource shifter is not necessarily an
individual; it can Òrange from social systems to mass emotions.Ó It also works in both directions, since
it can either heap rewards upon some members, or Òcast...some into some
equivalent of pennilessness and unpopularity.Ó In some instances, the resource shifter
acts based on the outcome of intergroup
tournamentsÑfriendly or serious competitions between groups that Òforce each
collective intelligence, each group brain, to churn out innovations.Ó Resource shifters reward the winners of intergroup tournaments, ensuring that their innovations are
further explored. But, the shifters
also take away needed resources from the losers, fueling the self-destructive
impulses of their inner-judges and starting a chain of negative reinforcement
that, if left unchecked, can lead to the annihilation of the entire group.
Group
formation, then, is not simply the random result of individual selection;
rather, individuals and groups are selected together, with the needs of the
group shaping the destinies of its members. An individual success or failure is
important to the group only because it confirms or destroys a hypothesis, not
because the genetic success of each individual is encouraged. In a colony of bees, for example, the
workers do not have the opportunity to pass on their own individual bits of
genetic code. However, they do
have the opportunity to ensure the success of the group, and encourage the
survival of the queenÕs DNA by finding food sources and protecting the
hive. Individual bees may die if
they fail in their tasks, but the group as a whole survives, and so is
considered a success. The hives
that find and exploit new food sources survive; those that do not soon perish,
and their group endeavors are lost forever.
Thus, group
selection is just as brutal and demanding as notions of individual selection,
but the scale is greatly expanded.
It is perhaps easier to see groups at work in human societies, since we
can better understand human collectives.
Partly for this reason, and perhaps partly as a foundation for his later
conclusions about the trajectory of humanity, Bloom spends an extensive amount
of time focusing on human groups.
Specifically, Bloom introduces a comparison of Athens and Sparta that
explicates the five tenets of group development discussed above. Athens and Sparta were archetypal
historic groups that represented diversity generation and conformity
enforcement, respectively, in their most elemental forms. Sparta was arguably the first
totalitarian regime; individualsÕ lives and livelihoods were planned and
structured by the government from the moment of birth. This is an example of conformity
enforcement at its most intense, replete with indoctrination, discipline, and
repression that ensures that each individual remains a part of the collective
will and has no opportunity to deviate from the group-prescribed path.
Unfortunately
for Athens, Sparta and the conformity enforcers won the Òintergroup
tournamentÓ of the Peloponnesian Wars.
Thus, the Spartan model of a harsh, repressive regime attracted the
attention of others, gaining influence because of its successes. Of course, Sparta was also destroyed
eventually (by Thebes), but not before her authoritarian customs had embedded
themselves in the imagination of the collective mind.
II.
If the only
concern of humanityÕs global brain was the interplay between the ideological
descendants of the Athenians and the Spartans, then perhaps BloomÕs book would
have been a hundred pages shorter and significantly less provocative. However, according to Bloom, there is
not one global brain operating on this planet, but two: humans and
bacteria. While our mass mind only
achieved a truly global reach in the last five centuries, bacteria have had
this capability for billions of years.
These simple organisms have the ability to morph based on their
immediate needs, and their asexual reproductive cycles are so fast that they
can outpace any competition in mere days.
Thus, the comparatively simple intergroup
tournaments in which human groups take part are merely models of a much more vast, and potentially more deadly, competition between
humans and bacteria. We stand a
serious risk of being killed off by this other group; the very globality that makes innovations spread and laces our
development together also allows for the quick, intercontinental spread of
pandemics that could wipe out billions of people in mere months. As a chilling example, Bloom points to
the avian flu virus found in Hong Kong in 1997; some experts say that three
billion people could have died from this disease alone if it had not been
successfully contained.
Thus, BloomÕs
theory of group selection leads to an obvious conclusion: while we are
currently concerned with intergroup tournaments like
war and politics, we face a far more deadly threat from the only other global
brain that has the power to utterly destroy us. All of humanity is merely a hypothesis,
a test-run of organic development.
If we are wiped out, then we will share the fate of numerous other
species, and our developments and experiments will never be replicated. We will simply be a marker within the
worldÕs mass consciousness, warning that destruction comes from following our
path and encouraging future experiments to avoid our mistakes and misfortunes.
Bloom
suggests that we can overcome this rather bleak prognosis by embracing the
Athenian model of development and diversity generation. While Athens did not win her intergroup tournament with Sparta, her ideas were not
discounted; rather, democracy and philosophy have been passed to the present
day even though the society that bore them died centuries ago. Bloom feels that we must take a lesson
from the twentieth century, when the totalitarian descendants of Sparta were
allowed to flourish. He thinks that
if we do not encourage sufficient diversity of development and innovation, then
we will lose the race against bacteria.
Our communication, intelligence, and especially our technology can help
us to overcome our serious genetic weaknesses, making up for our inability to
quickly generate new genetic experiments.
Recent scientific advances can help us to use bacteria for our own ends,
perhaps cultivating bacteria that can protect us from the diseases that
threaten our survival. Ultimately,
if we follow BloomÕs projected path and use bacteria for our survival, we can
create an interwoven ÒbrainÓ of humans and bacteria that can carry both
networks into the future.
Unlike the
more bleak Gaia hypotheses of some authors, who suggest that Earth has a
consciousness that is threatened by exploitative humans and so humans are
perhaps a race that should die out, Bloom suggests that any group which finds
success is the ÒrightÓ group to continue living. This is obviously Darwinian in its
language, even though it relates to groups rather than individuals. The last paragraph of the book exhorts
us to find our destiny, to survive the intergroup
confrontation with bacteria and go on through a dizzying upward spiral of
development that will eventually lead to...perfection? happiness?
increased consciousness? Bloom
cannot say where we will find ourselves, but he does believe that we are
participants in what will eventually become an interspecies, truly global mass
mind in which every species is free to explore Òfresh realities.Ó
III.
The last chapter
sounds an unrealistically cheerful, exuberant note after the earlier arguments
about group destruction and our seemingly-imminent death by bacteria. Bloom has exuberance to spareÑhis book
is filled with what might best be described as a joy of scientific findings,
rather than a joy of serious technical analysis. But, if we are indeed hypotheses in a
mass mind, then perhaps BloomÕs excitement about the future is understandable. It is rather easy to attack his theory
on a superficial level; the idea of some intangible global brain comprised of
bacteria seems, at first sight, to be far-fetched. For the sake of argument, however, let
us assume that Bloom is correct and that group selection is the major force at
work. Even if we operate under this
assumption, Global Brain still suffers from an obvious bias towards
Western, and especially American, ideals about what makes for a successful and
desirable group. This returns us to
the discussion about Athens and Sparta.
Bloom is clear in his opinion that we must fully adopt the Athenian
model of diversity generation in order to survive. This initially seems like an obvious,
sound argument. However, there is
little evidence, either within the book or in the flow of history in general,
to suggest that diversity generation is going to eventually win out over
conformity enforcement. It is true
that most Americans, at least, would prefer to believe in the triumph of the
glorious individual over the rise of the scary, repressive collective. With terms like Òconformity enforcersÓ
and Òdiversity generatorsÓ, Bloom automatically stacks the deck in his favor;
Òconformity enforcementÓ immediately creates images of secret police and prison
camps, while Òdiversity generatorsÓ are perhaps innocuous artists, writers, and
musicians. Before he even mentions
Athens and Sparta, BloomÕs choice of words leads the reader to believe that
diversity generation is completely preferable to conformity enforcement. Several successful contemporary
societies rely heavily on notions of collective good and collective will. This includes Japan, a group which Bloom
uses as an example of an Òinfluence attractorÓ. As an influence attractor, Japan draws
the attention of its neighbors, as evidenced by the way the world watched it
during its astonishing economic growth of the eighties and early nineties. BloomÕs belief in the ultimate victory
of diversity over conformity is weakened by his inattention to the successes of
peaceful, non-totalitarian Òconformity enforcersÓ in the non-Western world.
Within the
bounds of the book, Bloom makes an relatively strong
case for the need for diversity generation. And, perhaps it is true that diversity
generation is what will save us in our upcoming war against bacteria, since we
will need quick, constant innovations of technology to ensure our
survival. However, until the
experiment that is humanity has run its course, it is unclear whether BloomÕs
bias towards diversity will indeed be supported. It is surprising that Bloom creates five
elements of group formation and then claims that we must choose one, at the
expense of another, to create a truly successful mass mind. This seems to contradict BloomÕs own
theory that group selection relies on a variety of forces working in
tandem. Humans may be destined for
some grand future within the global mindÑbut it is still unclear whether we
should follow BloomÕs advice in our attempts to reach that state.