Sean Donahue
10-28-2007, 05:20 PM
The version of evolution most of us were taught in school doesn't reflect nature's rich and complex realities. And mainstream biology is just beginning to catch up with some of the insights of one of the earliest critics of strict Darwinism.
In 1902, the great Russian anarchist philosopher and scientist, Peter Kropotkin, wrote Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, a brilliant book that refuted the sociological and psuedo-scientific claims of the social Darwinists who saw both nature and human society as arenas of fiece competition for survival. Basing his arguements on his own observations of wild animals throughout Eurasia and his undertanding of human history, Kropotkin argued that cooperation is actually an important survival mechanism. He wrote:
"As soon as we study animals -- not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and the prairie, in the steppe and the mountains -- we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favours the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy."
Kropotkin's ideas were largely ignored in scientific circles, but developments in evolutionary biology in recent decades have not only vindicated his claim, but gone further, demonstrating that mutual aid between species is an important factor in evolution. Particularly important has been the work of Lynn Margulis, which Stephen Harrod Buhner briefly summarizes in The Lost Language of Plants :
"Margulis was intrigued by the fact that mitochondria in cells have their own genes. Mitochondria are the cell's intracellular power factories and supply the energy for all metabolism. Standard theory had it that only the genes in the nucleus of cells had any importance, the genes in mitochondria were considered irrelavant. Marguli eventually realized that mitochondria were once free-living bacteria that had been incorporated into cell to power their metabolism. This, and other discoveries led to her revolutionary understanding of the nature of the evolution of complex life-forms.
"Margulis discovered that all complex life developed from an original symbiosis of four different bacteria: archaebacteria, spirochetes, cyanobacteria, and oxygen-breathing bacteria. After this early unification other kinds of bacteria were incorporated into the structure of cells. Genetic mapping and comparison to free-roving bacteria have proved that three of these bacterial forms were incorporated into the first nucleated cells. The remaining step is proving that spirochetes, or wriggling bacteria were incorporated into cell to give them mobility. In essence, all nucleated cells were formed from the fusion of individual bacteria. Unlike individuals joined together to form entirely different, more complex entities these organisms had the characteristics of the simpler bacteria as well as more unique qualities that come from the synergy of the fusion."
Working with James Lovelock, Margulis later applied a similar model to looking at the planet, putting forward the Gaia hypothesis -- the idea that the Earth itself is a self-regulating living system.
Both these ideas raise fundamental questions about the nature of the self:
If our bodies are a community of smaller organisms, and in turn are dependent on their symbiotic relationships with other beings, does it really make sense to define our skins or our auras as the boundaries of ourselves?
If the self doesn't begin or end at the boundary of its skin, do we bring something new into the world when we form an emotionally symbiotic relationship with someone else?
And now that we know that we ourselves are communities of interdependent beings that are in turn part of larger symbiotic communities, isn't defending any living system an act of self defense?
In 1902, the great Russian anarchist philosopher and scientist, Peter Kropotkin, wrote Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution, a brilliant book that refuted the sociological and psuedo-scientific claims of the social Darwinists who saw both nature and human society as arenas of fiece competition for survival. Basing his arguements on his own observations of wild animals throughout Eurasia and his undertanding of human history, Kropotkin argued that cooperation is actually an important survival mechanism. He wrote:
"As soon as we study animals -- not in laboratories and museums only, but in the forest and the prairie, in the steppe and the mountains -- we at once perceive that though there is an immense amount of warfare and extermination going on amidst various species, and especially amidst various classes of animals, there is, at the same time, as much, or perhaps even more, of mutual support, mutual aid, and mutual defence amidst animals belonging to the same species or, at least, to the same society. Sociability is as much a law of nature as mutual struggle. Of course it would be extremely difficult to estimate, however roughly, the relative numerical importance of both these series of facts. But if we resort to an indirect test, and ask Nature: 'Who are the fittest: those who are continually at war with each other, or those who support one another?' we at once see that those animals which acquire habits of mutual aid are undoubtedly the fittest. They have more chances to survive, and they attain, in their respective classes, the highest development of intelligence and bodily organization. If the numberless facts which can be brought forward to support this view are taken into account, we may safely say that mutual aid is as much a law of animal life as mutual struggle, but that, as a factor of evolution, it most probably has a far greater importance, inasmuch as it favours the development of such habits and characters as insure the maintenance and further development of the species, together with the greatest amount of welfare and enjoyment of life for the individual, with the least waste of energy."
Kropotkin's ideas were largely ignored in scientific circles, but developments in evolutionary biology in recent decades have not only vindicated his claim, but gone further, demonstrating that mutual aid between species is an important factor in evolution. Particularly important has been the work of Lynn Margulis, which Stephen Harrod Buhner briefly summarizes in The Lost Language of Plants :
"Margulis was intrigued by the fact that mitochondria in cells have their own genes. Mitochondria are the cell's intracellular power factories and supply the energy for all metabolism. Standard theory had it that only the genes in the nucleus of cells had any importance, the genes in mitochondria were considered irrelavant. Marguli eventually realized that mitochondria were once free-living bacteria that had been incorporated into cell to power their metabolism. This, and other discoveries led to her revolutionary understanding of the nature of the evolution of complex life-forms.
"Margulis discovered that all complex life developed from an original symbiosis of four different bacteria: archaebacteria, spirochetes, cyanobacteria, and oxygen-breathing bacteria. After this early unification other kinds of bacteria were incorporated into the structure of cells. Genetic mapping and comparison to free-roving bacteria have proved that three of these bacterial forms were incorporated into the first nucleated cells. The remaining step is proving that spirochetes, or wriggling bacteria were incorporated into cell to give them mobility. In essence, all nucleated cells were formed from the fusion of individual bacteria. Unlike individuals joined together to form entirely different, more complex entities these organisms had the characteristics of the simpler bacteria as well as more unique qualities that come from the synergy of the fusion."
Working with James Lovelock, Margulis later applied a similar model to looking at the planet, putting forward the Gaia hypothesis -- the idea that the Earth itself is a self-regulating living system.
Both these ideas raise fundamental questions about the nature of the self:
If our bodies are a community of smaller organisms, and in turn are dependent on their symbiotic relationships with other beings, does it really make sense to define our skins or our auras as the boundaries of ourselves?
If the self doesn't begin or end at the boundary of its skin, do we bring something new into the world when we form an emotionally symbiotic relationship with someone else?
And now that we know that we ourselves are communities of interdependent beings that are in turn part of larger symbiotic communities, isn't defending any living system an act of self defense?