Cooperative genes in smart systems: Toward an inclusive new synthesis in evolution.

For more than half a century, biologist Julian Huxley's term, the "Modern Synthesis", has been used as a label for a model of biological evolution where genetic influences are viewed as a principal source of creativity and change. Over the years, as evidence has accumulated that there are many other, far more important factors at work in evolution, theoretical "compromises," such as the so-called "Extended Synthesis", have been proposed. This is no longer tenable. It is time to abandon the Modern Synthesis, and its doppelganger "The Selfish Gene". Here is the case for a new, multi-faceted, open-ended, "inclusive" evolutionary synthesis, where living systems themselves are recognized as purposeful (teleonomic) "agents" and cooperative effects (synergies) of various kinds are seen as all-important influences.

The synergism hypothesis (revisited): a theory whose time has come?

A major theoretical issue in evolutionary biology over the past two decades has concerned the rise of complexity over time in the natural world, and a search has been underway for "a Grand Unified Theory" - as biologist Daniel McShea characterized it - that is consistent with Darwin's great vision. As it happens, such a theory already exists. It was first proposed many years ago in The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution, and it involves an economic (or perhaps bioeconomic) theory of complexity. Simply stated, cooperative interactions of various kinds, however they may occur, can produce novel combined effects - synergies - with functional advantages that may, in turn, become direct causes of natural selection. In other words, the Synergism Hypothesis is a theory about the unique combined effects produced by the relationships between things. I refer to it as Holistic Darwinism; it is entirely con - sistent with natural selection theory, properly understood. Because the Synergism Hypothesis was first proposed during a time when the genecentric, neo-Darwinist paradigm was domi nant in evolutionary biology, it was largely overlooked. But times have changed. Biologist Richard Michod has concluded that "cooperation is now seen as the primary creative force behind ever greater levels of complexity and organization in all of biology." And Martin Nowak has called cooperation "the master architect of evolution." Here I will revisit this theory in the light of the many theoretical developments and research findings in recent years that are supportive of it, including the role of symbiogenesis in evolution, the phenomenon of hybridization, lateral gene transfer in prokaryotes, "developmental plasticity" (evo-devo), epigenetic inheritance, the role of behaviour (and teleonomy) in evolution, and gene-culture coevolution. The Synergism Hypothesis is especially relevant to the evolution of humankind.

A systems theory of biological evolution.

Contrary to the formulation in the so-called Modern Synthesis, biological evolution has been primarily a history of living systems rather than of individual genes, and it has always been a contingent dynamic process - an always at-risk "survival enterprise." The hallmarks of life on Earth have been persistence (survival), inheritance (reproduction), and functional change over time (adaptation, evolution, and extinction). In addition, living systems have two other distinctive properties: teleonomy (evolved purposefulness) and cybernetic "control information" (the capacity to control the capacity to do work). This ages-long evolutionary process has been animated by energy inputs/throughputs. Over time, its trajectory has also been shaped by functional synergy (combined, or co-operative effects that could not otherwise be attained) and by Synergistic Selection (the differential survival of synergistic effects/systems). Thus, biological evolution has been a dualistic process - both competitive and cooperative.

"How" vs. "Why" questions in symbiogenesis, and the causal role of synergy.

Mutualistic symbiosis, we now know, is a ubiquitous phenomenon in the natural world. And, in every case, there was an initial "genesis" - a "how" process that may have been at once unique to each situation and perhaps also shared a common set of facilitators. However, a full explanation of symbiogenesis also requires an answer to the "why" question, for natural selection is a stringent economizer. Something as contrarian as mutualistic cooperation between "differently named" organisms must also provide functional advantages for the participants that will be favored by natural selection (differential survival and reproduction). Enter the "Synergism Hypothesis" - the thesis that synergistic functional effects of various kinds are a common cause of cooperative relationships of all kinds in nature, including symbioses. When different organisms have complementary capabilities that are mutually beneficial and cannot otherwise be attained, the benefits derived from symbiotic cooperation will outweigh the costs. Among the many documented cases of symbiogenesis over time, lichens provide perhaps the most familiar, well-studied example, while the eukaryotes are often cited as a game-changer. The answer to the "why" question was, in each case, determinative for symbiogenesis.

"Thermoeconomics": Time to move beyond the second law.

The term "thermoeconomics" denotes a paradigm shift in our understanding of the role of energy in living systems, and in evolution. It is based on the proposition that energy in biological evolution can best be defined and understood, not in terms of the Second Law of Thermodynamics but in terms of such economic criteria as productivity, efficiency, and especially the costs and benefits (or "profitability") of various mechanisms for capturing and utilizing energy to build biomass and do work. Thus, thermoeconomics is fully consistent with contemporary evolutionary theory. Functional criteria provide a better explanation of the advances (and recessions) in bioenergetic technologies in evolution than does any formulation derived from the Second Law.

Beyond the modern synthesis: A framework for a more inclusive biological synthesis.

Many theorists in recent years have been calling for evolutionary biology to move beyond the Modern Synthesis - the paradigm that has long provided the theoretical backbone for the discipline. Terms like "postmodern synthesis," "integrative synthesis," and "extended evolutionary synthesis" have been invoked by various critics in connection with the many recent developments that pose deep challenges - even contradictions - to the traditional model and underscore the need for an update, or a makeover. However, none of these critics, to this author's knowledge, has to date offered an explicit alternative that could provide a unifying theoretical paradigm for our vastly increased knowledge about living systems and the history of life on Earth (but see Noble 2015, 2017). This paper briefly summarizes the case against the Modern Synthesis and its many amendments over the years, and a new paradigm is proposed, called an "Inclusive Biological Synthesis," which, it is argued, can provide a more general framework for the biological sciences. The focus of this framework is the fundamental nature of life as a contingent dynamic process - an always at-risk "survival enterprise." The ongoing, inescapable challenge of earning a living in a given environmental context - biological survival and reproduction - presents an existential problem to which all biological phenomena can be related and comprehended. They and their "parts" can be analyzed in relation to ethologist Niko Tinbergen's four key questions. Some basic properties and guiding assumptions related to this alternative paradigm are also identified.

"Synergistic selection": a Darwinian frame for the evolution of complexity.

Non-Darwinian theories about the emergence and evolution of complexity date back at least to Lamarck, and include those of Herbert Spencer and the "emergent evolution" theorists of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In recent decades, this approach has mostly been espoused by various practitioners in biophysics and complexity theory. However, there is a Darwinian alternative - in essence, an economic theory of complexity - proposing that synergistic effects of various kinds have played an important causal role in the evolution of complexity, especially in the "major transitions". This theory is called the "synergism hypothesis". We posit that otherwise unattainable functional advantages arising from various cooperative phenomena have been favored over time in a dynamic that the late John Maynard Smith characterized and modeled as "synergistic selection". The term highlights the fact that synergistic "wholes" may become interdependent "units" of selection. We provide some historical perspective on this issue, as well as a brief explication of the underlying theory and the concept of synergistic selection, and we describe two relevant models.

Holistic Darwinism: the new evolutionary paradigm and some implications for political science.

Holistic Darwinism is a candidate name for a major paradigm shift that is currently underway in evolutionary biology and related disciplines. Important developments include (1) a growing appreciation for the fact that evolution is a multilevel process, from genes to ecosystems, and that interdependent coevolution is a ubiquitous phenomenon in nature; (2) a revitalization of group selection theory, which was banned (prematurely) from evolutionary biology over 30 years ago (groups may in fact be important evolutionary units); (3) a growing respect for the fact that the genome is not a "bean bag" (in biologist Ernst Mayr's caricature), much less a gladiatorial arena for competing selfish genes, but a complex, interdependent, cooperating system; (4) an increased recognition that symbiosis is an important phenomenon in nature and that symbiogenesis is a major source of innovation in evolution; (5) an array of new, more advanced game theory models, which support the growing evidence that cooperation is commonplace in nature and not a rare exception; (6) new research and theoretical work that stresses the role of nurture in evolution, including developmental processes, phenotypic plasticity, social information transfer (culture), and especially the role of behavioral innovations as pacemakers of evolutionary change (e.g., niche construction theory, which is concerned with the active role of organisms in shaping the evolutionary process, and gene-culture coevolution theory, which relates especially to the dynamics of human evolution); (7) and, not least, a broad effort to account for the evolution of biological complexity--from major transition theory to the "Synergism Hypothesis." Here I will briefly review these developments and will present a case for the proposition that this paradigm shift has profound implications for the social sciences, including specifically political theory, economic theory, and political science as a discipline. Interdependent superorganisms, it turns out, have played a major role in evolution--from eukaryotes to complex human societies.

"Fair shares": beyond capitalism and socialism, or the biological basis of social justice.

The accumulating scientific evidence -- across many disciplines -- regarding human evolution and the dualities and complexities of human nature indicates that the core ideological assumptions of both capitalism and socialism are simplistic and ultimately irreconcilable. A biologically grounded approach to social justice enables us to articulate a new ideological paradigm that I call ''Fair Shares.'' This paradigm consists of three complementary normative principles. First, goods and services should be distributed to each according to his or her basic needs. Second, surpluses beyond the provisioning of our basic needs should be distributed according to merit. And, third, each of us is obliged in return to contribute to the ''collective survival enterprise'' in accordance with his or her ability. Though none of these three principles is new, in combination they provide a biologically informed middle way between capitalism and socialism. Some of the many issues that are raised by this formulation are also briefly addressed.