I really liked the part of emergence that compared cities to brains. I’ve always wondered about this type of concept: what sorts of things can experience evolution? In an earlier part of Emergence, the author stated that anything that reproduces imperfectly and is faced with conditions that create a struggle for resources can evolve. So, one could then say that, for instance, our cells experience evolution. An individual cell needs energy, which it gets from the food broken down in our bodies, to survive. Also, our bodies only get a finite amount of energy at any given time, so one could imagine that some sort of competition exists between our cells to get a hold of this energy. After all, a cell that is better programmed to get at the food it needs is able to survive longer, and replicate (except in the case of brain cells, I think). So why don’t the cells in our stomach, which get the first dibs on food, selfishly take it all for themselves? It better ensures their survival, at least in the short run, to not share. So why do they share?
You can’t answer this question by examining it at the level of the cells themselves. You have to look at the larger structure: the human being. I have no idea how these cells got together and decided to form this larger structure, but once they did, it became in their favor, in the long-term this time, to not be selfish. If our cells all rebelled against the system and tried to hoard all of the food for themselves, we would die, which would mean they would die. So we have natural selection, and evolution, happening on two very different scales here. And it is obvious by the fact that we can walk and talk that the larger scale predominates. Why would the larger scale predominate, and what does this imply about even higher orders of evolution?
I imagine that higher orders of evolution predominate over longer time scales. Natural selection acts over the scale of generations. Generation times are much much shorter for cells than for humans. So, one could theoretically expect cell evolution to be important over shorter time spans, time spans we don’t care about. But over the time scales that matter to us, our evolution wins out. Now, what about higher time scales? Eventually, if the inhabitants of a city run rampant, without regard to a higher social order, the city will be destroyed, or at least, not worth living in. One could say that there is an evolution occurring amongst cities. They compete for resources, and those that compete best survive the longest. One could say that only those with “smart inhabitants” (analogous to “smart cells”—ones that aren’t completely selfish) will survive and prosper. One problem I see with this idea is the following: do cities really meet all the conditions for evolution that Dawkins described in The Selfish Gene? Specifically, in what way do cities evolve? It could just be that cities have an indefinitely long generation time, so the question is not “Who can best reproduce” but instead “Who can live the longest?” I don’t know. What do you think?