In my first book “The emergence of complexity” I have tried to find answers to the question how complex systems can emerge from simple rules and parts. Where does the marvellous complexity we see in the world around us come from? The answer is of course life and evolution. The rules of evolution are well known. What we can do is nevertheless finding interdisciplinary connections to increase our understanding of evolution in general. One thing I have tried is for instance to apply concepts from physics like tunneling in Quantum Mechanics to evolutionary fitness landscapes.

Quantum tunneling is a quantum mechanical phenomenon where a wave function can propagate through a potential barrier. Unlike a classical particle which can not pass through such a barrier a particle in quantum mechanics can tunnel through a potential barrier. The wave function of a quantum particle describes the probability of finding the particle in this place. Inside of the barrier it is exponentially decreasing. The larger the barrier, the lower the probability that it can tunnel through it. We can indeed apply the concept of tunneling through a barrier to complex adaptive systems. For example a startup which tries to find a way to generate revenue is like a quantum particle that moves through a barrier. The longer it takes, the lower the probability it can make it. It needs to borrow enough venture capital to pass the barrier and to invent new technologies. If the startup is successful, it leads to the emergence of new companies.

The emergence of religions and nations can be similar: as a proto-state a colony depends for a long time on the occupying colonizer and often borrows ideas from them. In ancient Israel, people borrowed ideas from the Babylonian (law codes), Egyptian (temples) and Phoenician (alphabets) cultures to invent their own religion, which eventually lead to the evolutionary transition from tribalism to “scribalism” [1]. Can we model this transition from tribalism to scribalism and eventually to nationalism by an agent-based model, even if the real history is based on a complex narrative [2] ?

Agent-based models of the different *-isms like tribalism, communism, nationalism, authoritarianism or fascism would require multi-dimensional evolutionary models which describe how large collective entities like states and nations develop and dissolve on multiple levels. This is difficult because even one-dimensional evolutionary models can exhibit complex predator-prey dynamics. But if we succeed, we can gain valuable insights from these modeling attempts [3] using the toolbox of complex adaptive systems [4].

As far as I know there are no agent-based models of fascism so far, although it can be understood like cancer as a social dysfunction. Like cancer, fascism can be seen as an aggressive selfish rebellion of an entity that does not want to obey the social contracts in the community of other entities. Cancer cells are rule-breaking cheaters in a multi-cellular organism [5] which applies to dictators in authoritarian and totalitarian systems as well. They relentlessly break and bend the rules: they lie, steal, murder or invade neighboring countries. Nevertheless they also depend on cooperation, but not necessarily the same cooperation which is common in the multilateral world they live in. If cancer can be described in general as a broken social contract, how can we model this social dysfunction within a community by a generic agent-based model that is applicable to social forms of cancer like fascism?

We have developed complex models of cooperation [6], but we still need to understand how selfish entities can break and bend the rules of cooperation that enable the existence of large-scale multi-cellular organisms [7]. If they use a form of cooperation, how does this cooperation differ from the cooperation in the original organism? Do they use a more ancient form of cooperation which lacks differentiation and is no longer in use but still available? Agent-based models of cancer (in biology) and fascism (in society) could help us to answer these questions and to untangle the complex systems which result from evolution.

When I read a blog post from Marion Blute (who wrote the book “Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution” [8]) it struck me that we can use another term from Quantum Mechanics for evolution: in humans biological and cultural evolution are “entangled”. It is this entanglement that makes us human, and which produces on a larger scale the various *-isms that cause so much trouble. Can we untangle the mysteries by using agent-based models? I would like to work on these questions in my remaining time.

[1] Mark Leuchter (Ed.), Scribes and Scribalism, Bloomsbury Academic, 2020

[2] Jacob L. Wright, War, Memory, and National Identity in the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge University Press, 2020

[3] Lars-Erik Cederman, Emergent Actors in World Politics: How States and Nations Develop and Dissolve, Princeton University Press, 1997

[4] John H. Miller, Scott E. Page, Complex Adaptive Systems, Princeton University Press, 2009

[5] Athena Aktipis, The Cheating Cell: How Evolution Helps Us Understand and Treat Cancer, Princeton University Press, 2020

[6] Robert Axelrod, The Complexity of Cooperation, Princeton University Press 1997

[7] Robert Axelrod, David E. Axelrod, and Kenneth J. Pienta, Evolution of cooperation among tumor cells, PNAS September 5, 2006 103 (36) 13474-13479

[8] Marion Blute, Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Solutions to Dilemmas in Cultural and Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2010

(Image from Gerd Altmann on Pixabay)

This week a podcast episode where David Sloan Wilson and Elliot Sober discuss multilevel selection made me wonder if moral outrage could be a mechanism which has evolved to reveal rule breakers and to discover selfish individuals in a group of altruists. What is moral outrage?

American neuroscientist Molly J. Crockett defines moral outrage as “a powerful emotion that motivates people to shame and punish wrongdoers”. She says moral outrage would be at least as old as civilization itself [1]. Outrage itself could be older since it is based on anger, and even monkeys and chimpanzees can express anger and outrage over inequity and unfair behavior. It begins with the offspring that protests if a sibling has received more maternal care. The classic example is the wrongdoer who steals food from a companion. Primates will protest against defectors who steal their food and punish them [2]

In human groups who adhere to social and moral norms which we learn from our parents outrage about unfair personal behavior of deceivers and defectors has apparently evolved into moral outrage which is triggered when a moral norm has been violated [1]. Moral outrage could be a mechanism which has evolved over time to reveal rule breakers and to discover selfish individuals in a group of altruists. Punishing defectors clearly increases the fitness of altruistic groups [4]. But before defectors can be punished the culprits must be identified, the members of a group must be aware of them and they must be aroused enough so that they are ready to punish the defector which has been unnoticed so far. This is the function of outrage.

In this sense moral outrage can be seen as an adaptation to defectors in altruistic groups. Just like disgust helps the body to get rid of toxic substances and fear helps to avoid external threats, moral outrage can help a group to identify defectors so that overly selfish individuals which violate social norms can be expelled or punished. Social norms can be as simple as “do not steal food from your companion” or “do not make secret plans to harm someone”, which even chimpanzees understand well (as we know since Frans de Waal’s book “Chimpanzee Politics” [3]).

Molly J. Crockett writes that moral outrage is indeed a powerful emotion that motivates people to shame and punish wrongdoers [1]. The problem is in the modern age of the 21st century the world has changed. The Internet can amplify this ancient mechanism on a global scale and result in things like “Cancel Culture” and “Wokeism”, where we get trapped in escalating conflicts characterized by righteous anger [5,6]. Paradoxically, an emotion that has evolved to ensure cooperation in small groups and tribes can lead to endless conflict and polarization in a globally connected society.

[1] Molly J. Crockett, Moral outrage in the digital age, Nature Human Behaviour, 1(11) (2017) 769-771
[2] Frans B.M. de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals, Harvard Univesity Press, 1996
[3] Frans B.M. de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes (25th Anniversary edition), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007
[4] Ernst Fehr, Simon Gächter, Altruistic punishment in humans, Nature Vol. 415 (2002) 137–140
[5] Amanda Ripley, High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out, Simon & Schuster, 2021
[6] Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, Vintage, 2012

(Chimpanzee image from Pixabay user suju-foto)

Religious texts are full of analogies and metaphors. Why? First of all because it is the way the mind works. Metaphors are the way the mind works, like combustion is the way a combustion engine works. As George Lakoff and Mark Johnson describe in “Metaphors we live by” [1] metaphors are a fundamental mechanism of the mind, because they are essential to understand abstract ideas. Whenever we want to understand an abstract idea we need to use metaphors or analogies, and religious texts are almost exclusively about abstract entities and topics.

Analogies are essential for the understanding of parables, fables & fairy tales too. Fairy tales are an important part of secular and national culture. People always wanted to be rich and famous, and in medieval times this meant to be like the king and his queen in his castle. We used to learn the fairy tales in school or from our parents and now in modern times by TV. In all these channels they are transmitted with high fidelity, as Kevin Llaland argues in his book “Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony” [2]. Stories like these remain constant for centuries. For instance in Germany there is an age-old fairy tale of the brothers Grimm named Frau Holle which is a parable that hard work is rewarded and laziness is punished. Fairy tales are similar to the parables in the Bible. A parable is a story based on an analogy or metaphor which is used to teach a moral lesson. This means it tells people what to do in an abstract situation.

We can consider fairy tales and parables not only as nice little stories, but as complex high level genes for abstract guidelines of behavior. Low-level genes such as “Thou shall not kill” or “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” give direct, simple commands. High-level genes are encoded in longer stories and parables. They give like oracles in ancient Greece hints and recommendations about behavior in complex situations. The parable of the Good Samaritan for instance explains the importance of compassion and charity even towards people which we hate.

Religious texts are full of analogies and metaphors because they deal with abstract topics. And they contain plenty of parables. In this sense analogies indeed help to enable cumulative cultural evolution in the first place, as Charlotte Brand et al. argue in a new paper. Brand, Mesoudi and Smaldino argue that “analogy-building served a critical role in the evolution of cumulative culture by allowing humans to learn and transmit complex behavioural sequences that would otherwise be too cognitively demanding or opaque to acquire” [3].

The story of our evolution from ape-like ancestors to modern humans is long [4], but in my opionion analogies alone are not the essential step from primitive culture to cumulative cultural evolution though, as Brand et al. argue. The first higher civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia and ancient Egpyt started after the invention of writing systems, whether cuneiform or hieroglyphs, what mattered was the language was written down. The invention of writing systems was the crucial step for the transition to a new evolutionary system. Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd are right if they argue that we are not made by biological genes alone [5]. We are made by multiple genes in multiple dimensions. A new writing system for a language offers the possibility to count people, grains and cattle, but it can also store completely genes of a new system.

If spoken language is persisted by writing systems, then culture cam turn into cumulative cultural evolution, because written language can be used to create new systems, including new evolutionary systems. It can contain recipes and instructions which can be copied, replicated and extended. It can be used to specify genes, from short and simple genes to long and complex genes.

[1] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, “Metaphors we live by”, University of Chicago Press, 1980
[2] Kevin Laland, “Darwin’s Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind”, Princeton University Press, 2017
[3] Charlotte O. Brand, Alex Mesoudi, Paul Smaldino, “Analogy as a Catalyst for Cumulative Cultural Evolution”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Mar 23 (2021)
[4] Lesley Newson and Peter Richerson, “A Story of Us – A New Look at Human Evolution”, Oxford University Press, 2021
[5] Peter Richerson and Robert Boyd, “Not by genes alone”, University of Chicago Press, 2005

Image references:
–Unsplash image of religious book from Aaron Burden
–Unsplash image of Eltz castle from Dan Asaki

Our DNA contains about 20,000 genes. They are embedded in large non-coding parts which include a number of dead genes. Dead genes resemble functional genes but are inactive. We have only just begun to unravel their stories. According to this PBS Eons video we are not just defined by the genes that we have gained over the course of our evolution, but also by the genes that we have lost along the way. As an example it cites the gene “Gulop” which was used to produced Vitamin-C but is now non-functional.

Are there any examples for dead genes in holy scripts, i.e. lost genes in the social world? They should hide in the non-coding regions and look like a functional gene which has become inactive and has lost its function or meaning. In my book I try to explain the difference between coding and non-coding regions: non-coding regions are the parts which contain no instructions, rules or commandments but descriptions of geography, ancestry, history or simply actions of actors, for example parts where Paul travels to Cyprus or Moses climbs on a mountain. The important parts are the pieces of advice that Paul writes in his letters or the commandments on the stone tablets that Moses brings back from the mountain. They are the genes which contain rules that affect and change behavior.

If the environment changes during the course of history, a gene can became defunct. Some parts of life remain the same even if centuries go by: wine is still produced from grapes which grow in vineyards, olive oil is made from olive trees and people still would like to have what their neighbor has. Some parts of life have changed though: we no longer make bloody sacrifices of animals in temples, and there are no slaves or witches anymore in the modern world of the 21st century.

An example for a lost defunct religious gene is therefore Exodus 22:18 which says that a witch or sorceress should be killed. While it may have one reason behind the terrible witch-hunts in medieval times, today the meaning of the word witch has changed or “mutated”: there are no such persons anymore except in fictional books from J.K. Rowling. Even if the gene is expressed, it has no function, and will not change any behavior, because it no longer has a meaning. The commandment has become inactive.

Similarly there are no slaves or sacrifices anymore, so Exodus 22:2 and Exodus 23,18 are other examples of inactive genes. Slaves have been the precursors of employees, but today they do not exist anymore. Sacrifices have been the precursors of taxes. All commandments which are about slaves or sacrifices are now dead genes. We no longer sacrifice animals alive but pay taxes to the tax office of the state.

Just like Vitamin-C is essential for humans, money is essential for the maintenance of the church. In this sense the sacrifices of animals and food which no longer takes place is the counterpart of Vitamin-C which is no longer produced. The big Christian churches have lost in some countries (at least in Germany) the ability to generate enough money to pay the maintenance costs for churches and priests. Taxes are collected by the state and the churches receive the money from the state, just like we receive the Vitamin-C we need from external sources.

More about the hidden genes that hide in our holy books can be found here.

( DNA Image from Arek Socha on Pixabay )

In physics there is a phase transition between a gaseous state where every molecule moves in isolation, a liquid state where loosely coupled molecules flock together and a solid state where strongly coupled molecules stick together permanently in a rigid way. The direction from gas to fluid is called condensation, the opposite direction is called vaporization.

Swarm formation in a social system which is composed of many independent agents is like a phase transition from gaseous to liquid state. There is a (second order) phase transition for actors between a state where everyone acts in isolation and follows his own intentions, and a collective state where actors in a swarm stick together like fluid molecules in a bubble and eventually form a group.

When does the transition happen? The group cohesion in a swarm obviously changes depending on how well the group building rules are known and applied. If the cohesion of the group crosses a critical threshold, groups start to emerge and isolated actors condense to a group, or they start to dissolve again and the group vaporizes. If a group forms at all and what properties it has depends on how tightly or loosely the agents adhere to social norms that keep the group together.

The critical parameter if a phase transitions happens is not temperature or pressure as in the case of fluids, but the period of the teaching interval, which is a measure for rule adherence if the agents are forgetful actors that need to be taught regularly. Here is a simulation result from my book “Hidden Genes” which describe the phase transition depending on the teaching interval. Have you ever wondered why all major Abrahamic religions require a weekly meeting at a 7 days interval where the rules are taught? Well, without these meetings people originally would start to forget the rules and the group would dissolve – or vaporize like a bubble that turns into gas.

Once a swarm has formed, it has certain properties. A liquid maintains a fairly constant density and viscosity, a group maintains a certain cohesion. As Michele J. Gelfand has argued we can distinguish between tight cultures which adhere strictly to collective rules and social norms, and loose cultures which adhere less tightly to the rules. Is this helpful to complete an evolutionary view of life, as David Sloan Wilson argues in his recent book? I think yes.

( Droplet image by ju Irun from Pixabay )

* Michele J. Gelfand, “Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World”, Scribner, 2018
* Michele Gelfand on Tight and Loose Cultures in a TVOL Interview with David Sloan Wilson
* David Sloan Wilson, “This View of Life: Completing the Darwinian Revolution”, Pantheon, 2019

Free will is one of the big problems of philosophy. A big question in philosophy is a problem where Daniel Dennett has written at least one book about it: ‘Consciousnes Explained’ about consciousness in 1991, ‘Darwin’s Dangerous Idea’ about evolution in 1995, ‘Freedom Evolves’ about free will in 2003, and ‘Breaking the spell’ about religion in 2006. The general opinion of Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Daniel Wegner (*) and others is is that free will is an illusion.

The hard problem of consciousness could be one of the reasons why we have the illusion of free will. Why? Well, from the outside a person seems to have free will in principle. Every free person can decide itself what it wants to do in a given moment. Normally we cannot predict what someone else will do – our understanding of the whole universe of personal beliefs, desires and intentions is blocked by the hard problem of consciousness, and the personality is like a locked house where all windows are closed.

We have no access. Only if we know persons really well and they grant us access to their life the situation changes – for instance if the person in question is your wife or husband for 30 years, a main character in a movie, or the subject of a criminal investigation. In whodunit films it becomes clear in the end why people have acted they way they did. If we know the detailed history, the likes and dislikes of a person, the goals, desires and intentions, then we can almost always say in hindsight why people acted the way they did.

We also can not say how someone else will feel. Everybody feels something different and is controlled by path-dependent subjective experience, which is unknown to others, because the individual is not transparent and the history is not known. We have not evolved the ability to “put ourselves in somebody else’s skin”. It is not impossible, but can be very difficult and requires detailed knowledge and imagination. This is the reason why Hollywood has invented cinemas to show us how what it is like to be somebody else (the GoPro cameras in modern days have the same function).

Once we investigate the life of a person, for example by a detective as part of a criminal investigation, or as movie viewers in a cinema, we start to understand why a person acts they way it does. Movies provide a window in the life of a person. The more we step into the footsteps of a person, the better we understand the personal feelings and indivual motives. Could it be that the same thing that prevents us from understanding subjective experiences of others – the hard problem of consciousness – also creates the illusion of free will? 

Leibniz who lived at the time of Spinoza and Descartes was one of the first philosophers who examined this question. He tried to reconcile determinism and free will, and used the metaphor of “windowless individuals” (in the context of his “monads”). In fact we can not see the personality of another person – unless we know the personal history or experience how a person acts and reacts through some kind of window to the life of the person, for example a book or a movie about the life of the person.

If there is no window where we can observe the life and therefore the personality of someone, we are lost, and can not see any direct influences on individual decisions and personal choices. In this sense the hard problem of consciousness is not only a problem, but also a solution of another problem: the combination of determinism and free will. The actions of a person are determined, but it is normally unknown to others by what influences. Because of this lack of knowledge the actions seem to be undetermined, although they are not. In this sense a lack of knowledge helps to create and to protect an illusion of freedom (of free choice and free will).

Spinoza, a Dutch contemporary of Leibniz, argued as well in his book “Ethics” that it is the lack of knowledge & awareness that helps to create the illusion of freedom:”Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined”.

If complete ignorance of a personality of someone else blocks our ability to predict the actions of that person, then intimate knowledge of someone allows us to predict how the person will act to a certain degree. You could say two minds have merged into one. In the same way intimate knowledge of the history of person allows us to experience the world as the person does, for example by seeing a movie about the life of a person. Watching this movie you experience the same events that the person has experienced. In this sense being married for 25 or more years is like watching the same movie, the movie of your life. Let us hope it is a good one 😉

( image of the house in Italy from wagrati_photo on Pixabay, image of the books from Unsplash user Chris Lawton, movie projector image from Rudy and Peter Skitterians on Pixabay)

* Daniel M. Wegner, “The Illusion of Conscious Will”, The MIT Press, 2002
* Daniel Dennett, “Freedom Evolves”, Viking Books, 2003
* Sam Harris, “Free Will”, Free Press, 2012

Why do some forms of fascism invade aggressively in neighboring territories, while others remain calm and confined to their borders? Under the influence of Bonapartism and Nazism, the French and the Germans invaded nearly every country in Europe. During the times of fascism in Italy, Mussolini invaded large parts of Africa. But the Spanish dictator Franco stayed neutral and fascism in Spain remained confined to the Spanish borders after the Spanish civil war. Similarly some forms of Islamism are perceived as hostile, for example ISIL in Syria and Iraq, or Islamism in Iran, while other states in the Gulf region are seen as useful, although they are similar in many aspects. Some gulf states for example are quite authoritarian and yet are treated well because they have plenty of oil.

Why did ISIL spread over large regions in Syria and Iraq? The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS or ISIL) is viewed today as a terror organization. It can be considered as an example of fascism as well, if we see it as an attempt to make a country in a crisis great again, by returning to some kind of political and religious proto-state. From the beginning it experienced heavy opposition from all sides that condemned the cruel activities of the group: it appeared early on the UN Sanctions List and was not even recognized as a state. This is not meant to be an excuse for cruel activities, more an attempt to understand the dyanmics in the overall system.

Why did Napolean invade nearly all of Europe? Well, after the French revolution the surrounding princedoms and kingdoms felt very threatened by the idea of a nation state. They behaved increasingly hostile towards France. Before France invaded continental Europe and created a total continental blockade against England from 1806 to 1813, the British Empire did the same to France. As part of the coalition wars against France after the French revolution England fought successfully against the French navy in the Battle of Trafalgar 1805 and blocked the French trade in a naval blockade of the French coasts in 1806. Revolutionary France was surrounded by a coalition of hostile kingdoms and princedoms.

I wonder if the aggressiveness of an authoritarian or even totalitarian system depends on the hostility of the environment. Or at least reflects it. Aggressiveness as adaptation so to speak. In a hostile environment, hostile systems might be the ones that survive best, and their hostility reflects the behavior of the environment.  For example authoritarian states which receive lots of money, military aid and economic support because they have plenty of oil probably will behave modestly. But authoritarian states which experience economic sanctions will probably behave aggressively or hostile.

It looks as if authoritarian systems expand aggressively because of two major factors: a) they are driven by the desire to make the own country great again and to restore a former glorious state (like former national grandeur, lost national honor, the glory of an imaginary caliphate, etc.), or b) they feel increasingly threatened by a hostile environment. For Italy during the time of Italian fascism the former was the main factor. Italy invaded Lybia, Ethiopia and wanted to occupy large parts of Africa not because Africa was hostile to Italy, but because Lybia was the only region Italy could expand to. Algeria was a French colony. Egypt occupied by British forces. Lybia was the only “open” region left. The invasion in Lybia and Ethiopia triggered in turn economic sanctions during the Abyssinia Crisis

I have created a small chart which tries to compare a “hostility score” to a “fascism index”. The fascism index is calculated from about 20 properties of the system which indicate how much freedom is restricted (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, lack of concentration camps, etc., and how many previously independent systems have been merged), while the hostility score reflects the amount of hostility a country faces (economic sanctions against the country or individuals, strong tariffs, lack of military aid and economic support, etc).

Russia has a high hostility score here because it is subject to strong economic sanctions, which reflect the fact that it invaded Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014. The international sanctions against Russia were imposed after the invasion of Ukraine, not before. Therefore they can not explain why Russia invaded Crimea in the first place, but both are nevertheless related, since the hostility of the environment mirrors the hostility of the country. Once economic sanctions are imposed, they can of course make the situation worse and increase the hostility of the country. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor for example was triggered by economic warfare of the US and especially by an oil embargo of the US against Japan.

Economic sanctions against Iran have a long and complicated history. The current economic sanctions against both Iran and North Korea are justified with the threat of Nuclear weapons. Yet if we look at the political system there does not seem to be a big difference. The authoritarian system in Iran is not that different from the authoritarian system in many neighboring Gulf States. They are similar in their disdain of democracy, freedom of speech and many other aspects.

Reality is complex. A look at the “hostility score” might help to explain why the Islamism in the Gulf States is not associated with a hostile invasion in neighboring territories, while Islamism in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) is linked to aggressive expansion. A state which receives a lot of money by economic support and military aid will more likely be grateful than hostile. An organization, movement or proto-state which encounters hostile reactions from all sides can only survive if it reacts hostile in turn.

It has been said when climbing mount Everest, the last hundred yards are the hardest. This is certainly true for writing a book as well. The longer it takes, the more difficult it becomes. The last meters are the worst. If you want it to be good, you have to read and proofread your own text over and over again until you cannot see it anymore and then still 10 times more.

But here it is, my new book named “Hidden Genes”, written in the last months of the global Coronavirus pandemic. I have sent a proposal to over 30 publishers, but almost all of them rejected the proposal. Therefore I have decided to publish it myself, using a self-publishing service. If you are an old-fashioned book lover like me, you can buy it here in the epubli shop or here at Amazon. I hope you will find it interesting, and the most typos should hopefully be eliminated now.

If you prefer to read the online version, you can download the PDF version of the book for FREE here: Hidden-Genes.

The book contains many insights posted before in this blog. It is also a bit of an adventure: to see if we can study things that can not be studied, if we can measure effects that can not be measured. Arthur C. Clarke said “the only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible”. In my opinion this journey was successful. The text contains in fact new, groundbreaking insights which you can read in this form nowhere else. I do not know why nobody else has discovered it before, except the few scientists who are mentioned in the book. Maybe nobody wanted to look. Or nobody dared to look. The Roman poet Virgil said 2000 years ago “fortune sides with him you dares”. Let us dare to have a look how the world works behind the scenes.

Are there any “hidden genes” in our world as the title suggests? Where are they hidden? And how do they work? The thesis of the book is that there are hidden genes that have not been recognized so far as what they are – genes that have the ability to create organisms if they are expressed regularly. They look different than classic DNA, but work in exactly the same way. The book shows where these hidden genes are exactly and how they are expressed (how often, by whom, and where), argues why this can go wrong, and explains what the result looks like. I hope it may help to inspire others on their journey to new insights. As J.W. Goethe said “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it”.

(DNA picture and Lightbulb picture are from Pixaybay user qimono)

The concept of a fractal dimension is simple. A straight line or curved line (circle) has dimension 1. A surface or area has the dimension 2. In real life lines are rarely straight but often rugged and crumpled. A crumpled line like the coastline of Britain has a fractal dimension between 1 and 2, of about 1.21. It can be measured by the box-counting method. Basically this box-counting method measures the degree of “crumpleness”: how much the object we measure covers a different, higher dimension. In our one dimensional case of the coastline this means if the object is slightly crumpled and resembles a curved line then the dimension approaches 1. If the object is strongly crumpled and fills nearly a whole area like a space-filling curve then the dimension approaches 2.

We can apply this concept of a fractal dimension to evolutionary systems, because there is more than one inheritance system in evolution. Jablonka et al. [1] identify different dimensions of heredity and evolution: the genetic dimension, the epigenetic dimension, the behavioral dimension and the symbolic dimension. All of these would be different inheritance systems and contain different forms of inheritable informations. The epigenetic dimension is reset for new generations though, and the symbolic dimension can only be found in humans. Most anthropologists like William Durham [2] or  Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd [3] are in favor of gene – culture coevolution or Dual Inheritance Theory (DIT). For a start, let us assume we have between 1 and 2 dimensions.

To measure how many different evolutionary systems we have we need to count the number of “genetic codes” that produce recipes for organisms. The genetic code in turn contains recipes to create genetic organisms. And if we try to count the fractal dimension for a complex evolutionary system which exhibts high phenotypic plasticity, it turns out that group selection has a fractal dimension close to 2, about 1.875. This means that group selection is actually an approximation of a new evolutionary system in an old one. For kin selection we arrive at a lower dimension of 1.25.

– normal biological evolution (fractal dimension of 1)

• biological genes in encoded, inheritable form

– kin selection (fractal dimension of 1+2/8=1.25)

• recipes for recognizing kinship
• recipes for specific tribal attributes: slogans

– group selection among primitive tribes (fractal dimension 1+4/8=1.5)

• recipes for recognizing and creating ethnic markers
• recipes for tools like a new snare or weapon

– group selection among ethnic groups (fractal dimension 1+7/8=1.875)

• recipes for altruistic behavior
• recipes for conserving trust
• new replicators in spoken form

– dual-level evolution (fractal dimension 1+8/8=2)

• cultural genes in encoded, inheritable form

The system we have today is high dimensional where the number of different evolutionary systems is much larger than 2. We have religious organizations, political parties, economic companies that exist in many multiple subsystems and economic sectors like primary, secondary and tertiary, media, nonprofit sector, etc). At best we can describe it as a multi-dimensional evolutionary system with a high number of dimensions.

( The picture for the fractal dimension of the coast of britain is from Wikipedia user Prokofiev )

[1] Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb, Anna Zeligowski, Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life, MIT Press, 2006

[2] William H. Durham, Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity, Stanford University Press, 1991

[3] Peter J. Richerson and Robert Boyd, Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, 2005

A recent discussion with Yuen Yuen Ang from the University of Michigan inspired me to write this short blog post. She is a China expert who has written numerous books on China, including “China’s Gilded Age. The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption” [1] and “How China Escaped the Poverty Trap” [2]). I do not agree with her positive view of China, because in my opinion one reason why China has been so successful is that they unleashed evil.

What does evil mean? Being evil can be very simple: just think about yourself, follow your selfish desires and do not even start to think about others. Lie, steal, cheat and bent or break any rule to follow your selfish instincts. This is the banality of evil on the level of the individual which Hannah Arendt described for the first time [3].

Evilnesss simply results from extreme selfishness. Being evil basically means being so selfish that you break elementary social rules or violate human rights in order to benefit from it. An individual can be evil, for instance a psychopath or a sociopath, but an organization, corporation or country can be evil too.

An organization is evil if it tortures the own people like the Catholic Church in the Spanish Inquisition [4] and the Roman Inquisition [5].

A corporation is evil if it produces deliberately products like pesticides that can cause cancer [6], if it violates worker laws or of it has inhuman working conditions.

A country is evil if it occupies other countries violently [8] or if it kills the own people just because they demonstrate peacefully, as China did during the Tiananmen Square protests which is symbolized by the image of the tank man [7]. In both cases basic human rights are violated.

Even life itself can be considered as evil. Remember Richard Dawkins and his “selfish genes”? It basically means all living organisms are the byproduct of selfish genes. Life itself is evil. The world is full of evil which competes on multiple scales and levels.

China is evil on multiple levels, from the bottom to the top. While the one child policy made sense from a demographic perspective, it has created a whole generation of little narcissistic emperors [9]. Narcissistic people are evil because they only think about themselves and how great they are. On the level of the companies many are either state companies or joint ventures who steal or copy ideas from foreign companies, or are under scrutiny because they violate working conditions. On the level of the state the single-party state is a totalitarian state which tolerates absolutely no criticism, kills peaceful demonstrators [7], puts people in concentration camps or re-education camps after a sham trial, and imprisons peaceful writers until they die, like the peaceful Nobel prize winner Liu Xiaobo [10].

Where would you rather live, in a democratic country like Taiwan, or in a totalitarian state like China where the state police can come any time at night, knock on your door and take you after a sham trial indefinitely to prison, just because you had an idea how to improve the state or dared to criticize the ruling party.

[1] Yuen Yuen Ang, China’s Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption, Cambridge University Press, 2020

[2] Yuen Yuen Ang, How China Escaped the Poverty Trap, Cornell Univeristy Press, 2016

[3] Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Viking Press, 1963

[4] Joseph Pérez, The Spanish Inquisition: A History, Yale University Press, 2005

[5] Christopher Black, The Italian Inquisition, Yale University Press, 2009

[6] Mitchel Cohen and Vandana Shiva, The Fight Against Monsanto’s Roundup: The Politics of Pesticides, Skyhorse, 2019

[7] Louisa Lim, The People’s Republic of Amnesia, Oxford University Press, 2015

[8] Tubten Khétsun, Memories of Life in Lhasa Under Chinese Rule, Columbia University Press, 2014

[9] Tamara Jacka, Andrew B. Kipnis, Sally Sargeson, Contemporary China: Society and Social Change, Cambridge University Press, 2013

[10] Liu Xiaobo, No Enemies, No Hatred, Belknap Press, 2011

(the image is from Wikipedia and shows a PLA guard )