Source: https://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/articles/modeling_of_biological_and_social_phases_of_big_history/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:49:30+00:00

Document:
The present article represents an attempt to move further in our research on the similarities and differences between social and biological evolution (see Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2012). We have endeavored to make a systematic comparison between biological and social evolution at different levels of analysis and in various aspects. We have formulated a considerable number of general principles and rules of evolution, and worked to develop a common terminology to describe some key processes in biological and social evolution. In particular, we have introduced the notion of ‘social aromorphosis’ to describe the process of widely diffused social innovation that enhances the complexity, adaptability, integrity, and interconnectedness of a society or social system (Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2008, 2009a, 2009b). This work has convinced us that it might be possible to find mathematical models that can describe important features of both biological and social macroevolution. In the first part of this article we survey general similarities and differences between the two types of macroevolution. In the second (and main) part, we consider a concrete mathematical model that we deem capable of describing important features of both biological and social macroevolution.
Further, regarding information transmission mechanisms, it appears possible to speak about certain ‘evolutionary freaks’. Some of these mechanisms were relatively widespread in the biological evolution of simple organisms, but later became less so. Consider, for example, the horizontal exchange of genetic information (genes) among microorganisms, which makes many useful gene- tic ‘inventions’ available in a sort of ‘commons’ for microbe communities. Among bacteria, the horizontal transmission of genes contributes to the rapid development of antibiotic resistance (e.g., Markov and Naymark 2009). By contrast, this mechanism of information transmission became obsolete or was transformed into highly specialized mechanisms (e.g., sexual reproduction) in the evolution of more complex organisms. Today, horizontal transmission is mostly confined to the simplest forms of life.
Despite its aforementioned limitations, it appears reasonable to continue the comparison between the two types of macroevolution following the analysis offered by Hallpike (1986). Therefore, it may prove useful to revisit the pertinent observations of this analysis here. Table 1 summarizes the similarities and differences that Hallpike (Ibid.: 33–34) finds between social and biological organisms.
Just as he fails to discuss interactions and developments at the level of the supra-organism in great detail, Hallpike does not take into account the point in social evolution where new supra-societal developments emerge (up to the level of the emergence of the World System [e.g., Korotayev 2005, 2007, 2008, 2012; Grinin and Korotayev 2009b]). We contend that it is very important to consider not only evolution at the level of a society but also at the level above individual societies, as well as the point at which both levels are interconnected. The supra-organism level is very important to understanding biological evolution, though the differences between organisms and societies make the importance of this supra-level to understanding social evolution unclear. Thus, it might be more productive to compare societies with ecosystems rather than with organisms or species. However, this would demand the development of special methods, as it would be necessary to consider the society not as a social organism, but as a part of a wider system, which includes the natural and social environment (cf., Lekevičius 2009, 2011).
Biological evolution is more additive (cumulative) than substitutive. Put another way: the new is added to the old. By contrast, social evolution (especially over the two recent centuries) is more substitutive than additive: the new replaces the old (Grinin, Markov, and Korotayev 2008, 2011).
The first type of amalgamation is rather typical, not only in social but also in biological evolution. There is, however, a major difference between the two kinds of evolution. Any large society usually consists of a whole hierarchy of social systems. For example, a typical agrarian empire might include nuclear families, extended families, clan communities, village communities, primary districts, secondary districts, and provinces, each operating with their own rules of interaction but at the same time interconnected. This kind of supra-societal amalgamation can hardly be compared with a single biological organism (though both systems can still be compared functionally, as is correctly noted by Hallpike ). Within biological evolution, amalgamations of organisms with more than one level of organization (as found in a pack or herd) are usually very unstable and are especially unstable among highly organized animals. Of course, analogues do exist within the communities of some social animals (e.g., social insects, primates). Neither should we forget that scale is important: while we might compare a society with an individual biological organism, we must also consider groups of organisms bound by cooperative relationships (see, e.g., Boyd and Richerson 1996; Reeve and Hölldobler 2007). Such groups are quite common among bacteria and even among viruses. These caveats aside, it remains the case that within social evolution, one observes the emergence of more and more levels: from groups of small sociums to humankind as a whole.
Fig. 2 presents the overall correlation between the curve generated by von Foerster et al.'s equation and the most detailed series of empirical estimates of world population (McEvedy and Jones 1978, for the period 1000–1950; U.S. Bureau of the Census 2013, for 1950–1970). The formal characteristics are: R = 0.998; R2 = 0.996; p = 9.4 × 10–17 ≈ 1 × 10–16. For readers unfamiliar with mathematical statistics: R2 can be regarded as a measure of the fit between the dynamics generated by a mathematical model and the empirically observed situation, and can be interpreted as the proportion of the variation accounted for by the respective equation. Note that 0.996 also can be expressed as 99.6 per cent. Thus, von Foerster et al.'s equation accounts for an astonishing 99.6 per cent of all the macrovariation in world population, from 1000 CE through 1970, as estimated by McEvedy and Jones (1978) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2013). Note also that the empirical estimates of world population find themselves aligned in an extremely neat way along the hyperbolic curve, which convincingly justifies the designation of the pre-1970s world population growth pattern as ‘hyperbolic’.
When united in one system, Malthusian and Kuznetsian equations account quite well for the hyperbolic growth of the world population observed before the early 1990s (see, e.g., Korotayev 2005, 2007, 2008, 2012; Korotayev, Malkov et al. 2006a). The resultant models provide a rather convincing explanation of why, throughout most of human history, the world population followed the hyperbolic pattern with the absolute population growth rate tending to be proportional to N2. For example, why would the growth of population from, say, 10 million to 100 million, result in the growth of dN/dt 100 times? The above mentioned models explain this rather convincingly. The point is that the growth of world population from 10 to 100 million implies that human subsistence technologies also grew approximately 10 times (given that it will have proven, after all, to be able to support a population ten times larger). On the other hand, the tenfold population growth also implies a tenfold growth in the number of potential inventors, and, hence, a tenfold increase in the relative technological growth rate. Thus, the absolute technological growth rate would expand 10 × 10 = 100 times as, in accordance with Eq. 4, an order of magnitude higher number of people having at their disposal an order of magnitude wider technological base would tend to make two orders of magnitude more inventions. If, as throughout the Malthusian epoch, the world population (N) tended toward the technologically determined carrying capacity of the Earth, we have good reason to expect that dN/dt should also grow just by about 100 times.
There is also another possible mechanism of second-order positive feedback between diversity and its growth rate. Recent research has demonstrated a shift in typical relative-abundance distributions in paleocommunities after the Paleozoic (Wagner et al. 2006). One possible interpretation of this shift is that community structure and the interactions between species in the communities became more complex. In post-Paleozoic communities, new species probably increased ecospace more efficiently, either by facilitating opportunities for additional species or by niche construction (Wagner et al. 2006; Solé et al. 2002; Laland et al. 1999). This possibility makes the mechanisms underlying the hyperbolic growth of biodiversity and human population even more similar, because the total ecospace of the biota is analogous to the ‘carrying capacity of the Earth’ in demography. As far as new species can increase ecospace and facilitate opportunities for additional species entering the community, they are analogous to the ‘inventors’ of the demographic models whose inventions increase the carrying capacity of the Earth.
The same is probably true for biodiversity. The overall shape of the diversity curve depends mostly on the differences in the mean rates of diversity growth in the Paleozoic (low), Mesozoic (moderate), and Cenozoic (high). The Mesozoic increase was mainly due to a lower extinction rate (compared to the Paleozoic), while the Cenozoic increase was largely due to a higher origination rate (compared to the Mesozoic) (see Markov and Korotayev 2007: 316, figs. 3a and b). This probably means that the acceleration of diversity growth during the last two eras was driven by different mechanisms of positive feedback between diversity and its growth rate. Generally, the increment rate ((No −Ne)/Δt) was changing in a more regular way than the origination rate No/Δt and extinction rate Ne/Δt. The large-scale changes in the increment rate correlate better with N2 than with N (see Markov and Korotayev 2007: 316, Figs 3c and d), thus supporting the hyperbolic rather than the exponential model.
Grinin L. E., and Korotayev A. V. 2009b. Social Macroevolution: Genesis and Transformations of the World System. Moscow: LIBROKOM. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В. Социальная макроэволюция: Генезис и трансформации Мир-Системы. М.: ЛИБРОКОМ).
Grinin L. E., Korotayev A. V., and Malkov S. Yu. 2008. Mathematical Models of Socio-Demographic Cycles and Escape from the Malthusian Trap. Problems of Mathematical History: Mathematical Modeling of Historical Processes / Ed. by G. G. Malinetsky, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 78–117. Moscow: URSS. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Коротаев А. В., Малков С. Ю. Математические модели соци­ально-демографических циклов и выхода из мальтузианской ловушки. Проблемы математи­ческой истории. Математическое моделирование исторических процессов / Ред. Г. Г. Малинецкий, А. В. Коротаев, с. 78–117. М.: URSS).
Grinin L. E., Malkov S. Yu., Gusev V. A., and Korotayev A. V. 2009. Possible Directions for Further Development of Socio-Demographic Cycle Theory and Mathematical Models of the Escape from the Malthusian Trap. History & Mathematics: Processes & Models / Ed. by S. Yu. Malkov, L. E. Grinin, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 134–210. Moscow: URSS. In Russian (Гринин Л. Е., Малков С. Ю., Гусев В. А., Коротаев А. В. Некоторые возможные направления развития теории социально-демографических циклов и математические модели выхода из мальтузианской ловушки. История и Математика: процессы и модели / Ред. С. Ю. Малков, Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Коротаев, с. 134–210. М.: URSS).
Grinin L. E., Markov A. V., and Korotayev A. V. 2011. Biological and Social Aromorphoses: A Comparison between Two Forms of Macroevolution. Evolution: Cosmic, Biological, and Social / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, R. L. Carneiro, A. V. Korotayev, and F. Spier, pp. 162–211. Volgograd: Uchitel.
Korotayev A. V. 2009. Compact Mathematical Models of the World System Development and Their Applicability to the Development of Local Solutions in Third World Countries. Systemic Development: Local Solutions in a Global Environment / Ed. by J. Sheffield, pp. 103−116. Litchfield Park, AZ: ISCE Publishing.
Laland K. N., Odling-Smee F. J., and Feldman M. W. 1999. Evolutionary Consequences of Niche Construction and Their Implications for Ecology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96(18): 10242–10247.
Lekevičius E. 2009. On Some Analogues between the Evolution of Ecosystems and Economic Development: From A. Smith and C. Darwin to the Newest Ideas. Evolution: Cosmic, Biological, and Social / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, A. V. Markov, and A. V. Korotayev, pp. 226–259. Moscow: LIBROKOM. In Russian (Лекявичюс Э. О некоторых аналогиях между эволюцией экосистем и развитием экономики: от А. Смита и Ч. Дарвина до новейших идей. Эволюция: космическая, биологическая, социальная / Ред. Л. Е. Гринин, А. В. Марков, А. В. Коротаев, с. 226–259. М.: ЛИБРОКОМ).
Lekevičius E. 2011. Ecological Darwinism or Preliminary Answers to Some Crucial Though Seldom Asked Questions. Evolution: Cosmic, Biological, and Social / Ed. by L. E. Grinin, R. L. Carneiro, A. V. Korotayev, and F. Spier, pp. 101–121. Volgograd: Uchitel.
Reeve H. K., and Hölldobler B. 2007. The Emergence of a Superorganism through Intergroup Competition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104(23): 9736−9740.
Solé R. V., Montoya J. M., and Erwin D. H. 2002. Recovery after Mass Extinction: Evolutionary Assembly in Large-Scale Biosphere Dynamics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 357: 697–707.
 The second characteristic (p, standing for ‘probability’) is a measure of the correlation's statistical significance. A bit counter-intuitively, the lower the value of p, the higher the statistical significance of the respective correlation. This is because p indicates the probability that the observed correlation could be accounted solely by chance. Thus, p = 0.99 indicates an extremely low statistical significance, as it means that there are 99 chances out of 100 that the observed correlation is the result of a coincidence, and, thus, we can be quite confident that there is no systematic relationship (at least, of the kind that we study) between the two respective variables. On the other hand, p = 1 × 10–16 indicates an extremely high statistical significance for the correlation, as it means that there is only one chance out of 10,000,000,000,000,000 that the observed correlation is the result of pure coincidence (a correlation is usually considered statistically significant once p < 0.05).
 In fact, with slightly different parameters (С = 164890.45; t0 = 2014) the fit (R2) between the dynamics generated by von Foerster's equation and the macrovariation of world population for 1000–1970 CE as estimated by McEvedy and Jones (1978) and the U.S. Bureau of the Census (2013) reaches 0.9992 (99.92 per cent); for 500 BCE – 1970 CE this fit increases to 0.9993 (99.93 per cent) with the following parameters: С = 171042.78; t0 = 2016.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.