Evolutionary Thrashing and Social Chaos

Society may be on the cusp of social chaos triggered by ‘Evolutionary Thrashing’, which could result in major social breakdown for many decades.

The ‘evolutionary thrashing’ phenomenon occurs when the rate of change in a system’s environment exceeds its capacity to effectively adapt or evolve, before again being overwhelmed by the next wave of change.

At the biological level this can result in an organism’s inability to reach its optimal potential, making it less fit and more susceptible to extinction. This is currently occurring on the planet at an unprecedented rate. Many species are finding it increasingly difficult to adapt to the continuous changes in their habitat resulting from global warming and human destruction, with a quarter of vertebrate species predicted to become endangered or extinct by 2050.

However the phenomenon of ‘evolutionary thrashing’ is not restricted to biological systems. According to David Tow’s recently published generic evolutionary theory, outlined in his book– The Future of Life: A Unified Theory of Evolution, it can apply equally to social systems, including human society.

In this generic scenario, the same laws and principles of evolution apply to all systems at the quantum information level. Support for this thesis has recently been provided by physicist Wojciech Zurek’s ground-breaking work on Quantum Evolution and Decoherence, analogous to Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Such ‘thrashing’ at the human level can therefore lead to ineffective decision-making, social breakdown and eventually chaos, before long-term optimal evolution reasserts itself.

Global warming is a significant primary driver of this process because it has the potential to adversely impact all the planet’s ecosystems, which in turn will affect most aspects of human civilization including its social and democratic institutions.

A high level of ongoing adaptation is therefore required, but if critical social needs cannot be met in response to rapidly changing constraints, dysfunctional outcomes on a global level such as increased conflict, work and lifestyle stress, loss of community cohesion etc, will inevitably result.

But global warming is not the only contributor to social evolutionary thrashing. The second major driver is globalization, which is also occurring at hyper-speed, resulting in the blurring and mixing of cultures, religions and social norms as populations spread across the planet.

This is most apparent for example in the emergence of the major geopolitical blocs such as the EU linking nations in Europe, Asia, America and Africa, together with an increasing number of regional groupings and cross-over trading and political alliances such as APEC. In addition, each of these networks is increasingly coordinating its influence through global decision-making bodies such as the United Nations and more recently the G20.

In order to manage global issues such as climate change, crime and terrorism, disease, natural and man-made disasters, refugee flows and the allocation of key resources such as food, water and energy, global cooperation will be essential. But at the same time, traditional cultural and commercial practices that have evolved sometimes over thousands of years are being swamped in less than a generation- the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms; resulting in racial blowback, which can trigger reactions such as paranoia and conflict.

The third major driver of hyper-change is the information and communication revolution, facilitated by the Internet and Web Mark 2.0 incorporating the new cyber-world of virtual reality, mobile communication, social media and instant information access.

This is beginning to accelerate exponentially, threatening to outpace the capacity of populations of both developed and developing countries to adapt their social and cultural practices relating to democratic, educational, legal, financial and governance processes. With a third of the world’s population, including developing nations, now connected via inexpensive mobile phones and laptops to this infinite resource, the rate of change will become hyper-exponential within the next few decades.

No-one disputes the benefits of this massive egalitarian knowledge gain, providing the potential to deliver quality of life improvements to both poor and rich nations- combating the adverse effects of poverty and climate change. But there is the real risk that such hyper-change will outstrip the capacity of humanity to absorb and utilize it to the best advantage, succumbing to the centrifugal forces that threaten rip the fragile fabric of society apart.

In the space of a generation, the rate of social evolution driven by these three mega-forces- global warming, globalization and knowledge acceleration, each catalyzing the others in a frenzy of complex feedback systems, now threatens to destabilize the foundations of human civilization.
Non-adaptive evolutionary thrashing is likely to reach a critical threshold within the next decade, mirroring the likely point of no return for global warming.
This effectively means that coordination and synchronization of the major practices and protocols for managing the planet will be essential. It will involve the intermeshing of not just trade, but decision-making on all critical social issues.

It will require the rapid creation and strengthening of common frameworks for managing commerce, finance, economics, education, science and technology- including the management of energy, food, water and air quality on a world-wide scale. This has already begun on a regional basis with the strengthening of the European Union and on a global basis since the recent financial melt-down with the creation of the G20.

In other words, it will demand achieving an excruciatingly fine balance between continuing to encourage the creativity, innovation and development that drives our civilization and the risk of social overreach, with the potential to implode it. Only global commitment and good will by all populations on the planet can achieve this resolution.

A Unified Theory of Evolution

In the latest version of his book- The Future of Life: A Unified Theory of Evolution, the Director of the Future of Life Research Centre- David Hunter Tow provides additional confirming evidence for a generic basis for the evolutionary process, extending the Darwinian paradigm beyond biology.

David Tow believes that the ramifications of such a unified theory are immensely significant, ranging from greater insight into the evolutionary origins and future of life, to a deeper understanding of the relationship between the evolution of life and the wider universe.

The theory represents the first comprehensive formulation of the hypothesis that evolution is the unifying force underlying the dynamics of all processes in the universe- both organic and inorganic. These include all facets of life’s existence and human knowledge including the sciences, technology, arts, humanities and religion.

It is further proposed that evolution at its core is a quantum information process, which can be modeled using complex decision networks.

Over recent years in particular there has been an increasing debate about the limits of Darwin’s original evolutionary paradigm, with a number of scientists and philosophers postulating extensions beyond biology to encompass behaviour, ideas, culture and technology.

However, no theory has previously attempted to demonstrate that all processes in the universe might be governed by the same evolutionary principles, using an information and network paradigm to underpin its verification.

The first edition of this book was published in 2000 and provided significant empirical evidence to support the original hypothesis; drawn from the vast spectrum of human knowledge including- biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, ecology, cosmology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, artificial intelligence and philosophy.

This was a radical reinterpretation of evolutionary theory, postulating that all processes in the universe, beyond biological phenomena, are governed by the same core evolutionary principles at the information level.

The second version published in 2006, extended the original hypothesis by defining the underlying theoretical basis for such a unified theory, in the form of the D-Net model- Decision-Network Evolutionary Theory- based on quantum information and network theory.

This third version of the theory in 2010, now draws all the evidential threads together, updating the empirical evidence and providing additional rigour to the D-Net model.
Of particular significance cited in support of the theory, is compelling evidence from Wojcieck Zurek’s ground- breaking research, published in 2009, on Quantum Darwinism- induced superselection by the environment of preferred quantum states or ‘Einselection’.
In addition, a number of case studies straddling evolution at the generic level have been outlined, across the range of key natural phenomena.

The overwhelming weight of such evidence at both the empirical, as in Darwin’s methodology and current theoretical level, provides strong Bayesian statistical support for the theory.

The book also explores the implications for the future of life and humanity, on this planet and in the universe.
Understanding and interacting with the evolutionary process at this deeper and more comprehensive level, offers in the author’s opinion, a clearer and more intuitive view of both our past and future.

Further development of this theory will now rest with the wider scientific community. Hopefully the framework defined in this book will provide a catalyst for a vast new field of knowledge discovery that will lead to a brighter future for all life.

A preview of this book is freely accessible from Google Books

Life Creates Life

The first artificial life form has been created by human biological life. Humans have crossed the rubicon of creation by bypassing natural evolution and by designing the first artificial life form, have opened the floodgates of life’s evolutionary future.

Craig Venter and his team were the first scientists to sequence the human genome and have now created the first artificial life-form; a tiny new bacterium or synthetic cell, controlled by human engineered DNA, with its genetic instructions determined by human life.

The scientists have made a synthetic copy of the genome of a bacterium- Mycoplasma mycoides. This man-made genome was then transplanted into a related bacterium- Mycoplasma capricolum. This process “rebooted” the cell so that it was controlled by the synthetic genome, transforming it into another species. The cell has since divided more than a billion times.

The creation of this living organism is the culmination of 15 years of research, costing more than $47 million. But the cost is miniscule in comparison with its glittering potential benefits. It promises a new industry, generating synthetic bacteria capable of cleaning up pollution, producing new forms of green chemicals and fuels, capturing CO2 in designed algae and providing vaccines against disease.

The creation of life has been an ongoing human endeavour for at least 50 years, since Stanley Miller successfully synthesised amino acids, essential for the formation of proteins and life, using simple molecules such as water, ammonia and methane, exposed to an energy source such as ultraviolet radiation.

Since that time a number of paths have been taken by researchers to recreate the genesis of life including-
Resurrecting extinct species- such as the marsupial Tasmanian tiger and Woolly mammoth- extracting still viable DNA and implanting it in related species such as the Tasmanian devil and African elephant. But the notion of resurrecting Einstein or Shakespeare as present-day geniuses is highly doubtful, because evolution is not just a product of genes, but is a dance between genetics and the environment.

Re-engineering current species- reversing evolutionary changes and genetic switches to recreate the previous ancestor; for example producing teeth in chickens as birds related to ancient dinosaurs. The importance of this technique is that it demonstrates life as a continuum, with many of the genes from yeast and fruit flies still existing in modern humans.

Cloning new species- this can be achieved using the technique of hybrid speciation, which involves first mating two closely related species, such as single-cell yeasts. A small percentage of the offspring spontaneously clone themselves and some also change gender, thereby creating a new species of yeast.

The current artificial life-form has been created by manipulating of the code of life– the chemical bases needed to develop artificial chromosomes and therefore novel amino acids, proteins and life.

Producing new life-forms to order by designing novel DNA, is a comparatively recent process. It is a direct consequence of recent successes in sequencing DNA as well as the creation of component genome databases. This facilitates the assembly of genetic buuilding blocks into living systems in the same way that electronic components are combined to manufacture circuits and chips or software modules to create business services.

Flexible and reliable fabrication technology, together with standardised methods and design libraries have enabled a new generation of biological engineers to already create new organisms from biological components from the ground up, providing the basis for the new science of synthetic biology.

Molecular biology has previously largely been applied as a reductive science, but now synthetic biologists are building organic machines from interchangeable DNA parts that work inside living cells- deriving energy, processing information and reproducing.

Concurrently with developments in synthetic biology, another new form of life- Intelligent Software Agents, have been developed by computer scientists, representing artificial life in the form of adaptable evolutionary software programs. These are designed to provide autonomous and cooperative problem-solving support to humans through the application of artificial intelligence- primarily evolutionary, swarm and knowledge-based algorithms.


But the Holy Grail of life’s creation – evolving a living cell from scratch- has yet to be achieved. This is because many separate initial evolutionary processes have to take place first, including the evolution of- cell containment vesicles, an optimal genetic code such as DNA or RNA with the machinery to translate it into amino acids and proteins; the incredibly complex epigenetic processes providing signaling pathways from the cell’s environment and methods to fine tune its basic DNA; plus the machinery of cell replication, development, apoptosis and metabolism etc

In a sense Venter’s achievement has relied heavily on hijacking the machinery of existing cellular operation– much as Einstein did by borrowing Riemann’s mathematical framework for his theory of relativity. In other words he piggy-backed a free ride to life.

But this doesn’t detract in any way from the monumental human achievement in understanding better the enigma of life and creating it afresh in its full glory.

Because of this breakthrough it will now be possible to create not only new bacteria, but eventually the complete spectrum of new life-forms – plants and animals, including perhaps a new species of humans. In other words bringing artificial life from the super-natural to the human-natural realm of creation.

This glittering potential is balanced by unforeseeable risks; a synthetic bacterium With the capacity to mutate and proliferate outside the lab, doing untold damage to the environment by accelerating new disease pathogens and affecting the genetic blueprint of crops and animals including humans. It also will have the capability to be used as a biochemical weapon.

But science’s Pandora’s Box has been opened yet again. Now there are three players in the great game of life- biological, artificial and virtual.
All three will have to learn to co-exist and accommodate with each other; as over time the biological, technological and social barriers dissolve and they eventually merge into a new form- Meta-life.

The Bayesian Brain

It is proposed by the author that the latest Theory of the Brain, based on Bayesian statistical methods, has connections to a wider Theory of Information that underpins the deep nature of the evolutionary process itself.

Theories of Mind provide a framework for investigating the capacity of humans to attribute thoughts, desires, and intentions to others; to explain and predict their actions and infer their intentions. The current theories of the mind and brain, developed over the last few decades, primarily focus on defining the mental behaviour of others through mirror neurons. These are a set of specialized brain cells that fire when an animal observes an action performed by another. Therefore, the neurons ‘mirror’ or reflect the behaviour of the other, as though the observer was itself acting. Such neurons have been directly observed in primates and now possibly humans and are believed to occur in other species including birds.

However despite an increasing understanding of the role of such mechanisms in shaping the evolution of the brain, previous theories have failed to provide an overarching or unified framework, linking all mental and physical aspects- until recently.
In a breakthrough by a group of researchers from University College London headed by neuroscientist Karl Friston, a mathematical law that may provide the basis for such a holistic theory has been derived.

This is based on Bayesian probability theory, which allows predictions to be made about the validity of a proposition or phenomenon based on the evidence available. Friston’s hypothesis builds on an existing theory known as the “Bayesian Brain”, which postulates the brain is a probability machine that constantly updates its predictions about the world based on its sensory perception and memory.

The crucial element is that these encoded probabilities are based on cumulative experience, which is updated whenever additional relevant data becomes available; such as visual information about an object’s location. Friston’s theory is therefore based on the brain as an inferential agent, continuously refining and optimising its model of the past, present and future. This can be seen as a generic process applied throughout the brain, continually adapting the internal state of its neural connections, as it learns from its experience. In the process it attempts to minimise the gap between its predictions and the actual state of the external world.

This gap or prediction error, can be defined mathematically in terms of the concept of ‘free energy’ used in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. This is defined as the amount of useful work that can be extracted from a system such as an engine and is roughly equivalent to the difference between the total energy provided by the system and its waste energy or entropy. In this case the prediction error is equated to the free energy of the system, which must be minimised as far as practical. All functions of the brain has therefore evolved to reduce the usage of free energy in relation to prediction errors.

As proof of concept, Friston created a computer simulation of the brain’s cortex or primary cognitive area, with layers of neurons passing signals back and forth. Signals going from higher to lower levels represented the brain’s internal predictions, while signals going the other way represented sensory input. As new information arrived, the higher neurons adjusted their predictions according to Bayesian theory.
When the predictions are right, the brain is rewarded by being able to respond more efficiently. If it is wrong, additional energy is required to find out why it is incorrect and come up with better predictions.

But the principle guiding this Bayesian model can be extrapolated to better understand the evolutionary process itself. In the author's soon to be published book- The Future of Life- A Unified Theory of Evolution, it is proposed that the process of minimizing prediction errors or in this case- useable energy, bears a striking similarity to the process of minimizing the information gap between a system’s environment and own internal state.

The system’s ability to minimize this gap determines its capacity to survive in accordance with an Information Law, first defined in the nineties by physicist Roy Frieden. This is based on Fisher Information, which provides a measure of a system’s accessible information, for deriving the dynamical equations of any process, including the physics of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity.

According to the author, it can also be applied to derive the dynamical equations of Evolution.

Bayesian mechanics can therefore be seen as an agent of the evolutionary process, providing a measure of a system’s capacity, whether a brain or species, to adapt in a changing physical or social landscape, by reducing the gap between its current and required knowledge states.

The Future of Religion

At the beginning of the 21st Century it is clear that 'religion' is a social phenomenon, an outcome of social evolution that is reaching a crisis point or apostasies. The evidence points to the conclusion that all major religions evolved in response to the urgent needs of society to rectify and reduce corruption and find meaning and support in difficult times. Religion also manifested in response to the need to fulfil a desperate craving for immortality and to explain the how and why of life's presence on this planet.
In essence, religions evolved to confirm the existence of an infinitely wise and powerful creator and the nature of creation.

However, at the beginning of the third millennium these raison d'etres are fast disappearing. The set of ethical and moral principles that coevolved as part of all religions are beginning to pass their use-by date. They are now taken as a given, encoded in legal conventions and entrenched as basic human rights by most societies. These early ethical and moral frameworks, enshrined in religion, are now generally accepted on a broad scale by peoples of all societies. Though still valid, they have now become mainstream.

The Ten commandments of Christianity; the Book of Life of Confucianism and the Koran of Islam, all provide a basis for the ethical and moral values of human behaviour; establishing 'good' codes of conduct which encapsulate the moral structure of future society. These were the norms that created the original basis for a future civil society.

But the great Chinese philosopher Lao-Tze, did not postulate a set of rules; rather he created a set of insights or self-organising principles by which society could evolve. Jesus Christ did a similar thing. Some of the early rules are now dated, as are the early theories of the physical universe, but many of the core truths remain valid. They were the encapsulation of wisdom by forward and radical thinkers of an earlier time. However, repeating them like a mantra doesn't enhance their validity. These early ethical principles evolved in response to the survival and potential needs of human society over the past 20 millennia. They will continue to evolve in response to tomorrow's needs.

By adopting literally what was enshrined in books over two thousand years ago, we are rejecting the capacity of humans to continue to adapt and learn and their ability to improve all processes. Ethical and moral principles will continue to evolve and of course have already done so. The meta-wisdom of 2000 years ago was invaluable to human progress, but like everything else it must continue to evolve in order to be relevant to future human societies; reflecting their requirements to a more relevant degree..

The need to find a creator is also rapidly reaching its use-by date. Evolution, quantum cosmology, the Big Bang etc, have all conspired to push the early metaphysical cosmogonies into the background of mythology. Even the ‘god of the gaps’ is in full retreat. The Pope now begrudgingly accepts Darwin and Galileo into the theological fold and the Big Bang has become the new moment of creation. But what created the Big Bang? Certainly not a god- just as a god did not create an earthquake or a flood or the earth.

Today's scientific explanations instead favour a quantum phenomena which triggered a rapid expansionary process, powered by a huge energy field. The use of a god, substituting in a causal context for real intellectual analysis does not explain anything. It is just a substitute for currently unknown causes- an intellectual cop-out. The big bang itself may be just one of an infinite number of creation events, each engineered by the evolutionary process through a recycling of energy. Whatever the cause, it does not advance human understanding by eternally repeating the nostrum that a god was responsible for it.

There appears to be no limit at this point in time to life's ability to acquire new knowledge. As seemingly insurmountable problems arise, new and novel techniques co-evolve to push the knowledge barrier back further. Therefore the God notion will continue to recede and attenuate. There have been periodic predictions that the number of new theories will eventually peter out. But this has been proved nonsensical. The ever-evolving Theories of Everything, marking the quest for the ultimate building blocks of the universe, is not the end of the search- just the beginning of our intellectual odyssey. One can understand religion’s past evolutionary benefit, but it is probably of greater benefit to humanity to now examine other equally optimistic but more rational scenarios for life's outcomes

The ‘god' concept on the other hand is basically an excuse for intellectual laziness. It is also a dead end as far as the knowledge discovery process goes. Having served its social purpose it is now not adding any new knowledge to human enlightenment, although it still offers a significant proportion of humanity with comfort. Cold comfort however when a tsunami strikes or its leaders are found to be complicit in criminal abuse against its most vulnerable believers.

A personal god has been a popular figment of the imagination for a long time; eternally and totally supportive of the lucky recipients of its beneficence. As with a personal trainer, a god will look after an individual's needs providing that person remains subservient to it; lavishing gifts and praise and asking for forgiveness, for real or imagined sins. A personal god is invoked by salesmen, politicians and the wealthy, as well as the poor, to guarantee longevity, redemption and overall success in their everyday lives.

Provided all protocols are carried out as required, the god will grant the acolyte special favours, such as ensuring continuation of life or in the best American new age tradition, making the individual seriously rich; while millions of the less privileged dye of starvation, AIDS or wars. The big payoff however- the glittering prize, is immortality. This means making it big time.
Immortality, Nirvana, Heaven is the potential pinnacle of life's attainment. For the wealthy it represents risk minimisation- to get to keep what they have acquired on earth. For the poor it represents their only chance to attain wealth and equality- all that they missed out on in their earthly life. At the most basic level it is a classic reward system, rewarding good behaviour and punishing evil as prescribed in all religions, combined with the carrot of eternal life.

Religion is at different times a great comfort to the deprived, oppressed, aged and infirm, but it doesn't solve their problems. In fact it often blocks progress as evidenced by the Hindu caste system, which decrees that the lower caste must remain at the lowest level of the social hierarchy, in the cause of social stability. Those who have had reduced opportunities in this life, such as the members of a lower caste, carry the hope of future equality. Those who have acquired substantial wealth sustain the hope of retaining it.

The afterlife, however, is not what it used to be. Not many now believe that the celestial fairy light canopy is the home of angels. Fewer and fewer believe that the prophet Jesus was immortal and not too many believe that the souls of sinners will burn in hell.
Heaven and Hell are increasingly seen to be metaphors, extremes of the spectrum of possibilities; a method of dispensing final justice in order to keep ethical and moral constraints on society, while at the same time maintaining the power of religious brokers. Even amongst the most rational there is a deep belief that those guilty of atrocities on earth must somehow receive a measure of justice in the afterlife and that innate goodness and truth will eventually be rewarded.

Unfortunately to date there is no hard evidence suggesting that this is the case; or that an afterlife exists except in our imagination. The need for an afterlife is however deeply ingrained. It obviously assists in the survival of the species at the most basic level, in terms of the need for nurture. At a deep level it provides the bonding so essential for the cohesion of the family, tribe or group.

For most animal species there is a dominant leader from which the group derives its strength and guidance. In the human species this is no less true, with the emergence of both family and tribal leaders, whether patriarchal or matriarchal. Obviously a god plays a similar role, all-powerful and all-wise, positioned at the peak of the pyramid. If this super-leader does not physically exist, then it can be anthropomorphically created in the abstract. There is evidence that humans appear to have evolved neural structures that reinforce such a hierarchy.

Love for the gods or spiritual love is no less real however than physical love. But the need for spirituality is another matter altogether. Spirituality manifests as an innate yearning, a quest for a deeper love and true enlightenment, a feeling of the numinous and of wonderment. Did this need for spirituality evolve as other emotions and feelings did? No doubt! It evolved to push the bounds of human potential. Without the urge to comprehend the unknown, to understand the unknowable and revel in the thirst for love, truth and knowledge, evolution would be less effective and life would lack most of its essential drive. Spirituality doesn't need a god but it does need a mystery.

All religions also come complete with a set of ethical guidelines such as the Ten Commandments. Although each set evolved independently of religion, prophets were able to successfully distil this knowledge from the social discourse and incorporate it within a religious framework. The framework therefore received moral authority from the God-head.This usually had the desired effect of establishing its credibility.

Each ethical standard has a genesis and a long history of trial and error; a sifting out of the essentials forming the basis or bedrock for a society. Ethical rules all aim to extend human potential and foster equality, compassion and human understanding. They also represent the basis for the evolution of the formal legal edifice that circumscribes our life today.

The evolution of emotions such as virtue, altruism, guilt, sadness etc. are also intimately linked to ethical guidelines such as sacrifice of the few for the many, reflecting feedback from countless social interactions; their successes and failures.

In the future, Churches are likely to transform into social organisations, already a major part of their function; providing essential support for the sick, poor, alienated and disenfranchised. Most churches now provide social and economic support functions in many countries. Churches have also recently migrated to the cutting edge of human rights. Religious orders such as the Jesuits and Buddhist Monks have long championed human rights as an imperative of the morality of their religions.

If freed from the baggage of the 'god' notion, religion’s ideals of charity, social justice, morality, truth and wisdom are likely to be attained far more effectively in the future.

The future of religion is therefore not difficult to divine. Its evolutionary origins and purpose are clear. Its future rests on the adaptive and cumulative wisdom of humans – not gods

Rebirthing HAL

The arrival of super smart evolutionary computers, capable of autonomous reasoning, learning and emulating the human-like behaviour of the mythical HAL in Arthur C. Clarke’s Space Odyssey 2001 is imminent.

The Darwinian evolutionary paradigm has finally come of age in the era of super -computing. The AI evolutionary algorithm which now guides many problem solving and optimisation processes, is also being applied to the design of increasingly sophisticated computing systems. In a real sense, the evolutionary paradigm is guiding the design of evolutionary computing, which in turn will lead to the development of more powerful evolutionary algorithms. This process will inevitably lead to the generation of hyper-smart computing systems and therefore advanced knowledge; with each evolutionary computing advance catalysing the next in a fractal process.

Evolutionary design principles have been applied in all branches of science and technology for over a decade, including the development of advanced electronic hardware and software, now incorporated in personal computing devices and robotic controllers.
One of the first applications to use a standard genetic algorithm was the design of an electronic circuit which could discriminate between two tone signals or voices in a crowded room. This was achieved by using a Field Programmable Gateway Array or FPGA chip, on which a matrix of transistors or logic cells was reprogrammed on the fly in real time. Each new design configuration was varied or mutated and could then be immediately tested for its ability to achieve the desired output- discriminating between the two signal frequencies.

Such evolutionary-based technologies provide the potential to not only optimise the design of computers, but facilitate the evolution of self-organisational learning and replicating systems that design themselves. Eventually it will be possible to evolve truly intelligent machines that can learn on their own, without relying on pre-coded human expertise or knowledge.

In the late forties, John von Neumann conceptualised a self-replicating computer using a cellular automaton architecture of identical computing devices arranged in a chequerboard pattern, changing their states based on their nearest neighbour. One of the earliest examples was the Firefly machine with 54 cells controlled by circuits which evolved to flash on and off in unison.

The evolvable hardware that researchers created in the late 90’s and early this century was proof of principle of the potential ahead. For example, a group of Swiss researchers extended Von Neumann's dream by creating a self-repairing, self-duplicating version of a specialised computer. In this model, each processor cell or biomodule was programmed with an artificial chromosome, encapsulating all the information needed to function together as one computer and capable of exchanging information with other cells. As with each biological cell, only certain simulated genes were switched on to differentiate its function within the body.

A stunning example of the application of Darwinian principles to the mimicking of life was development of the CAM-Cellular Automata Machine Brain in 2000. It contained 40 million neurons, running on 72 linked FGPAs of 450 million autonomous cells. Also the first hyper-computer- HAL-4rw1 from Star Bridge Systems reached commercial production in 2000. Based on FPGA technology it operated at four times the speed of the world's fastest supercomputer.
And at the same time NASA began to create a new generation of small intelligent robots called ‘biomorphic’ explorers, designed to react to the environment in similar ways to living creatures on earth.

Another biological approach applied to achieve intelligent computing was the neural network model. Such networks simulate the firing patterns of neural cells in the brain, which accumulate incoming signals until a discharge threshold is reached, allowing information to be transmitted to the next layer of connected cells. However, such digital models cannot accurately capture the subtle firing patterns of real-life cells, which contain elements of both periodic and chaotic timing. However the latest simulations use analogue neuron circuits to capture the information encoded in these time-sensitive patterns and mimic real-life behaviour more accurately.
Neural networks and other forms of biological artificial intelligence are now being combined with evolutionary models, taking a major step towards the goal of artificial cognitive processing; allowing intelligent computing systems to learn on their own and become experts in any chosen field.

Eventually it will be possible to use evolutionary algorithms to design artificial brains, augmenting or supplanting biological human cognition. This is a win-win for humans. While the biological brain, with its tens of billions of neurons each connected to thousands of others, has assisted science to develop useful computational models, a deeper understanding of computation and artificial intelligence is also providing neuroscientists and philosophers with greater insights into the nature of the brain and its cognitive processes.

The future implications of the evolutionary design paradigm are therefore enormous. Universal computer prototypes capable of continuous learning are now reaching commercial production. Descendants of these systems will continue to evolve, simulating biological evolution through genetic mutation and optimisation, powered by quantum computing. They will soon create capabilities similar to those of HAL in Arthur Clarke's "Space Odyssey 2001"- and only a few decades later than predicted.

However the reincarnation of the legendary HAL may in fact be realised by a much more powerful phenomena incorporating all current computing and AI advances - the Intelligent World Wide Web. As previously discussed, this multidimensional network of networks, empowered by human and artificial intelligence and utilising unlimited computing and communication power, is well on the way to becoming a self-aware entity and the ultimate decision partner in our world.

Perhaps HAL is already alive and well.

SETI- Aliens and Ethics

There has been a debate for many years within the general public and SETI communities as to whether aliens from other worlds, if they exist, would be human-friendly or aggressively predatory towards our civilisation.

The general consensus is that the latter is more likely.

This attitude is particularly relevant to the future planning of the SETI project, recently canvassed in the January 23rd issue of New Scientist. The discussion centred on whether it would be advisable to signal our presence on planet Earth by actively broadcasting a message to our intergalactic neighbours or to just continue passively scanning for their messages.

This debate is now beginning to have practical consequences for SETI and therefore deserves a closer and more sophisticated analysis. The pro-active alternative involves significantly greater investment and broader cooperation with both the scientific community and public in general.

Supporters of the negative side of the argument base their analysis primarily on our own past behavioural patterns. Humans have aggressively waged war throughout our evolutionary history. The inference therefore is that other intelligent species would do the same, reflecting this same aggressive archetype, which has been portrayed in numerous sci-fi scenarios.

However there are two fundamental oversimplifications, if not blatant non-sequiturs, supporting this argument.

Firstly, members of an animal genus may include both types of behaviour- in this case predatory and benign. Examples include meat and plant eating dinosaurs and more recently sharks such as the predatory Great White and the mild bottom-feeders such as the Wobbegong.

But the second flaw is more pertinent. Behaviour in a species is not a static property- it can be modified over time. Our civilisation is moving towards a phase change in its social awareness, following the last  14,000 years of social evolution since the end of the last ice age.

Although humans have waged war continuously over this period, with greater knowledge and hindsight we are beginning to comprehend more clearly its appalling consequences for future as well as current generations and the urgent need to avoid or mitigate its debilitating outcomes at all costs.

In the 20th century when the ferocity of conflict began to spiral out of control, threatening the very existence of our species, we began to construct an institutional and legal architecture to better reflect this awareness and safeguard our survival.

Evidence of this accelerating trend includes- the creation of global institutions such as the UN including the World Health Organisation and UNESCO, major advances in democracy, human rights and social justice, the creation of global Peace-keeping forces, implementation of critical treaties and protocols covering nuclear disarmament, war crime resolution, conflict mediation and outlawing the use of chemical weapons and land mines.
This new ethical framework will provide the basis for managing our civilisation in the future and provide the glue to hold it together in times of extreme stress such as during global warming.

Democracy with all its shortcomings has spread from 20 countries a hundred yeas ago to more than 130 nations today. In addition, the 27 countries in the European Union, which in the past waged relentless war on each other over hundreds of years, now live peacefully and productively in harmony.

In other words, as a civilisation becomes more knowledgeable and cogniscent of its history, a higher level of ethics and wisdom emerges. Once past a critical threshold of societal awareness, it is capable of transforming itself from an aggressive into a more peaceful entity. Our civilisation is now on the cusp of such a threshold.

But what drives this process towards a more peaceful self-sustaining state?

The rate of acquisition of knowledge by groups is largely independent of local social turmoil such as wars and internal conflict. It is instead dependent on the rate of exchange of information between a system- in this case human society and its broader cultural and economic environment. It is also dependent on the capacity of the system to process that information and generate an appropriate response.

History is replete with instances of 'barbaric hordes' overrunning more socially 'advanced' states, or of 'civilised' nations dominating more 'primitive' peoples. In both cases, the result is a transfer of information through the merging and adaptation of cultures, technologies and social structures. In many cases, the adjustment is unequal and painful, particularly for indigenous cultures, with valuable knowledge destroyed or suppressed in the process.

However the morality of the evolutionary process itself is neutral. Information and knowledge continues to be accumulated at faster and faster rates regardless of temporary blocks and losses; dependent only on the unstoppable need of society to expand its well-being and potential.

Over the past century, advances in computing and communications such as radio, television and now the digital  Web and mobile technology have facilitated this generation and transfer of knowledge at a breathtaking rate, resulting in the phenomenon of global knowledge convergence. This occurs when most nations are able to access, share and make decisions based the same core knowledge base.

And while information is being propagated at a massive rate, another meta-process is at work, sifting and winnowing out the useful outcomes required to ensure the most beneficial directions for life. This meta-knowledge comprises the essence of today’s ethics, morality and wisdom.

This is a constraining influence, ensuring the survival of life in the face of potentially extraneous, misleading or lethal data. The implications for society of this evolutionary juggernaut are enormous, as we enter this next and most significant phase towards a more peaceful civilisation.

This evolutionary process operates at a fundamental level. All forms of life categorise events and relationships broadly as either useful- capable of adding to the quality of life or irrelevant or wasteful, potentially reducing its value.
Relationships and knowledge are represented by a web of associative neural connections or patterns, which become firmly embedded not only in the individual’s memory, but in the group’s social consciousness. Such knowledge categories also require continuous feedback and adaptation to remain relevant to the process of winnowing value.

A framework of democratic and human rights provides the basis for good patterns in a society, in which all individuals have an equal opportunity to decide the type of government and society they need; in other words, the social, legal and economic framework for a civil society. In times of war and during periods of economic hardship, there is a major potential for a reduction in social value and pressure for disintegration of a civil society framework.

Transactions between individuals and sub-groups, related to work, health care or food distribution, all need to be mediated by ethical protocols and meta-rules such as ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. These are closely linked to the core protocols of human rights and are based on the benefits of reciprocity and cooperation.

In all instances the aim of such overriding rules is to ensure that life's potential is provided with the maximum opportunity to develop and avoid social implosion. This is the essence of the 'good' pattern. It allows life, human or otherwise, the opportunity to ratchet forward on its evolutionary path.

Wisdom is therefore a distillation or form of meta-knowledge essential to survival- feedback derived from outcomes of evolution. Ethics and morals are codified wisdom critical to life’s survival. They provide constraints on the destructive impacts of knowledge and extends beyond the taboos and moral codes enshrined in religious models. Ancient tribal wisdom evolved over tens of thousands of years, using the natural evolutionary process of trial and error; learning from those processes that enhance the potential of life and discarding those that don’t. Current wisdom derives from the same process but in a globally advanced age has the potential to be vastly accelerated.

In war, killing is still accepted by both aggressors and defenders as necessary. Overall however, killing is an extremely negative action, resulting in great loss of human potential not only for a society, but for the world as a whole.
In the future, preventative action will be taken to ensure conflict resolution by the world community, before it escalates out of control, resulting in overall convergence to the elimination of wars.

As evolution is a generic process, driving life in whatever form across the universe, it is reasonable to infer that a similar evolutionary process selecting for peace as outlined above, will also be the norm in other worlds.

Any civilisation that responds to our greeting and has the capacity to visit us in the near future would be infinitely further down the evolutionary knowledge path than us and have advanced through this wisdom threshold long ago.
Therefore despite all the Star Wars and intergalactic alien warfare mythologies, there is a very high probability that such a society would function at an advanced level of ethics and morality.

It is therefore time to put aside the same inherent biases that we have applied to other races on this planet in the past and peacefully welcome our intergalactic neighbours in the future.