The Lucifer Principle

The book is written in colloquial English, but less so than Mr. Bloom's next book, Global Brain. I think he made a major effort to present his views in common language, because this is an appeal to the lay audience to overrule the experts. I think most workers in fields related to Biology still do not agree with Mr. Bloom's point of view. Anyway, while I did start the reading with an "open mind," I became increasingly troubled as I proceeded. In the end, I found myself opposed to the underlying ideas Mr. Bloom presents. Unfortunately, that makes it more difficult to read the follow-on work.

One of the most disturbing feelings I had was increasing cynicism as the chapters unfolded. Mr. Bloom's examples seemed more and more intended to criticize a political or social order (liberalism) that he does not openly identify. (Bloom's style is reminiscent of Bernard Goldberg's Bias.) He does have a long chapter on Islam which is reasonably prophetic about Al Qaeda and what happened after this writing. Most of the chapters are short essays showing how his ideas apply in the situations he describes. But I think there is a trick in the descriptions: they are not complete. So, I take most of the chapters as anecdotes, illustrations of the points he wishes to make. I don't think he proves his thesis, although the text makes it seem reasonable.

Mr. Bloom gives us a couple of different definitions of the Lucifer Principle. Early in the book, he writes "... The Lucifer Principle contends that evil is woven into our most basic biological fabric." (p. 3) Moreover, "He [Lucifer] is a part of the creative force itself. Lucifer, in fact, is Mother Nature's alter ego." (p. 4) At the start, I take this to mean that what Mr. Bloom calls "Lucifer" is much like Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction." The Lucifer Principle has about five foundational concepts:

1. The Principle of self-organizing systems
2. The Superorganism
3. The Meme
4. The Neural net
5. The Pecking Order

which he describes on p. 10. Three of these, self-organizing systems, the superorganism, and the neural net are ideas previously discussed in a similar context by Peter Russell in The Global Brain Awakens, which Mr. Bloom references.

At the end of the book, it appears the underlying principles have shrunk somewhat: "Superorganism, ideas, and the pecking order - these are the primary forces behind much of human creativity and earthly good. They are the holy trinity of the Lucifer Principle." (p. 326) I don't know why he used the word "ideas," when Mr. Bloom had used "memes" in so many other places throughout the book. But, between the start and the finish, there may have been an unconscious shift in Mr. Bloom's attitudes.

The last half of the book, particularly, seems dominated by stories illustrating pecking orders. The unspoken, but omnipresent principle, of these stories is inequality. Mr. Bloom must believe inequality exists at a very fundamental level of nature. Neither individuals nor species are created equal, setting the stage for struggles for dominance. What Mr. Bloom's anecdotes show is how animals and people are opportunists, taking advantage of others for selfish gain. Yet, this seems anomalous, because he is an opponent of Dawkins' proposed selfish gene.

The reconciliation, if that is what it is, starts on p. 97, "From Genes to Memes." It appears the genes are, after all, selfish, as Dawkins says, but organisms are transformed by memes into social beings. "... Richard Dawkins's [sic] concept of the replicator ... squares brilliantly with the reality of upwardly spiraling life, but the eminent zoologist's individual selectionist contention that self-reproducers operate on their own ... fails to fit the facts. Despite the high degree of competition between individuals in evolving systems, every form of replicator is nestled in a team " (p. 97)

Before attending to memes - a central theme of the book - I note Bloom's phrase, "upwardly spiraling." That is, indeed, his phrase, not Dawkins', and not that of (neo-)Darwinian evolutionists generally. The phrase reveals an almost unconscious attitude in this book, that the evolution of living things is directional, akin to Victorian Progress, Marxism, Hegelian Idealism (Fascism), triumphal Capitalism and all the other theories which posit ends in history.

This is exactly the point I most strongly resist, as I contend there is no teleology in physical nature or organic evolution..The word "evolution" merely designates a change of state from one thing or situation to another. "Evolves" is almost a synonym of the even more neutral "changes," neither of which implicitly call for an order. Evolution differs from mere change in supposing a sequence of some sort; i.e., a changing of A to B thence to C, etc. The sequence might be governed by a rule, but that is not necessary to evolution. On the other hand, if a sequence is generated by a rule, then it would not be amiss to point out the evolution of that sequence. (That would be to notice the changing elements of the sequence.) While there may be an order in organic evolution, it is not necessary. The proof of ordered evolution is more specific and detailed than the mere observation of change. For one thing, it would require a mechanism. Mr. Bloom purports to supply that mechanism: the meme.

Memes were invented by Dawkins to explain social changes that seem to parallel genetic evolution. Bloom takes over memes, and makes them into slavedrivers. Bloom's central notion appears in "Society as a Neural Net" (p. 140). In this chapter, Bloom shows how a society is similar to neural nets in having nodes and connections. He explains "feedback" as the mechanism that makes a bunch of transistors into a neural network and the mechanism which regulates socieites. His explanation of feedback tilts the playing field, as illustrated in his examples. For example, according to Bloom, bees and people die off when they fall out of favor because of negative feedback. All of his examples are like that, which involves a misunderstanding of the electronic starting point.

In electronic neural nets, unfavored nodes do not become dysfunctional or get destroyed. Negative feedback turns 1s into 0s and vice versa. In the electronic version, both the "favored" and "unfavored" elements are required to produce the output. Neural nets do not "find" a result by destroying portions of themselves; rather,  the result is an integration of both negative and positive feedbacks. For example, a neural net might point in the correct direction by summing several pointings in different directions. The results of neural networks are statistical in nature, not determinate.

In order to comport his notions of memes and neural networks, Bloom changes the definition of evolution. "Evolution is not just a competition between individuals. It is a competition between networks, between webs, between group souls. The new forms evolving on the face of this planet are not resident only in the features of individual animals or men. ... The new forms are impalpable and invisible." (pp. 144-145)  In wars and other competitions, "... the struggle is not a battle of men but a battle of networks, learning machines bound together by memes ... From a history filled with these contests, the far-flung webs and invisible networks rear up ever higher into a lofty stratosphere of form, hurling the world toward its destination of an ever-more complex future." (p. 145) So, evolution has a destiny, and that destiny is controlled by social networks of successful memes.

What is a meme? Essentially it is an idea, but according to Bloom it is also an idea that infects organisms. For Bloom, memes have some sort of independent existence over and above their existence in any individual.  "Bodies are usually the genes' racing machine, but memes have driven a radically different kind of device onto the field. Their contraptions of choice are extended social groups. These superorganismic vehicles are big and complex, but their advantages are awesome, speed, maneuverability, and incalculable horsepower." (p. 195) The memes not only use individuals, but collections of individuals. In Bloom's view, the memes are in charge. In subsequent chapters, he writes anecdotes which show how things happen in the struggle for dominance guided by memes. There are two important aspects to Bloom's meme concept: pecking order (competition ) and superorganism (neural network). We wouldn't notice memes unless there was competition, because memes are the organizing principle of the competition. In order to win, the memes bring together individuals into societies (superorganisms). Then, the best memes win.

Bloom's view of things is not mine, and not scientific. I avoided using "memes" in writing GSQ, as it is a fad word, especially among political consultants, scientists and their students. They use the term in a manner similar to Bloom's, as though the meme had a life of its own. Perhaps it is better to leave it at that, in order to distinguish the sort of idealistic or realistic talk implied by memes from "ideas." Ideas happen in people's minds, and, Plato notwithstanding, they are inseparable from that physical reality. We may find ideas in books or other places, but that is something physical marks evoke in adequately trained people. I think there are plenty of ideas in Etruscan works, but even the experts are still unable to decipher most of them. The ideas don't impress themselves on us.

Perhaps this is a chicken and egg problem. It is clear that social groups behave according to social rules, but we need not attribute that behavior to memes or any other controlling agency. If we load the same program into a bunch of computers, all those with the same internal wiring will execute it similarly while the others crash or jam. Did the software create the hardware? In our experience, of course not. There was an independent evolution of hardware - chips, wiring, boards, etc - for which people eventually developed matching software. In most cases, more than one kind of software will run on a piece of hardware. Some software runs on almost all hardware. But whatever the software is able to perform on a piece of hardware is the result of an interaction, not an independent existence. People can and do describe the software as if it exists "in itself," but that is only because it is simpler to do that. In reality, it is common knowledge that WINDOWS^TM is designed for PCs, not MACs, so does not have an independent existence.

As I understand Darwinian, neo-Darwinian or Punctuated Evolution, change occurs at the genetic level for a number of well known biochemical reasons. Some of these changes endow the organism with a better ability to survive and reproduce than others. Most of the changes are either lethal or invisible (cryptic). When an organism has a better ability to survive and reproduce than others, after an environmental change, it is said to have adapted. "Adaptation" is the general label or class applied to organisms that succeed. In the scientific use of :"evolution," genetic change does not come about for any purpose. Genetic change happens when physical, chemical and biological conditions are right. Whether that change is expressed as a phenotype, and whether that phenotype has an adaptive advantage ("is adaptive"), is determined by  observation. For scientists, where evolution is going is simply unknown, even though we may sometimes have a few clues. If there is any scientific prediction about genetic, phenotypical or adaptive change, it is a testable hypothesis based on the observations of past conditions.

In my work, I attribute human behavior to "culture." For me, culture is an observable complex of beliefs, habits and rituals. I believe this is a scientific use of the term in the same manner as we use "evolution." Culture and society, unlike Bloom's memes and superorganisms, do not have an independent existence. They are based on observables and exist only in human minds as theories. For me and most scientists, first came the hardware, then the software (being precedes consciousness). The software only exists as an invention of intelligent creatures. Contrary to Bloom's many anecdotes, bees don't know about any software running them, even if some people think they do.

In reflecting on Bloom's book, I have a vague sense of queasiness. He spends a lot of ink on pecking orders. From this I infer he believes in the fundamental competitiveness of all living things. I also infer that he must endorse ultra-capitalism, since his model of the biological world seems the same as that economic one. I cannot avoid the conclusion that he believes the strongest will survive in human affairs, and that is the way it ought to be. I think his attitude is Nietzschean.

Mr. Bloom believes the United States is undergoing decline and fall, based on his comparison to Victorian England. But his prediction is not like mine: he apparently believes the United States is failing because it does not trample the weak. Mr. Bloom several times makes the argument, now known as "Moral Hazard," that it is a mistake to mollycoddle the weak, the diseased and the disabled - the inferior. Nature intends the successful to wipe out the unsuccessful. He derides terms like freedom, peace and justice as ploys to undermine the top dog. In short, Mr. Bloom most reminds me of the Eugenicists and Social Darwinians who were on a rampage prior to World War I, and have recently returned disguised as Libertarians and Free Marketeers to plague us.

While this book created a stir a decade or so ago, most of its content has since been ignored and forgotten. By his own test, the Bloom meme is not directing any superorganisms. Evolution has passed it by.