This article is part of the series on Autonomy and Cohesion. It is the second part of the basic overview of the balance. If you haven’t read the previous part, I’d recommend doing so before reading further.
Cohesion Forces and ToolsIVO VELITCHKOVFEB 15, 202411ShareThis article is part of the series on Autonomy and Cohesion. It is the second part of the basic overview of the balance. If you haven’t read the previous part, I’d recommend doing so before reading further.
According to the Gaia hypothesis, which was proposed by the scientists Lovelock and Margulis in the 1970s, our planet should have been getting progressively warmer for millions of years, while our oceans should have been progressively more acidic as well. The fact that this hasn’t happened suggests a planet-wide complex system that is self-regulating, with planetary life and geological processes working together to stabilize planetary geology and climate. Despite its importance, this idea could not be previously tested due to its planetary scale.
In a recent paper, published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface, SFI External Professor Ricard Solé (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) and collaborators propose an experimental system that will test, on a small scale, the dynamics that regulate planetary processes. Using synthetic biology, they will test two engineered micro-organisms in a self-contained system to see if they can achieve a stable equilibrium.
This proposed setup is inspired by recent research in fermentation, which has typically required finely-tuned outside control, to achieve stable, regulated conditions, including a stable pH level. “There’s been recent work in trying to see if you can engineer microorganisms for fermentation so that they can self-regulate,” Solé says. “That was the key inspiration.” This experimental setup, which Solé and several of his students developed during a visit to SFI, has the potential to answer long-standing questions in the field about planetary-wide regulatory systems.
In this experimental setup, one strain will detect if the environment is becoming too acidic, and counteract the increasing acidity, while the other strain will detect if the environment is becoming too basic, and act to counteract this decreasing acidity. “Because these strains act on the environment, and the environment affects them, this creates a closed causal loop,” Solé said. “The idea is to show that under very broad conditions, they will stabilize to a constant pH level, as predicted by the original theory.”
Read the paper “A synthetic microbial Daisyworld: planetary regulation in the test tube” in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface (February 7, 2024) by Victor Maull, Jordi Pla Mauri, Nuria Conde Pueyo, and Ricard Solé. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2023.0585
System and portfolio approaches toolkitThis is an evolving repository of practical portfolio-design toolkits that emerged from our own experience working with governments and other partners in over 45 countries. We hope that these might help as you get started on your journey of discovering new approaches and perspectives. We’re always keen to connect and learn how these resources may be landing in other organisations and context, so do get in touch to let us know about your experience.
[Really interesting on relationship between decision-making, ‘managerial discretion’, law, symbolic/mythology responses, public, professional, and trade union perspectives, and how these evolve together]
In this episode, we explore two articles from Lauren Edelman, “Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law” from 1992 and “The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth” from 1999. These studies showed a wide variety of organizational responses to the enactment of civil rights legislation, but that certain responses were legitimated due to their success in symbolically showing effort in addressing discrimination and thus institutionalized across other organizations.
One of many ways I annoy people is saying that *arguing* about dynamical vs computational cognition, or mechanism vs function, or internalism vs 4e stuff… is *a stupid waste of time*
One of many ways I annoy people is saying that *arguing* about dynamical vs computational cognition, or mechanism vs function, or internalism vs 4e stuff… is *a stupid waste of time*
Demystifying the Principle of Subsidiarity: Balancing Autonomy with Cohesion in OrganizationsMark LambertzUnderstand. Enable. Create Value.3 articles FollowingFebruary 2, 2024
The field of cybernetics originated in the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s in a series of meetings sponsored by the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. Norbert Wiener named the field after the Greek word, cybernetes, for governor. In 1948 he defined cybernetics as control and communication in animal and machine. Social systems were soon added. Although originally based on the study of biological and social systems, information technology has progressed so rapidly, the prefix “cyber” now means either computers or the internet to most people. There are currently no academic programs in the U.S. that cover the broad field of cybernetics. The authors of articles in cybernetics journals used to be predominantly from the U.S. Now most articles are by authors from European countries or China. This paper reviews the history of cybernetics in the U.S. and other countries and points out some nontechnical aspects of cybernetics with security implications.
Cybernetics: A General Theory that Includes Command and ControlStuart Umpleby527 Views18 Pages1 File ▾History of ScienceThe field of cybernetics originated in the United States in the late 1940s and early 1950s in a series of meetings sponsored by the Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation. Norbert Wiener named the field after the Greek word, cybernetes, for governor. In 1948 he defined cybernetics as control and communication in animal and machine. Social systems were soon added. Although originally based on the study of biological and social systems, information technology has progressed so rapidly, the prefix “cyber” now means either computers or the internet to most people. There are currently no academic programs in the U.S. that cover the broad field of cybernetics. The authors of articles in cybernetics journals used to be predominantly from the U.S. Now most articles are by authors from European countries or China. This paper reviews the history of cybernetics in the U.S. and other countries and points out some nontechnical aspects of cybernetics with security implications.
An overly simplistic history of Cybernetics by S. A. Umpleby. W. R. Ashby was already doing "biological cybernetics" in the '50s ("Design for a Brain" was published in 1952). Also, having three "versions" of a "general systems" theory may defy its purpose.https://t.co/jYIqcEPJs0pic.twitter.com/mPyvjeTOYj
— ᛕᎥᕼᗷᗴᖇᑎᗴ丅Ꭵᑕᔕ (@Kihbernetics@qoto.org) (@Kihbernetics) February 6, 2024
An overly simplistic history of Cybernetics by S. A. Umpleby. W. R. Ashby was already doing “biological cybernetics” in the ’50s (“Design for a Brain” was published in 1952). Also, having three “versions” of a “general systems” theory may defy its purpose.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.