Anyone who is rather sceptical about the energon theory – and this of course initially applies to everybody – will have to take a closer look at the next two chapters. In these chapters I shall try to demonstrate the main error we make in our traditional way of thinking.

Let us just take the following example to illustrate the great difference between an organism and an economic structure developed by humans. Let us compare, for example, the body of a lizard with a major business enterprise such as an engineering works. In our eyes almost everything seems to be fundamentally different.

The body of a lizard is composed of tissue and organs which consist of living cells or are at least built up by them (like bones). In a factory we have walls made of stone and concrete, machines made of iron, furniture made of dead wood. The body of a lizard is an organically connate entity; in the factory the machines may be screwed down tightly, and everything may have more or less its proper place – a business enterprise is also a kind of entity – but the single parts are not organically connected. The people working in this factory move around freely. Where they differ in fundamentally, however, is in the origin of their individual "elements". In the case of the lizard, everything derived from a common germ cell – following the instructions of the hereditary material contained in the chromosomes, the body of the lizard developed slowly as a result of cell division and cell differentiation. The engineering works has a totally different origin. A businessman developed a plan in his mind which he later put into effect. He decided to erect a factory of a certain size in order to produce certain machines for which there is a demand on the market. This basic idea was further developed by experts, capital was made available, the buildings were constructed, machines and tools were ordered, appropriate workers were employed. Almost every element in this enterprise is of different origin. Some – like for instance the generators – had already been completed before the businessman even thought of starting up this enterprise. Others were produced at various places: a large number were imported from abroad. All these elements were gathered together in one place and combined following a certain plan. The history of the origins of these "elements" is thus totally different from that of the lizard.

Yet there is one feature that the different elements of the lizard and the engineering works have in common. In both cases each element has a given function, it thus has to fulfil a task. Elements without any function are of no use, they may even be a burden. So we have already found one common feature. Whether it is the lizard or a business enterprise: elements without a specific function are disadvantageous – if they hinder certain processes or cost money, that is if they have a negative impact on competitiveness, which is inevitably expressed in the balance. If two energons – whatever they may look like – are competing with each other and peers in all respects except that one is inhibited by units without any specific function, then the other energon has an advantage.

This common criterion of competitiveness needs to be looked at more closely. What do the individual "elements" perform in detail ?

In both cases there are units which have only one function and others which have several functions. The eyes of a lizard serve no other purpose than to see, whereas the liver has more than five different functions. The same holds for the engineering works. The generators have no other function than generating electricity, while a business manager – who ultimately is also a unit fulfilling a task in this enterprise – has a whole number of functions. Another common feature is that in both cases the units are part of even bigger units. In their relation to each other these units may be superior or subordinate. In the case of the lizard, the iris is a part of the eye and the eye in turn is a part of the head. In the case of the business enterprise, the cogs of a gear wheel are functional units of this wheel, which itself is a functional unit of the respective machine. But this does not necessarily mean that the bigger unit is more important than its components. The eye of the lizard does not work without the iris nor does the machine function without a gear wheel. What in the end makes each of these numerous units so important is their effect. Independent of their outer appearance they are "vehicles of effect" or "functional units"⁰. At their respective spatio-temporal location they have effects which are required within the framework of the entire structure. This is what makes them efficient – and indispensable.

This fact not only holds true for the lizard and the engineering works but in general for all animal and plant organisms and for all acquisition structures developed by humans They all consist of vehicles of effect. The cheaper, that is, the more energy-saving the way a certain effect is achieved, the better for the energon. This has a positive effect on the balance sheet and thus again on competitiveness. Some may protest now and say this is a truism, that everybody knows that anyway. This is not correct in so far as we have found a common feature which justifies a common term for "parts" which from the outside look very different. Each energon consists exclusively of vehicles of effect. Vehicles without any effect or function are a hindrance to every energon. In order to be competitive the energon has to get rid of any such vehicles if possible.

In the fields of sociology and political science in German expressions with the term "vehicles" are widely used, like "vehicles of state power", "vehicles of public opinion", or vehicles of culture, power, etc.¹ Othmar Spann ,who started from totally different assumptions but came to similar conclusions, called the means of production "vehicles of performance". Gutenberg used the term "functional vehicles" which had turned up in biology for describing units in business enterprises². In my opinion the term "vehicle of effect" is more neutral and thus more appropriate. Furthermore a function is something potential whereas an effect is something actual. A function may as well have little effect and it is the effects that in the end make up every energon. The material units producing these effects are thus the vehicles of these effects.

Vehicles of effect are tissues as well as organs or single cells, they are "organelles" within the cells as well as the "organs" (like the reproductive organs) which are made up of numerous organs and the "organ systems" (like the nervous system).

In business enterprises the premises and machinery as well as the employees, departments and the staff serve as vehicles of effect. In a state each ministry as well as each public authority, each policeman and each department have the function of a vehicle of effect.

After talking about the similarities let us now consider the differences. The units animals and plants consist of are built up of living matter, they have grown together and they developed out of a single germ cell. These are the three main features in which they differ from artificial units on which professional entities and employment organisations are based. I maintain that none of these features is really of prime importance for differentiation. This is just a different principle of growth and formation which is already present in minor organisms but has blossomed only in humans and made possible our exceptional rise.

We now turn to various phenomena which so far have been regarded as being of minor significance but which are of great importance for a better understanding of evolution.
 
 

The first object we deal with is the thorns of the rose bush. These sharp vehicles of effect have the purpose of deterring bigger, herbivorous animals from eating their leaves and thus serve as protection. They are composed of cells which later on wither by constantly lignifying. The thorns become even harder in so doing and their protective effect increases. This roves that in order to fulfil a function the substance in question does not necessarily and inevitably need to be alive. In the case of the thorns the function is even better fulfilled when the living "material" turns into dead material³.

The situation is quite similar with trees. When the stem withers as a result of the cells having lignified, it fulfils its function even better. An oak stem consisting of living cells could hardly take the enormous weight of the tree-top.

In other cases the functional units are made up of dead material from the start, like the skeletons of radiolaria, the armour of crabs and insects and the shells of snails and mussels. The living cells only fulfil the function of production in these cases. The functional unit itself is made of anorganic matter that is dead from the onset.

The functional unit need not necessarily be produced by the cells themselves. Amoebae, for example, build a protective covering. In the case of the genus Euglypha the amoeba itself excretes small internal calcareous shells, in the case of the genus Difflugia the amoeba forms a housing that looks quite similar by sticking together grains of sand (Fig. 2).

a) Amoeba euglypha builds a protective covering out of the internal (calcareous) shells it secreted.

b) Amoeba difflugia forms a similar housing out of grains of sand. It thus uses units already existing in nature and turns them into essential parts of its working structure.
 

As far as the energy balance is concerned this means that the amoebae of the one genus have to take up and shape the raw material. This seems to cost more than using grains of sand when these abound in nature. It has to be kept in mind that both activities require a specific action program which must have developed in the course of generations and is now deeply rooted somewhere in the body. Even in protozoa we can find different "processes" which result in the formation of functional units with approximately the same results. In one case the body itself produces the functional unit, in the other case the body makes use of already existing units. As for the balance sheet, there is no fundamental difference. What really matters is the protective effect and the production costs of the armour.

Such examples exist in great numbers. Bees build their honeycombs out of a substance occurring naturally in their body, namely the wax secreted from glands. Wasps build similar honeycombs out of vegetable parts which they break up and glue together with secretions from their oral glands. As far as the balance is concerned what really matters in both cases is how much energy is used in each of these processes and how effectively the required function is fulfilled by the honeycombs. Whether they are made of a substance that was secreted by the body or obtained elsewhere does not matter.

Another example: Especially land-dwelling animals need organs which communicate to the body where is 'up' and where is 'down'. In most cases these functional units have the form of a vesicle which is lined with sensitive cells and contains spherical and disk-shaped bodies (statoliths). According to the position of the animal they exert pressure on the one or other side, this information is communicated to the central nervous system, where it is assimilated.

The statoliths of most animals are secreted from cells. However, the vesicle of the decapod crab ends in an opening in which the crab (after each exuviation) stuffs grains of sand or small stones which it then uses as statoliths. There is no question that they are important, even essential functional units for the crab. Are they nevertheless part of the body even if they have not been secreted by the cells?
 
 

Another question: Do only units which have grown together constitute parts of an animal or plant? Let us take a look at the capturing methods of some aquatic animals and spiders (Fig. 3).

a) Floating microorganisms stick to the adhesive fern threads of the Vermetus, a predator using the lime-twig strategy.

b) The lasso spider (Dicrostichus) flings a thread with an adhesive droplet at the end towards insects and thus catches them.

c) The capturing organ of the web spider. The web is no longer connate with the body of the spider.
 

Among marine worms there are species which catch microorganisms by means of adhesive tentacles. These are thread-like organs that are situated around the mouth and are stretched out like a limed twig. Microorganisms floating around stick to these tentacles, which are then retracted and the capture eaten. There are also other animals that use such methods of capture, they are all known as predators using the lime-twig strategy. There is no doubt that these limed twigs were produced by the body and are connate with it.

The Australian spider Dicrostichus uses a similar capturing method. It secrets a thread from a spinning silk gland at the end of which there is an adhesive droplet. With its front leg the spider holds the thread like a lasso and flings it towards insects passing by. Should an insect stick to the thread, it will be drawn nearer and be eaten. The catching equipment in this case is produced by the body though it is no longer connate with it.

Finally there are the web spiders we all know so well. The web the spider builds is completely separated from its body. Is it part of the body of the spider or not?

In our traditional way of thinking it is not part of the body-simply because it is not connate with it. But when we compare the lime-twig predator, the lasso spider and the web spider, it becomes clear that we have no reason for making such a distinction. As for the balance-sheet which in the end decides on whether an organism survives or not – it is irrelevant whether the capturing organ is connate with the body or not. In the case of the web spider this would even be a disadvantage.

It is thus not important if functional units consist of material produced naturally in the body or if they are connate with the body⁴.
 
 

Now we have come to the third and most important question: Are only those units which were produced by a germ cell part of an animal or plant?

The armour of the amoeba Difflugia , the honeycombs of the wasps and the statoliths of the decapod crabs have proved that this is not true. There are still more impressive examples (Fig.4).

a) Usually the tail of crabs as well as the rest of the body is armoured (crayfish).

b) The hermit crab uses empty snail shells as protective armour; it does not need to armour its tail.

c) The woolly crab (Dromia vulgaris) increases the protective effect of its natural armour by disguising itself . With its scissors it cuts a sponge to such a shape that the sponge exactly covers the dorsal field. With its last pair of walking feet it holds the sponge. A foreign organism is artificially changed in this way and turned into a protective organ.
 

Everybody surely knows the hermit crab. While its related species have an armoured body, including tail, the hermit crab looks different. It hides its unprotected abdomen in an empty shells which thus takes over the protective effect which in the case of other crabs is performed by their armour. The fact that these shells turn into very important functional units for the hermit crab can easily be proven in experiments. When the shell is taken away, the crab soon becomes the victim of other animals. The shell neither consists of living substance nor is it connate with the body nor was it produced from the germ cell of the crab.

The woolly crab (Dromia vulgaris) disguises itself by holding a sponge covering its dorsal shield with its last pair of walking feet. This also has a protective effect – though the achievement of the woolly crab is even greater than that of the hermit crab. In the latter case behavioural patterns developed which enable the crab to recognise empty shells and attach them to its body – from among different shells it may even choose one of the appropriate size. But the hermit crab does not change it in whatever way. The woolly crab, however, cuts the sponge with its scissors until it has the necessary size and shape to cover the dorsal shield. For this process much more complex – even if again instinctive – action and reaction programmes are required.

In this case the strange unit (sponge) attached to the body is even a different organism. Numerous animals develop such methods of utilising other energons even much further.

In the outer membrane skin of coral polyps and mussels we can find a large number of single-celled algae. They have been assimilated by the body tissue to such an extent that they can only be recognised by their colour. Both parts profit from this relationship, which is a symbiosis. The algae need carbon dioxide which is emitted as a metabolic product in animal cells. Thus the algae can absorb it immediately. The animal tissue in turn needs oxygen, which is emitted by the algae. In the case of the worm Convoluta whose body also hosts such algae this dependency has reached a stage at which the worm – unlike its related species – no longer forms a kidney system. The algae dispose of the metabolic waste products of the worm. If one prevented young worms of that species from taking up such algae, they would soon die. Without a suitable unit responsible for the internal detoxification this organism is no longer viable. Are these algae organs of the Convoluta or not? They do not originate from the germ cell of the worm.

This issue is so important and totally contrary to the traditional basic notion⁵ prevailing in biology as well as in general thinking that I would like to give further examples.

Cellulose, a component of wood, is very hard to break down. For digesting (splitting) the cellulose a specific enzyme is necessary which only few animals produce. The termites which exclusively live on wood are able to break down cellulose even without producing such an enzyme – namely with the help of protozoa living in one part of their intestines. These organisms thus replace the required glands. If one kills these "digestion assistants" – which is possible by means of sterilisation – the termite will continue eating but will starve to death. In this case too the question arises: are these protozoa part of the termite’s body or not? Without them the energon "termite" is not able to survive-though the protozoa do not originate from the germ cell.

There are more examples: Other insects have special, often very complex reservoirs for accommodating similar "digestion assistants" which help them break down blood and vegetable juices. These reservoirs are organs which developed according to the genetic code and are called "mycetomes" (Fig. 5).

a) Jumping plant louse (Psylla buxi) with branched mycetomes ("accommodation for symbionts") in the abdomen (M).

b) "Smearing device" of Cerogria heros. The bacteria are accommodated in sac-like bulges which are directly connected with the ovipositor When being deposited the eggs are thus infected with the bacteria.

c) "Bacteria syringe" of Cleonus piger (a weevil). The sac-like bulges have a longitudinal musculature and the opening is surrounded by a sphincter. C2: cross-section of such a "syringe". The interior of the club-like organ is divided into chambers. By contracting the sacs the bacteria are squirted on the deposited eggs.

Up to now all these complex hereditary organs have been regarded as belonging to the "body" of the respective animals whereas the digestion assistants within the organs which fulfil vital functions (and to which this expenditure comes in useful) have been regarded as separate units. Further details in the text.
 

Some species develop separate canals and squirting devices which only have the function of passing on the digestion assistants to the eggs, that is to guarantee the transmission to the brood. The female biscuit beetle smears excrement on the deposited eggs and the young, after hatching, instinctively eat up part of the egg shell so as to obtain the essential digestion assistants. Should we regard all these devices (organs, behavioural patterns) which support the body as parts of the body because they were developed by the genetic blueprint and treat those units fulfilling the actual function as if they were separate entities? Our present views have been shallow, to put it mildly⁶.

It is neither necessary for units to consist of a living substance nor do they need to be connate with the body nor do they need to originate from a germ cell in order to be seen as part of an organism.

This is also clearly demonstrated by the topical issue of organ transplantation: the heart which Doctor Barnard transplanted to his patient Blaiberg did not originate from the germ cell of the patient. It had been part of a different body which had led its own life for 24 years. That did not matter for Blaiberg. What was of importance to him was the fact that his own vehicle of effect, his heart, no longer fulfilled the necessary tasks and that he would not be able to survive without such a vehicle. A different vehicle was successfully used to fulfil the task – where it came from was of minor importance.

For quite some time now cardiac pacemakers have been transplanted to people suffering from disorders of cardiac activity. These pacemakers have the function of giving the heart the required orders for carrying out its activity. In this case a technological unit replaces the nerve structure. If it stops working, the individual will be doomed to die.

In order to be able to judge the problems in hand as far as the evolution is concerned, we need to take a closer look at the functions of genetic blueprints.
 
 

Genetic blueprints (the "genetic code") are not just some vague concept. As already mentioned, one can see them under the electron microscope (Fig. 25). We owe our profound knowledge of the molecular set-up to the progress that has been made in biochemistry in the recent decades. More than ten scientists received the Nobel Prize for their research in this field⁷.

These functional units have been a necessary prerequisite for the higher development of organisms in the course of evolution. In the reproduction process they pass all hereditary properties on to the next generation. Thus only alterations of the functional unit itself, that is the genetic blueprint, may cause hereditary changes in the body structure.

Only few biologists use the term "blueprint"⁸. I use it to emphasise its functional difference to control. Blueprint and control may also coincide – this is probably largely the case with genetic blueprints. As for their purpose, these two functions differ widely – the energons developed by humans are better examples of this than the processes taking place in animals and plants. As every businessman will know, it is much easier to find people who give orders according to certain programmes than to find people who are able develop new effective programmes involving action and reaction. In general the following holds true: the actual essence of effective processes is not the control itself but the co-ordinating commands on which the control is based. What took so long to develop in the evolution of animals and plants was not the units which carry out orders (and supervise/observe their execution) but the blueprints required for these orders⁹.

In theory it is the first and most simple evolutionary stage when the respective genetic blueprint fulfils no other task than developing all the necessary organs for an organism. In this case the activities of the individual organs are not co-ordinated: central control of activities is missing. We can see this principle realised in most plants. There may as well exist correlations between the single parts but a central organ for regulating actions has not been developed. Each functional unit – leaves, branches, ducts, roots – fulfils certain functions and the interaction of all these units results in an energy balance which is on average positive.

The second stage is reached when the genetic blueprint develops a special functional unit in addition to all the other units which is in charge of controlling behaviour. This principle is realised in all animals that build up a central nervous system (brain). It is of importance that this organ has a blueprint for each vehicle controlling behaviour. At the second evolutionary stage all these control blueprints are developed by the genetic blueprint. In this case the genetic blueprint not only builds up the entire body and the central control structure but furthermore also produces patterns of behavioural blueprints according to which the control mechanism directs the body.

This implies that behaviour is innate. One example is the insects which are largely regulated by such blueprints. Correspondingly their actions and reactions are similar to mechanical processes – their ability to alter and expand them is limited. We say that their actions and reactions are "instinctive". How these instincts function in detail, what triggers them off and how the instincts are connected with each other has largely been determined¹⁰.

The third evolutionary stage – with all its transitions and overlaps – is characterised by the ability of the brain to develop new behavioural blueprints on its own. Especially mammals have this ability, that is why they are called "animals with a higher learning capacity". Their behavioural blueprints are to a great extent not determined by hereditary factors, because mammals learn everything they need for life by means of "playing" and "practising" during their juvenile phase. Since these animals are not born as fully developed beings, appropriate protection and care of the offspring are required for their development.

The genetic blueprint thus builds up the regulating organ at the third stage – but provides only part of the blueprint for behaviour. The brain has become more capable and is now able of creating such blueprints as a result of its analysis of the environment. These animals have the advantage that they can adapt their behaviour much better to environmental conditions. Their reactions have only few similarities with mechanical processes, they are no longer the product of the genetic blueprint. A different functional unit is now in charge of their development

The advantages of such a shift of functions – from the genetic blueprint to the central nervous system – are quite obvious. The genetic blueprint altered only very slowly in the course of generations – for example through mutations. This implies that changes in innate behaviour thus occurred gradually in the course or evolution. And if such behaviour no longer proved effective – that is, in the case of environmental changes –, it consequently regressed very slowly. The central nervous system on the other hand was able to develop new behavioural blueprints within the short time of one life-span and if these behavioural blueprints were no good, it got rid of them by simply "forgetting" them. This implied the possibility of an unpredictable increase in efficiency. The energons consequently were able to achieve effective action and reaction programs a thousand or hundred thousand times quicker than before¹¹. Even mankind has not reached this stage totally. Some of our behavioural patterns are innate, that is, they are still determined by the genetic blueprint. Our rather unclear instinctive actions, for example, as well as our actual processes of movement are strongly influenced by the genetic blueprint This applies, for example, to the orientation movements of an infant searching for its mother’s breast and to the process of sucking. Even our facial expressions seem to be innate to a large extent¹².

The successive order of evolutionary stages:

First stage: The genetic blueprint builds up all the organs, each of which then has its own function to fulfil.

Second stage: The genetic blueprint additionally develops a special organ for co-ordinating the interaction between the organs and furthermore provides the necessary blueprints for doing so.

Third stage: The central nervous system takes over the function of creating blueprints. The blueprints are thus no longer innate but acquired.

The evolutionary development has – to my knowledge – never before been described in this way but is in principle familiar to every biologist. What has so far been totally ignored is that at the same time a second developmental process took place. Thus I come to the main issue.
 
 

Just as the development of behavioural blueprints was gradually taken over by the central nervous system, the same applied to the structural blueprints.

At the first (lowest) stage the genetic blueprint designs all structures of the body, all functional units are thus "innate".

An example for the second stage is the hermit crab. It is no longer the genetic blueprint that builds up the protective unit for the tail – but the behavioural blueprints. The crab instinctively searches for empty shells in which to hide its tail. This means: the acquisition of organs is still dictated by the genetic blueprint – but only indirectly. The genetic blueprint no longer builds this unit (armour) out of cells but designs a blueprint from which the body itself acquires this protective unit. The acquisition of organs is consequently passed over to the central nervous system – though the instruction on how to do so is still provided by the genetic blueprint¹³.

The third stage in this parallel development corresponds exactly to that of the development of the control of behaviour: The central nervous system is finally able to produce blueprints for the acquisition or building up of organs on its own. This is the brink which mankind crossed. The mental abilities of our ancestors reached a stage at which they were able to develop not only individual behavioural blueprints – but also blueprints for the formation of additional functional units.

Every child that tests how to use a stick or how to join parts to a functional unit is an example showing these initial stages of development. For the energons the opportunities of increasing power resulting from this progress were extraordinary The energon primeval man was suddenly able to enlarge his genetically developed body by adding as many additional units as he liked.
 
 

A fourth evolutionary stage-on both levels of development – followed closely. Due to the ability of copying (which only few animals possess), due to intentional demonstration (instruction) and above all due to the development of the information carrier "language" and "writing" people were able to transfer individually formed blueprints – for behaviour as well as for the acquisition or development of organs – to other people.

What makes language especially important is the fact that experience can be passed on ("handed down") irrespective of an object. There was no longer any need to showing the person who developed new blueprints the objects in reality – which was necessary in the case of demonstrating and copying – since these objects could be "described" in words. With the invention of writing information transfer no longer depended on people. This medium made it possible to pass information on to the following generations. Radio and television even increased these possibilities. Today information can be transferred to people all over the world within seconds¹⁴.

One has to become aware of the consequences this progress had for the evolution.

Personally gained experience was no longer passed on by means of the genetic blueprint, which would have never been able to cope with such a vast number of blueprints. The central nervous system, on the other hand – an organ consisting of millions, even billions of cells – can deal with a much larger number of new blueprints¹⁵. Within its short period of life the individual itself may develop only a very limited number of such blueprints but it can adopt –according to its personal capacity to learn – many more.

Thus one generation was in the position to take over the experience of the previous one.. Mankind came to possess not only acquired behaviour but also a constantly growing number of acquired organs. It developed "artificial organs"-additional functional units.

These evolutionary relations have so far not been recognised and my aim in this book is to demonstrate them¹⁶.

The fact that this important course of development has up to now not been properly recognised is due to our deeply-rooted way of judging, which for thousands of years has been dictated by what seems obvious to our senses. To our brain the artificial units created by men present themselves as clearly separate units: therefore we take it for granted that they are part of the environment and do not belong to the body.

As for the development of life there are no reasons for separating a human being from its "technology" (in the widest sense) because of a functional shift.

We have to remember that in the course of the evolution of plants and animals such functional shifts occurred very often. – We will later discuss this issue in detail. An example: the respirator of the cuttlefish (belonging to the molluscs ) additionally took over the function of movement: they swim jerkily by expelling water through a siphon. Nobody would thus think of excluding cuttlefish from the development of life just because of this functional shift. What took place at the evolutionary stage "man" was nothing other than a functional shift: the central nervous system took over the function of building new functional units. The consequences in this case – indisputably – were much more far-reaching. This extension of functions was the basis for the formation of an entire kingdom of new and bigger organisms – similar to some protozoa which had formed the basis of the development of the kingdom of multicellular organisms. A new "sphere" of life emerged as Teilhard de Chardin called it (he called it "Noosphere")¹⁷. The consequences were thus unique – but they still do not justify the distinction of principle made between the first part of evolution and the second.

The already mentioned amoeba Difflugia demonstrates that this development started at a very early stage of evolution. Even this protozoon develops – thus acquires – an additional organ: out of grains of sand it builds an armour. In the case of coral polyps, the worm Convoluta and the termites, a foreign energon is attached to the working structure. As long as the blueprints for this behaviour were still developed by the genome, not much progress was made at this evolutionary stage. But when the central nervous system took over this function and in particular when the developed blueprints were passed on directly to other individuals via language and writing, the energons, so to speak, threw off the chains that up to then had slowed down their evolution and in so doing made way for an almost unlimited increase in power.

Let us see what the consequences were in detail.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "The consequences"
 
 

Comments:

⁰ In the following both terms will be used alternately.
¹ W. Eucken even wrote about "demand vehicles" ("Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik, Hamburg 1959, p.62).
² C. C. Schneider, "Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Histologie der Tiere, Jena 1902, p 123.
³ Another function of thorns is to provide some support for the branches when they climb up A lignified thorn can fulfil this function much better.
⁴ Hans Domizlaff also held this view: "visibility on all sides" was not an essential feature of a living being. The  connection could also be an invisible one. An anthill was not regarded as a living entity – Domizlaff speaks of "major organisms "– only because it not grown externally as a single entity. ("Brevier für Könige", Hamburg 1952, p. 98)
⁵ This basic notion means frankly that the cat ends at the end of its whiskers, the fir tree at the tip of its roots.
⁶ Today even the chloroplasts of all nucleobiontic plants (that is plants with cells containing a nucleus) are regarded to be degenerate protozoa (cyanophycea), that is, symbionts. This would also explain their ability to reproduce.
⁷ J. Lederberg (1958). A. Kornberg (1959), S. Ochos (1959), M.F. Perutz (1962). F. H. Crick (1962), J. D. Watson (1962), M.H. Wilkins (1962), F. Jacob (1965), J. Monod (1965). N. W. Niernberg (1968), H. G. Khorana (1968), R. H. Holley (1968), M. Dellbrück (1969).
⁸ For example the virologist W.Weidel. (“Virus, die Geschichte vom geborgten Leben”, Berlin 1957)
⁹ In biology, in particular in ethnology, the terms “programs” and “being programmed” are widely used today in association with heredity. These terms have the disadvantage that they are strongly associated with the idea of a conscious agent (Latin: agere, to act, to do) which dictates  the programme.  The term 'recipe'  (recipio = I receive) or 'blueprint' seems  more neutral to me. A recipe or blueprint can be employed no matter how it came into being.
¹⁰ I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt provides an excellent summary in “Grundriß der vergleichenden Verhaltensforschung”, Munich 1967. We will deal with this issue in detail in Part 4, Chapter II.
¹¹ Konrad Lorenz pointed out another advantage: the genome becomes better adapted to conditions vital for life only "only through success", whilst an organism capable of learning also from its mistakes. ("Innate Bases of Learning, p. 46)
¹² This had already been surmised by Darwin  ("The expression of Emotions in Man and Animals" London 1872.) Films taken of various tribes without their knowledge have confirmed this. (H. Hass, "Wir Menschen", Vienna 1968 p 169 ff.)
¹³ Frequently cited examples for the “use of tools” in the animal kingdom prove this. (The woodpecker finch uses the spines of cacti to get insects out of burrows, the tree ant uses its larvae as sort of “shuttle” to join leaves together). These abilities are mainly innate ones. Acquired use of tools, the next evolutionary stage, is far rarer. The term “tool” is avoided in this book because many of those artificial vehicles of effect developed by men have different natures: like clothes, shoes, chairs, houses, bridges, roads. K.Stefanic-Allmayer uses the term “technical organs”. However,  this term has the disadvantage that it cannot equally be applied to the preliminary stages in animals.
¹⁴ M. McLuhan holds the view that mankind will, as it were, return to the previous state of a village community. Like in the past ,when everybody in the village knew when something unusual was going on humans are  gradually beginning to take part in unique events simultaneously. (For example: the TV broadcast of the first moon landing). See appendix III
¹⁵ The memory capacity of the human brain is estimated to be 10 6  to 10 8  bit. (M. H. Mirow, “Cybernetics”, Wiesbaden 1969) Bit is the unit for measuring the information content developed by Claude Shannon: a quantity that forms the basis of modern information theory-within cybernetics.
¹⁶ A graph illustrating the entire process can be found in appendix IV.
¹⁷ Teilhard de Chardin seems to be the only person  who so far has vehemently held the view that the creations of men  – all "vitalised material" produced by mankind – should also be regarded as part of the development of life. (Particularly recommendable is "Die Hominisation, Ineditum 1925, in "Auswahl aus dem Werk", Frankfurt 1967.) I consider the basic theses of Father Teilhard in more detail in Appendix 2.