A tour through a factory shows us that everything is geared towards functionality. Within the general frame, every machine and every human being has got a certain place, a certain task. Each process, each part is concentrated on production. At the headquarters, directors are paid to monitor and even constantly increase this functionality: they may face difficulties such as shortages, here or there they may have a lack of suitable workers or tools, one section or other may not work properly... it seems as if the human spirit is constantly at work in order to create functionality.

There is a common agreement that human beings create functionality. We admire the functionality of the great inventions.

The same applies to studies of animal or plant bodies: The more we know about the inner machinery of these living structures, the more we realise its appropriateness. With a few rare exceptions, each organ fulfils a function, i.e. carries out a task. They are carefully matched in size and efficacy. It is difficult to detect any fault within this organisation. Apparently, everything serves a single purpose ... But what purpose?

Soon after having connected cause and effect in his imagination, primitive human beings must already have encountered the phenomenon of this amazing functionality. Whenever they were lying on their back and staring at the blue sky, nothing functional resulted. Whenever they needed an arrow, they had to carve it – a quite absorbing task. If they wanted a safe hiding place, then they either had to search for one or they had to build it, both solutions requiring some planning as well as physical work. However, each animal and each plant, as well as their own body showed primitive humans a whole range of functionalities. Even if they did not actively reflect on these, they clearly showed them the necessity of effort and of planning: action.

Where was the origin of these effects? This question developed right from the start from the basic function of human thinking - from the connection of cause and effect in our imagination. Even primitive human beings could hardly neglect it. Wherever they turned, this most obvious question followed them.

But there is more to it: The high degree of functionality within this world of organisms – including one’s own body – not only required action, but also a clearly defined interest. Put simply, if someone invests so much effort, he must have a reason for it. What then was this purpose?

Very likely primitive human beings conferred a special name to this unknown cause. In their imagination, it may have looked like a powerful, strong and invisible creature. Furthermore, it seems quite plausible that primitive human beings thought that nature and themselves were the focus of interest of this higher being.

None of these numerous beliefs, not even the most primitive ones, formed by humankind over centuries, can be disproved. Hence, this book does not consider them all to be absurd constructions of the mind; however, it seems quite likely that most of them developed from this origin. Once such a belief had come into existence and persisted through tradition, it then was hard to abolish ... precisely because no counter-evidence existed. It is also quite likely that, in the course of cultural development, humans linked their most precious values to these highest beliefs. Later on, such constructions could hardly be demolished.

My assertion is that this enigmatic functionality represented the starting point for many such processes. I further assert that the basic function of human intelligence – combining and analysing clearly separate causes and effects – required such a development. It inevitably required human belief in supernatural creatures and in particular their belief in being the centre – together with animals and plants – of divine interest¹.
 
 

The first person that found another explanation for functionality in nature was the Greek philosopher Empedocles. He considered functionality to be quite a normal thing: only functionality could "survive" and spread. Everything else had to perish. Consequently, in the end only functionality remained.

Empedocles had a rather strange thesis about the origin of animals and plants: He took two diverging principles as a starting point. Their interactions, he explained, had led to a whole range of different formations. The organs of plants and animals – arms, legs, heads – were developed separately. Nature then combined them: one time like this, the other time like that. Innumerable deformities occurred and perished. However, at some stage, functionality entered the game. It survived, spread ... precisely because of its character. This is the way Empedocles thought animals and plants came into existence.

Two thousand years were to pass before this thesis was revived – by Charles Darwin. However, his approach to organisms and their development seemed much more moderate, less fantastic.

He based his theory upon two incontrovertible premises: First, the offspring of a huge variety of animal and plant species do not always look exactly like their parents: they "vary". Sometimes, such changes are hereditary. Secondly: almost every species gives birth to more individuals than can in fact grow up. Food is scarce, enemies and competitors are all around. In consequence, only the most suitable, the most functional survives and reproduces itself, everything else will founder at an earlier stage. A "natural selection" takes place.

What a gloomy scenario. There is no doubt: functionality can arise entirely on its own. Simply because non-functionality is being eliminated.

Generations of scientists after Charles Darwin carried out closer analyses – they wanted to find out how hereditary changes occur. In the process of division of the genetic material, mistakes occur – they were called "mutations". But also external influences – for example cosmic rays – can effectuate such changes. However, this process is based on a random occurrence. The cause and reason of functionality are – more or less – a matter of chance.

Various mechanisms were discovered that can foster and accelerate the formation of functionality. The most important one is androgyny. As different germ cells – i.e. different genetic blueprints – melt together, occasional changes in the hereditary material are also combined. There is a drastic increase in the probability that functionality will be enhanced. Additionally, – as Charles Darwin had already demonstrated– the strongest males win the fight for females. Hence, the stronger and more suitable types can impose themselves².

Darwin and as well as Lamarck – who first proposed the idea of evolution – also believed in the transmission of acquired characteristics. Such a process would indeed explain the formation of functionality far better. In this case, functionality would not be created by pure chance. If creatures were able – and most of them are – to transfer individual adaptations to environment to the next generation, functionality would spread faster. However, to date, no such transferral of acquired characteristics – despite numerous experiments – to genetic blueprints has been proved.

Therefore, at present, most biologists believe that random mutations were sufficient to bring about the superior development of organisms. But even radical selectionists fear the following question: Was there enough time – merely three billion years – for this random process? It is quite possible – one could even expect – that, within cell structures, there exists another selective mechanism, which we simply have not yet detected.

Nietzsche wrote that those iron hands of necessity which shake the dice-box of chance play their game eternally; there must be some throws corresponding to functionality and appropriateness of every degree³. Today, however, we know that evolution started not earlier than 3 billion years ago; a long, but not an eternal, time span.

The "vitalists" believe in a "vital force" that guided evolution towards functionality. The biologist Driesch called it – with reference to a term used by Aristotle – "entelechy" . But could such a supra-sensual, supra-causal vital force be at the origin of the functionality of organisms?

To take up a position this question, let us return to the energon. Nobody – not even the "vitalists" – denies the efficacy of "natural selection". Let us take a closer look at this process.
 
 

Figure 13 shows a model situation. At time T¹ TT three energon-types A, B and C are confronted with a source of energy Q and acquire it. We assume that they represent 3 populations equal in size – approximately 1000 or 10 000 individuals each. The three types (species) possess identical qualities, they differ only in their vehicle of effect (x, y, z). The difference – for example the formation of an acquisitive organ – could have been caused by mutations. Energon B represented the former type, the two variants A and C were formed through changes in the hereditary system. A shows how mutation reduced functionality: the new unit x is less efficient than y. Type C, in contrast, has gained functionality: z works better than y: cheaper, faster or more precisely. It is not difficult to guess what will happen in this case.

At time T² – so and so many generations later – type A has disappeared, is out of the game. Owing to a less efficient unit, the key did not unlock the keyhole as well as it did before. Consequently, this energon has been displaced by the two other types. Now, there might come a hard time, and even B could become unable to maintain its active balance sheet. The remaining individuals invest their last reserves, and finally, they perish. This type, this "species" dies out.

Thus, at time T³, type C was the only one surviving. If we enter the process as observers only now, we ascertain that species C possesses an excellent adaptive capacity with regard to the characteristics of energy source Q – thanks to its vehicle of effect. The latter (z) is highly functional. Our brain immediately asks: Who caused this finality, who planned this process, who worked on it?

The answer: no one planned, no one worked. The changes in the hereditary system happened at random. The best remained, of its own accord.

Here two separate processes overlap. The first one is the reproduction of the energons A, B and C, whereby changes in the hereditary system occur. The second is the permanent interaction between these energons and the energy source. The more suitable keys unlock the keyholes more efficiently and obtain better results. Those which fit less well – the less appropriate ones – are eliminated. In the end, it is the energy source that controls the kind of structure.

Even if energon A was generated by supernatural force and C by chance, such constellations do not influence the final result. Even then, only type C is the one which remains at time T³. Hence, the producer cannot determine functionality. Functionality stands for a very relative fitting state, given that the laws of nature remain constant. In our example, it is exclusively determined by the characteristics of the keyhole Q – the source of energy that is – which is to be unlocked. This source has no direct influence on reproduction and processes of formation; still, it steers the direction of the energons’ development.

At time T¹ three energons (A, B, C) compete for one source of energy (Q). The vehicle of effect ("key bits") that should use this source are x, y, z: y is more effective than x, and z is more effective than y. At time T² (that may be several generations later, or the same energon may still be involved), A has been eliminated, B can still keep pace, C dominates. At time T³, only energon C remains (given it is able to grow at will), or three energons share the energy source T^3'. This source "decides" – without "intention" – which energon type will survive. The selection chooses a positive characteristic: the superior ability to use the source.

This steering process – it has indeed not been planned – becomes even clearer, if we look at negative selection (Figure 14). It concentrates, so to speak on the weak points of the energons.

At time T¹, the energons A, B and C compete for the energy source Q; they are equal in their ability to do so. However, A does not possess a protecting functional unit against environmental disturbance or danger S. Energon B is equipped with such a protective functional unit (x), but it is less effective than C’s functional unit (y). At time T² (that may be several generations later or the same energon may be involved), A was eliminated by the influence of S, B is still present, and C dominates. At time T³, a single energon C remains (if it is able to grow), or three individuals share the energy source T^3’. Disturbing or hostile environmental factors decide, – without real intention – which energon type survives. In this case, selection concentrates on weak points: the lack of capacity for self-protection.

In snowy regions, for example, black rabbits can be detected quite easily by birds of prey, and are eliminated first (A). Their disadvantage is just too great. Grey rabbits can survive a longer time, but they are facing strong competition from white ones. Their acquisition is also impeded, they cannot gather as much food as necessary. If food is scarce, this type may also entirely disappear. If we observe the situation at time T³, we only find white rabbits in the area in question. Our brain – given that it understands the connection with birds of prey – explains then: these rabbits have excellent camouflage, their colour is most functional.

Again, this selection is not steered actively by someone, but the birds of prey are responsible for this colour. They do not have the slightest influence on reproduction and processes of formation of the rabbits; still, the birds steer their evolutionary development.

This example is even more extreme. In fact, it would benefit the birds of prey to choose from a maximum of black rabbits. But they bring about exactly the reverse effect! They foster the development of a characteristic which is to their disadvantage. One must consider the full dimension of this situation.

Until today we have ignored that there exists a causal connection, exactly the same as one which has been analysed in technology for quite some time already, and which more recently has been preoccupying the young scientific field of cybernetics.
 
 

Cybernetics deals with the basic principles of all control processes. It specifically analyses a phenomenon described by Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics⁴.

If we are steering a motorboat a steady pace, we need energy to operate the steering wheel. Not the slightest part of this energy is transferred to the process we are controlling, though: However energetic our steering movements may be, there is no increase in speed. We only influence the direction, and the motor moves the boat. We observe the combination of two causal interactions: the motor drives the propeller – the boat moves. We turn the wheel and thus define the direction. The steering energy is much smaller than the energy generated by the motor. Still, it influences – without interference – its direction.

Bernhard Hassenstein, a biologist and expert in cybernetics, called this causal connection "control causality"⁵. This term describes almost the entire range of control processes – not only the technological ones, but also the organic ones. The scheme is simple: an energetic process influences, controls another one.

It is important to notice how by means of a low energy input we can achieve a high energy output. Furthermore, one form of energy can influence a totally different one. A control using a variable resistance shows both phenomena. If I turn it, I can decrease or increase the electric current. The turning movement is mechanical energy, and with its help, I control electric energy.

In other words: One form of energy controls the development of another one – while the controlling energy is not integrated at all with the controlled energy.

This is precisely the process that applies in "natural selection". Our example with birds of prey and white rabbits clearly demonstrates it. The energy used by the birds of prey is not incorporated into the rabbits' development. Nevertheless, it controls their evolution. Whether such an action happens consciously or unconsciously is not relevant with regard to the process itself. Human forms of control involve conscious action, in contrast to natural selection where the action succeeds unintentionally. In both cases, however, one energetic process influences another one – without being integrated into it.

Basically, the energons’ evolutionary adaptation to their energy sources – i.e. positive selection – can be explained by the principle of control causality. Here, the connection is less obvious, as an integration of controlling energy (the source) into the controlled energy takes place.

However, one must consider that also here no direct connection exists between one energetic action and the other – i.e. between the consumption of food and changes in the genetic blueprint. The energy source has neither the ability nor any reason to influence genetic processes in animals or plants, and yet it controls their development. If a certain species of gazelle incarnates the source of energy, and lions as well as other predators stand for the energons which use this energy, it would be an advantage for the gazelles if their enemies were to become blinder and weaker. But they bring about exactly the opposite effect: only the strongest and fastest predators survive.

Thus we arrive at a causal explanation of this enigmatic functionality in nature: it is the result of unintended and unplanned connections of effects succeed arising from the principle of the control causality. Even the eternal dispute in biology between mechanists and vitalists – as a consequence of which nowadays most biologists strictly avoid the word "functionality" – is called into question: If the producer – whether his name is coincidence or God – cannot influence the existence of what he creates, this quarrel has no real basis anymore. A supernatural force could speed up the genesis of functionality drastically. But it has absolutely no influence on what functionality must be like for it to be effective – given that there are unchanging laws of nature⁶.

For our analysis it is important to understand functionality because functionality and competitiveness are closely related. With regard to the energon, when competitiveness increases there is always at the same time an increase in functionality.
 
 

Thanks to their intelligence, human beings are able to create functionality – at least that is what we like to think. The overwhelming progress we have made over the last thousand years seems to support this statement. But are we really the ones who decide whether what we create is functional or not?

Let us – first of all – look at the pure efforts of acquisition, i.e. the energons which are generated by human beings. How is this with the acquisitive organ called the "sales product"? Is it really the producer (or inventor) who decides whether it is functional or not? Is he the one who decides whether it will beat the competition?

No, he does not. The purchasing decision depends on the demand. Whatever a customer wants, i.e. what is bought, is functional and able to compete. In this form of acquisition, the customer represents the source of energy. Again, the energy source decides how the key has to be shaped so the source can become accessible. So, it is the energy source which decides which product is accepted and which influences the competing enterprises in their mode of acquisition⁷.

And when it is not a product, but a service that is offered, the scheme remains the same. In this case, demand, i.e. the consumer’s need, decides which services an energon must offer in order to be successful in its acquiring activity. Again, the source of energy determines the most functional and most competitive behavioural pattern, i.e. the performance, and thus controls the formation of functionality.

In any case, those control processes are unintentional. If I drink Coca- Cola or Gordon’s Gin, I do not do so because I want to support the owner or the shareholders of an enterprise, but because I like these drinks. In general, the customer is not interested in influencing enterprises that sell products to him; he merely wants to satisfy his needs as well as possible. Nevertheless, he influences their development!

The intelligent action of a producer – or "inventor" – intelligence merely consists in pre-empting natural selection, i.e. he does its work. Here, human imagination again proves its importance. In his imagination, the seller tries to understand the market, the demand, the consumer, the customer from within. He gathers information about the source’s behaviour, reactions and wishes, and he tries to anticipate what appearance a product should have or what it must offer in order to be attractive to the consumer. In this process, he will normally not produce or offer anything he regards as non-functional.

If a producer offers two different types of the same product on the market, he leaves the decision to natural selection. The market – the source of energy – decides which product will win. He then concentrates on its (re)production. In this case, the source’s control effect is still obvious.

Wherever someone can reinforce the usual selection process, however, in particular with the help of marketing research, he will do so. Evolution no longer depends upon small, incidental changes that will only in a hundred or thousand years’ time lead to an increase in the functionality of an energon or of a vehicle of effect. Human beings change dozens of characteristics at one time and often create something completely new. They thus create structures which could have not been produced through normal selection.

Until human beings came into existence, evolution always had to face the hurdle of every link within a line of development requiring functionality. A decrease in an energon’s competitiveness could not be permitted under any circumstances – otherwise it might be eliminated in no time, and the corresponding course of development would end at this point. Hence, only those formations could survive whose intermediate forms did not have a negative impact on the balance. As human beings can build new structures out of foreign bodies, however, there is no need for them to consider intermediate forms. They can omit them., we develop in our imagination – as well as we can – a functional final product which is then offered on the market.

Consequently, humans cannot dictate what in their acquiring activities is functional. It is determined in the first place by demand – by the energy source to which access has to be established. Harmful or hostile environmental influences, such as governmental regulations, also interfere: They determine what will survive and what will not.
 
 

However, what is peculiar to human beings is that they are able to influence the demand themselves – in particular through advertisements. This means that the key does not adapt itself to the keyhole, but that the keyhole is changed in such a way that an already existing key may unlock it. In the evolutionary context, this process seems quite odd and new.

In this case, the control effect of the market is suppressed. The consumer is manipulated in order to suggest that he has a need for a certain product. At this point, humans indeed succeed in creating functionality. Because in this special case, and only in this one, they generate the entire system on the one hand giving shape to the key and on the other hand by defining the shape of the keyhole. This is especially the case with the creation of a new, previously non-existent demand, e.g. a fashion.

In a very similar way, humans can also modify negative selection, for example the harmful effect of hostile environmental influences. When, for instance, a river at times inundates the surrounding fields and farms, as a first step some farmers may construct protective walls. Future inundation will not harm them anymore. The type of energon that is surrounded by walls will establish itself in this region. This process corresponds to analogous safety devices produced by plant and animal energons. The harmful factor (the river) defines which defensive structures are necessary, i.e. it dictates what is functional in this region.

In contrast, if farmers combine forces in order to regulate or divert a river, they generate functionality. They control the factor that normally directs the formation of energons. Let us return once more to the example with the rabbits in snow regions that are decimated by birds of prey – consequently, only the white ones remain. The farms are decimated by the river – consequently only those protected by walls will remain. An analogous step to the river’s regulation or diversion would be if the rabbits were able to take some initiative which would lead to predators without any beak or with no interest in rabbits. In that case they would also have created functionality: an adaptation between the influencing factor and a characteristic inherent in the rabbits.

This example – which may seem a bit far-fetched – is designed to demonstrate what a novelty this procedure is within the frame of evolution. Human beings take over control both as regards positive and negative selection. By influencing or manipulating the consumer, they create new sources of acquisition; by defusing disturbing environmental factors, they make protective devices redundant.

With regard to human luxury, functionality must be analysed separately.

In the field of acquisition, functionality and competitiveness are identical. In the luxury sector, however, there exists a whole range of functionalities: a person always considers those things as functional which increase his comfort (pleasure, happiness, joy). The notion of what is comfortable, however, differs from person to person and from one minute to the next, and depends on disposition, education, the situation, depending on drives, emotions, mood, habits, influence, health, pathological predisposition, etc. For a theatre fan wanting to go to a play, the idea of the visit is "functional". Similarly, for a murderer in a mood of wanting to kill for pleasure, it is extremely "functional" to encounter a suitable victim.

In this publication, I will not expand on the manifold "functionalities of luxury". Or only to the extent to which it creates needs offering a basis of acquisition for other energons.

Thus we return to where we started. Human functionalities of luxury create a variety of demands: this is the source of acquisition for many human acquisition structures and thus controls functionality in their acquiring activities. This need may also be reinforced – through advertising or by other means of influence – by the acquisition structures themselves. In that case, it is not the functionality of luxury that dictates the functionality of the acquiring activity, but the converse: the functionality of the acquiring activity dictates the functionality of luxury.

In order to understand the dynamics of the energon’s development we will, in the following section, analyse the control effects of harmful and hostile environmental conditions.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "Spear and shield"
 
 

Comments:

¹ In his work “Système de la Nature”, the French philosopher Baron Holbach gave a cogent description of how ideas concerning God were conceived, saying that if we track things down to their roots, we will find that ignorance and fear created gods, that caprice, fanaticism and deceit confirmed and disfigured them, that weakness and naïveté feed them, that habit respects and despots back them – in order to use the blindness of humans for their own purpose. (Quoted in W. Durant's “Die grossen Denker”, Zürich 1943, p.225)
² Another “selective factor”, considered important in biology is “isolation”. The smaller a “population” (the number of species in one area), the greater is the probability of an random improvement through mutation and reproduction processes. W. Ludwig justifies this  argument: by pointing out that 10 players are more likely each to throw a six each than are 100 players. In smaller populations, a favourable chance is more likely to influence the whole system. "Die Selektionstheorie, " in G. Heberer, "Die Evolution der Organismen," Jena 1943.
³ F. Nietzsche, "Morgenröte", Chemnitz 1881.
⁴ He published his fundamental work in 1948: "Cybernetics, Control and Communication in the Animal and the machine", New York
⁵ Bernhard Hassenstein: “Die bisherige Rolle der Kybernetik in der biologischen Forschung”, in “Naturwisenschaftliche Rundschau”, Stuttgart 1960.
⁶ A theologian would say that God could of course change the laws of nature, thus creating another kind of functionality. The most important factor, however, is that apparently no such influence is exercised. Hence, functionality seems to be left to itself – and represents only a very relative value.
⁷ Further down, I will talk about the possibility of influencing potential consumers. At this point I am referring to the normal dependence which is not influenced by advertisements or other measures. In “Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik”, W. Eucken wrote that in the case of competition consumers determine the sort and the amount of production, and entrepreneurs, although they have some room for manoeuvre, finally respond to their needs. (Bern-Thübingen 1952, p.115).