No energon can acquire energy without being disturbed in some way or another. Almost every energon is like a fortress that is under siege. As every energon represents a potential of energy, it automatically becomes a possible source of acquisition for other energons.

Those animals and plants which have no predatory enemies at all might be found – if at all – only among the most specialised species. As to the energons created by human beings, the defence problem is not as pressing as it used to be. Within organised political systems, the human germ cell and its acquisition structures no longer need to defend themselves to the same extent as previously. The state guarantees security – in return for which every professional entity and business organisation has to pay taxes. The community organs such as national defence, the legislative and executive authorities relieve them – at least to a large extent – of the need to take individual protective measures.

In the case of animals and plants it is only their organic elements that are the target of predatory activities: for predators only molecules which can be broken down are useful as a source of acquisition. This is radically different in the non-coalesced acquisition structures and luxury items of mankind: Cannibalism is rather the exception. Human beings also produce predatory energons; these, however, mainly head for artificial organs, which do not have to be "digested" – they can immediately be used, and "sold" as well, on the basis of their functions. Therefore they are not really an actual source of acquisition, but they have some kind of exchange value. In the case of a watch or a diamond ring, the energy equivalent is even much higher than it could ever be in the form of the chemically exploitable energy of the same organic mass.

Until recent times, the human body, too, was a target for human predators. A fellow human being, subject to his own sets of rules, represents the most universally usable artificial organ. At the beginning of this development – which characterises all human ontology – there was the obedience of the family members. Wife and children were subject to male authority. Slavery and serfdom were the next stages of the exploitation of human beings. The artificial organ which is the ‘obedient human being’ can be forced to perform almost any physical and sometimes also mental work.

For thousands of years these institutions were taken for granted: many professional entities and business organisations were based on slavery and serfdom. They were protected, almost without exception, by the individual state systems. Only by exerting influence on these state systems did the individual gradually become able to free himself from this terrible danger of being made an artificial organ by force. It is common knowledge that in some parts of the world this process has not come to an end even today.

In the balance-sheet of each energon the expenses for defence against predators can be registered in the same category. They belong together in so far as they exert a very similar effect and because on a functional level they require similar countermeasures. Just as all entities which immediately serve acquisition form a kind of community, all vehicles of effect and all behaviour patterns aiming at protection and defence are functionally related, even if they occur in huge numbers and great variety.
 
 

The most original and simple form of protection is the shield. This kind of function unit is very well illustrated by the sea-urchin. Here, the defence mechanism is strongly reinforced by its sharp points.

This solution applies to plants only to a limited extent. For their mode of acquisition it is necessary that the light-rays are received by the surface facing them. The cellulose wall of the cells is not only a functional unit offering support, but also protection. Thus, for smaller predators it becomes more difficult to feed on them, bigger ones have difficulties when digesting. Trunks and branches, on the other hand, being non-acquisitive, are protected by the bark. Further protection units may take the form of spines or poisonous hairs.

In the case of human professional entities this protection principle manifests itself in may ways. In unprotected areas a farmer’s farm becomes his shield. Up until today we continue to be impressed by the mightiness of a castle’s walls. Termites provide primordial evidence of the fact that entire acquisitive organisations are protected by hard shields. Where human beings are concerned we can see this in fortified towns of the Middle Ages. However, hardly any country had the possibility of protecting itself in this way – the famous Chinese Wall is an exception here. On the other hand natural obstacles, rivers and mountain chains played an important role as fortifications. As to minor professional entities and business organisations, fences and barbed wire give evidence of the same defence principle. Between the energon and the potential predator an obstacle is put up.

This most simple method of defence shows major weaknesses, however. Defending oneself against predators hardly improves the balance-sheet if at the same time the acquisition of energy is made impossible by the protective vehicle of effect.

A possible solution to this dilemma is offered by shellfish. In the case of danger they close up – and consequently a shield surrounds them on all sides. For acquisition they open up just a little and stick out a suction tube for the acquisition of plankton.

Another possibility for solving the functional conflict between protection and acquisition is given by the principle of the ‘door’. Every operculate snail illustrates this. Here the shield has an opening through which the actual acquisitive organs can leave the enclosure. If an enemy comes, they quickly withdraw and the opening is closed again.

The doors of our houses as well as the gates of castles and town walls are by no means a trivial and superficial analogy to this. In both cases units like these came to be developed as a functional necessity. There are doors and gates not just because X or Y built them. They rather emerged as a necessary way out of the functional conflict between acquisition and protection against a potential enemy. Wherever armour or walls were built, such units were automatically implied. Otherwise this method of defence was simply not possible.

In all animal energons which were designed for acquisition through locomotion, armour became a particular problem. In this case not only the acquisition organs but also the locomotive organs needed doors in order to be able to become effective outside the armour. This is very clearly illustrated by turtles, who stick their legs and their head forward through the respective openings. Some species are able to withdraw their organs completely behind their "town walls".

Another solution is found in crayfish and insects. Their locomotive and acquisitive organs are armoured as well – which on the other hand calls for hinges. The artificial organ, the knight’s armour, can be seen as the human counterpart. This armour, though, had an advantage: it could be taken off – whereas insects and crayfish have to carry their armour around for all their life. Growth is particularly stunted by that: Insects as well as crayfish have to "slough". These regeneration processes are connected with considerable expenditure and have a negative influence on the balance in so far as each sloughing process involves increasing risks. As the new armour is at first soft, the animal has to hide in gaps or holes. This requires the development of the respective behaviour pattern.

First stage a: The genetic blueprint G together with the protecting vehicle of effect W builds up the energon E. This vehicle may be armour (as indicated in the illustration) but it can also be a poisonous sting, a camouflage paint or a pattern of flight behaviour. W represents, in a very general way, the totality of all units serving for protection against predatory enemies.

Second stage b: In this case the genetic blueprint G develops an originally unprotected (or insufficiently protected) energon F, but provides it with the behaviour pattern V, which enables it to acquire vehicles of effect from the environment all by itself and to incorporate them into its effective body (W₂). These can again consist of armour (as is the case with the hermit crab), but can also be elements which have to be joined together in order to form a protective unit (e.g. stones, used to erect a protective wall or a castle). in this case V represents the totality of all behaviour patterns which are useful for the artificial acquisition of additional protection units.

Third stage c: The energons H,I and K are human beings, each of them having acquired protection units. H may have acquired a house (W₃), I a gun (W₄), K body guards (W₅). These three energons (there may be many more) join their forces and together form a united structure which protects them all: a community defence unit against predators. This can be a kraal as we can still find today in primitive African tribes, but could equally well be armed forces or finally a protective organisation including laws, jurisdiction and national defence. Thus, the "state", in its role of a vehicle of effect protecting its citizens, is the result of a functional development of all protective institutions built up in course of evolution.
 

Another method to solve this problem is seen in animals which roll up, which are found in various animal species. Only their upper side is armoured – so in case of danger they roll up: the pill-bug, the woodlouse, the pangolin. The hedgehog rolls up as well. The porcupine, however, just spreads out its spikes, and the porcupine fish sucks itself full with water which causes its spikes to stick out on all sides. In each of these energons particular behaviour patterns had to be developed. Only in connection with these patterns did their protective organs became fully effective.

The characteristic mode of defence devised by human intelligence is the shield. It can be put aside, it is not very heavy and it allows free movement. If the enemy’s spears or arrows come flying, the shield is held out against them. The expenditure for its protective effect is thus restricted to the absolutely necessary minimum.

The problem of growth affects not only insects and crayfish but also companies and state systems. If a company grows, new walls and doors have to be built. If a state enlarges its territory, new frontier fortifications become necessary.
 
 

Most animals– as a prerequisite for their mode of acquisition – are able to move freely. If they also use this proficiency to escape from predatory enemies by fleeing from them, this seems to us to be just natural. We have to consider, however, that again certain vehicle of effects are necessary for this skill, i.e. behavioural patterns.

Squirrels flee to tree-tops; mice into their holes; the beaver dives away; the pheasant takes wing; The mouthbreeders' offspring rapidly flee into their parents’ mouths; young kangaroos jump into their parents’ pouches; rabbits dodge; moths loop; for each of these performances the animal needs a very concrete material unit in its central nervous system – a corresponding behavioural pattern.

If acquisitive and locomotive organs are additionally used for defence – if for example fish defend themselves with their mouths or deer by using their hoofs – then this is anything but "self-evident". Prey and predators are totally different: the energon has to be able to distinguish between the two. Besides, flight calls for an entirely different co-ordination of movement than does attack. Here again defence is based on an additional development of behavioural patterns.

Some animals instinctively play dead whenever they are in danger. Their protective reaction is based on the fact that many predators are only stimulated to attack their prey if it is moving. In this case the protective behavioural pattern is adapted to the behavioural pattern of the predator. Human beings also still have this protective reaction inherited from our animal ancestors. When we become aware of danger, that is when we become "terrified", a physical rigidity comes on to us, we are "paralysed" with fear.

A rather desperate and costly way of fighting one’s enemies is the shedding of some body parts. If the lizard is in danger, it sheds its tail. This part continues to move and thus attracts the enemy's attention – the main body escapes. When the sea cucumber is attacked it sheds its innards. The predatory animal eats them, and might then leave the rest alone. Later on the innards regenerates. If the freshwater ringed worm (Lumbriculus variegatus ) has to face attack, its body disintegrates into several parts. Those which are not eaten up by the enemy regenerate the missing body parts.

Regeneration as the main defence weapon can be found in nearly all plants – but some of them also defend themselves via corresponding "behaviour". They "escape" from their pursuers – even though they do so in their very slow manner, i.e. by means of growth. Every goat plucking off the leaves of a sprout illustrates the advantages bigger trees have as soon as their leaves grow more than two metres above the ground. This is primarily a measure of attack against rivals, which are thus deprived of light, but furthermore it also serves for defence.

Also in this case we can speak of a behavioural pattern. The difficulty of distinguishing strictly between developmental and behavioural patterns is clearly illustrated in this example.
 
 

It is widely known that animals and plants are provided with extremely variegated and effective defence and fighting mechanisms. It is new, though that the expenditure involved is assessed in terms of energy – regardless of what individual defence measures may actually be taken – and to sum them up under the same category. Regarding their effects, all actions of predators are similar: they can be compared with spears threatening the energons. The defence mechanisms against these spears are –in stick to the terms of symbols – like protective shields. Whether such a "shield" looks like armour with spikes or appears in the form of a control structure in the brain which induces the creature to flee, to play dead or to use its locomotive organs as a means of defence is – with regard to the balance-sheet – of very minor importance.

It is a fact that almost every energon is threatened by predators. It is also a fact that it has to protect itself in one way or another. To be more precise, it has to be protected by some kind of vehicle of effect; otherwise it is likely to become a victim of the predator and it would not be able to survive nor to evolve further.

Here, too, the only essential thing is: what does the defence mechanism cost ? How effective is it ? How fast does it work ?

Camouflage, as a defence mechanism, is totally different from inflicting an electric shock (as in the case of the electric eel) or from intimidating the assailant by inflating oneself – or by systematic propaganda. The energon theory claims that it is not the differences that are important but the energy expenditure involved and the actual effect.

If a monocellular parasite invades a body – for example a pathogenic agent – then all defence functional units which are directed outwards are totally useless – and the functional units in the energon have to take action. In the human body it is the leucocytes that sacrifice themselves in a most unselfish way. They swim around in the blood or they creep around in our tissues like freely moving amoeba, eat up as many invading enemies as possible and finally, loaded with this dangerous burden, leave our body; so they commit suicide for the higher purpose. As we experience them as something which causes us discomfort, our "ego" rejects them. We call them "pus". They are units which sacrifice their lives for our benefit.

Other even more highly specialised police units are the antibodies. They are tailored to order depending on the kind of enemies invading. These units – just like the leucocytes – have so far been the subject of physiological research; the defence mechanisms against the environment, however, have been an issue discussed within the fields of ecology, morphology and ethnology. Within the scope of the energon theory these phenomena belong together. If a defence effect neutralises the enemy outside or inside the body makes no difference to the balance-sheet. The only essential is that the enemy is eliminated. And all factors that contribute to that belongs together functionally.

Some tissues are capable of eliminating invading predators by surrounding them with a firm shield. In pigs, for example, invading nematodes are enclosed within a capsule which then gradually calcifies. These predators, however, are quite obstinate. They go on living within the capsule for up to 30 years. If a suitable host (a rat, a dog, a human being, a bear, a pig) eats meat which is infected by them, the capsule decomposes, the energon is set free – and within the new host further development and procreation is initiated .

Companies, too, have security units. The same is true for State bodies – where they gain particular importance in wartime. If in the interior an enemy is detected – in this case any citizen can become an enemy – he is eliminated as well. Or he is enclosed by a firm capsule: he goes to "prison".

Another way of fighting the enemy can be seen in the earthworm and in the comb-clawd beetle. The former has a liquid within its physical cavities with a disgusting taste: if a predator bites it, the assailant may pause for a moment, and the earthworm gets away with just some injuries. If the predator is capable of learning, it will associate the outer appearance of the earthworm with the disgusting taste. Consequently it will leave other earthworms alone – which is favourable to the species as a whole. The comb-clawd beetle has highly poisonous substances in its body. If the assailant happens to eat it, it will probably die. This doesn’t help the comb-clawd beetle itself, as it does not bring it back to life. But it is useful for the species.

Why? That is quite simple: If many such predators die because of the comb-clawd beetlethis means a disadvantage in terms of natural selection – a disadvantage to the species as they are not able to compete with others which do not eat thecomb-clawd beetle. At best these predators can become mutants (a genetically modified species), which then avoid comb-clawd beetles. Consequently, this variant survives. Such processes may take a thousand generations, and many poisonous animals (in our case the comb-clawd beetle fall by the wayside. But the descendants finally profit from this "pioneer sacrifice". It is again the species that benefits.

For the human germ cell such defence measures, though not protecting the individual, but fellow members of this species and descendants, are particularly important. Whoever is killed by another cannot be brought back to life by any jurisdiction in the world. But if the murderer is executed, this has a deterrent effect which gets around. The retroactive effect works in a different way, but leads to the same result: other people will be killed less readily.

So there are defence effects which do not work for the individual, but which do for its descendants. As for animals and plants, these descendants are always members of the same species. As for human energons, as far as their procreation is concerned, they are no longer restricted to fellow human beings – and so it happens that protective measures for the human germ cell are useful to the whole variety of energons set up and controlled by human beings within a certain territory.

All in all, it should be noted that all energons are threatened by "spears" and therefore need adequate "shields" for defence. What such a shield in each separate case has to look like in order to be successful depends on the nature of the spear, e.g. is determined by the nature of the enemy. So, to a considerable extent predators influence the evolutionary development of the energons they attack – without ever even intending this at all. By means of influencing causality they force energons to develop vehicles of effect for their defence – additional structural features and activities, i.e. additional costs

The energon USA spends a huge part of its budget on national defence: In 1965 – before the war in Vietnam made itself particularly felt – it was more than 50 billion dollars. As for the sea-urchin, the expenditures for developing a shield and its spikes (nobody has rated it) may be almost equal to the expenditure for the actual acquisition organs: mouth, bowels etc. As the sea-urchin, however, uses its spikes also for locomotion, these expenditures have to be categorised partly also under the heading "acquisition". If the military forces in the USA are also in some way or other useful for the promotion of foreign trade – as is very likely to be the case – then also here a correction is necessary.

Apart from the predators, there are also other environmental factors which threaten and influence energons. Though their effect is arbitrary, they can have even more serious consequences than the effects of predators.

Let us have a look at these other "spears".
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "The limits of will"