Authors who want to achieve sales for their books that are as high as possible are not mistaken if they go into the subject of "sex" extensively. We, too, now turn to that subject. Whether interest in this book is increased thereby is an open question. For the quintessence of what the energon theory has to say concerning that topic is: sex and research are closely related and have to be considered comparatively. Functionally they play the same roles.

Up to this point we have been dealing mainly with energon individuals. We asked: how do they have to be constituted? Which functional units do they need? What makes them competitive?

If energons were isolated phenomena – and not vehicles of an immense developmental stream which is continued inside them and only them – then we would almost be at the end of our considerations. We then would know that with every energon the central structure is determined through the sources of energy and substances. Further functional units are needed in order to ward off disturbing factors and to use favourable ones. Additionally we also find – as requirements of the inner organisation – those of bonding, co-ordination, matching and preservation. According to that terminological system the structures of all energons are comprehensible and comparable to each other. That system constitutes not only one among many other possible ones but is relevant in that it describes the fundamental structure of competitiveness and thus the actual basis for the existence of these structures.

Contrastingly, if we consider energons not as individuals but as vehicles of life-development, as a prerequisite and the sole possibility for the continuing flow of that process, then the situation becomes a different one. It then becomes apparent that more demands are made on their spatial-temporal structure. They have to produce still further outputs and also have to have further very essential functional units at their disposal.

Not infrequently the process of life has been compared to fire and in fact, there is a certain similarity, though not just concerning one aspect: both processes need free energy and use it up.

However, the peculiarity of life processes consists in the fact that they manifest themselves within spatial-temporal structures which have on average active balances of free energy. Thus, while fire merely consumes free energy, the life process is continued within material structures which supply themselves with the energy needed for the continuous flow of that.

The very first such structures – the very first energons as we call them – thus had to have two basic abilities.First, in a suitable environment they had to exert effects on their surroundings so that their potentials of free energy were raised. Secondly, they had to be constituted in such a way that the raising of the potential resulted in a growth of their structures. They had to be successful in obtaining appropriate substances – so that their structures were extended.

On the basis of those two abilities, however, the life process was still not really ready to unfold itself. It is true that such energons – similar to crystals – could develop in an appropriate environment and also grow correspondingly. Yet, if the environmental conditions became unfavourable, they fell apart again. In order to attain an improvement – a "higher stage of development" – two further qualities, two further abilities were necessary. Life development had – technically speaking – still to take two more "hurdles", still had to surmount two functional barriers.

Until today it has hardly – or at least not sufficiently – been pointed out that those two further abilities virtually excluded each other. The surmounting of the first "barrier" practically meant that the surmounting of the second one became almost impossible. From the very beginning onwards life development was slowed down by serious functional conflicts.

We will now consider them in more detail.

The first "barrier" which had to be surmounted was the necessity to obtain facilities for reproduction.

If an energon only possessed the ability to extend itself continually, in the case of death life development came to an end. If, on the contrary, it was able to split itself up into umpteen parts, the chance that one of those units could continue its autocatalytic activity became considerably higher. Even if the process of life in 99 such units came to an end and dried up – it continued in the hundredth.

In the most simple case such a division was possible through mere tearing apart. Fire, too, is able to breed in that way. Contrastingly, if we consider the most simple energons still existing today, then we discover that their breeding is already connected to quite complicated functional units. The mere falling apart of the energon is by no means sufficient. Their total structures are already so complicated that they have to have special units at their disposal which can newly construct the whole energon – which can regenerate it.

At this point I come back to the explanations of the previous chapter: reproduction constitutes a complete regeneration. Thus, in addition to all other functional units all higher developed energons also have to possess ones that can achieve total construction. What do those functional units look like? How do they have to be constituted?

If we follow that question theoretically, we will find that for the function "reproduction" two very distinct groups of rather complicated functional units are necessary. The first prerequisite for every process of construction – in whatever way it is carried out in the individual case – is a structural blueprint, a plan of the total structure where every detail of the energon is laid down. If such a plan is missing, then even the best steering cannot build the energon. The second prerequisite is: the energon also has to possess functional units which can duplicate those blueprints exactly. For with every propagation and with every duplication certainly every new energon also has to be given the complete structural blueprint in order then to pass it on to its descendants. Thus, whatever the blueprint may look like – it has to be divided exactly: this forms the second problem. The more differentiated, the more complex an energon is, the more complicated and the more complex the blueprint required for its construction becomes – and thereby also the task of dividing it flawlessly becomes the more complicated

How that duplication mechanism was brought forth with the first energons – and what intermediate developmental stages it had – will probably never be fully reconstructed. Already with unicellular organisms we can make out that mechanism in a high degree of perfection. The centre of action here – as a rule – is the "central corpuscle" (centriol) which is a functional unit that first of all divides itself. That results in two centres which move apart and from which pulling structures are built which seize the blueprint threads, which split lengthways, from two sides, and then pull them apart. This process is called "mitosis". From the viewpoint of evolution it has to be underlined that – necessarily – already energons in a very early developmental stage must have attained that achievement. It was the precondition for higher development.

It is no less difficult to surmount the second "barrier". The mechanism of dividing blueprints makes sure that all the qualities of an energon are transmitted to its descendants, hence that no progress that has been made in the course of evolution gets lost. Yet, how did such progresses come about?

That brings us to the crucial point: progress and change can only be achieved if the structural blueprints change. If the descendants are always exact images of the energons that produced them, higher development is excluded.

This is the difficult functional conflict that constituted a burden for the energons – as the vehicles of development of life – from the very beginning onwards. For their propagation they needed facilities which passed on their qualities exactly to the descendants. Only thus could progress be maintained. On the other hand every further development, every progress was virtually excluded by such faultless duplication. Thus, two completely contrary demands were made on the genetic blueprint – the centre of every mechanism of propagation: on the one hand a faultless division – otherwise the progress would have been lost – and on the other hand a change – otherwise no progress would have been made.

Today, when we find almost the whole globe populated with plants and animals and we ourselves exist, this is conclusive evidence that there was a solution to that functional conflict. The "life-stream" – as I would like to carry on calling the life-development – does not dry up. It is manifested in always new, increasingly productive and higher developed energons. How did that happen?

How could the genetic blueprint satisfy those completely opposing demands – not to change and still change after all?

With that we come to the hermaphroditism.

In principle it is an extremely clumsy process. Despite all perfection sometimes there happen to be mistakes in the division of the genetic blueprint – so-called mutations. In a vast majority of cases they lead to a reduction of productivity – but sometimes they can also cause an improvement. The probability that the latter will happen is increased considerably if the genetic blueprints of different individuals merge. This then results in constantly new combinations of the deviations occurring here and there. The "selection-material" – as the biologist calls it – gets bigger. While one or another alteration does not create an advantage for itself, in combination with others this can well lead to innovations which are favourable for the balance.

With that, the basic principle of hermaphroditism is already depicted. Some researchers thought that with cell fusions it was possible to compensate for mistakes in the genetic blueprint, thus, that that was the function of those processes. Genetic demands have shown indisputably, this, however, is – as a rule – not actually what happens nor is it necessary. The divisions of the genetic blueprint – with cell divisions – take place very precisely. The probability of mutation is only 1:10.000 to 1:100.000. If in the course of the sexual process different germ cells merge, this does not have the purpose of correcting mistakes but instead of combining changes that have occurred¹.

Summarised in five points this relationship, which is so alien and so far away from the conventional way of thinking, appears as follows:

• First: life-development could always only be continued in structures that have active balances. In cases where it became passive, it dried up (went out like fire that does not find any "nourishment" anymore).
• Second: the structures with active balances (which we call "energons") had to acquire the ability to propagate themselves – otherwise a further development of that process was not possible.
• Third: with such propagation all the features of the parent have to be transmitted to the descendants – otherwise the progress achieved would be lost again.
• Fourth: a prerequisite of every improvement – every higher development of energons – however, was changes of the genetic blueprints.
• Fifth: there was one solution to that almost insoluble functional conflict: the division of the genetic blueprints was carried out with the highest precision. The still occasionally occurring alterations were combined through a special process. Thus higher development remains dependent on alterations. However, with their constantly new combinations the chance that improvements are achieved is considerably increased. Thus the tempo of higher development is significantly raised.

Let us consider the consequences of both functions in more detail. First, those of reproduction.

With multi-cellular organisms the same reproduction mechanism is maintained. With minor exceptions, they do not divide themselves as a whole. Through an appropriately steered series of divisions and differentiations the germ cell constructs a bigger body of acquisition, however, some cells remain undifferentiated and totipotent ("germ-track"). That means that they keep the same abilities as the germ cell: the ability of total regulation. If their energon dies or they are expelled by it they can construct a new energon which is exactly the same.

That process is opposed by considerable difficulties, however. For every energon in the process of its construction is not yet fully "fit for use" and thus correspondingly defenceless. The germ cells and the developmental stages growing out of them are a welcome prey for predator energons.

Here we gain an interesting insight. The energons – as vehicles of life-development – become a brake in that process. Some of them do support their own development – and with that the flow of life – by eating the germs of others, on the other hand they disturb the reproduction of the affected energons and hence hinder their flow of life. We will come back to these and similar conflicts of interests in the next chapter.

There are two possibilities to protect the germs and the processes of their construction. The first possibility is that the germ cell together with the amount of energy and substances needed for construction are covered with a hard shield and then left to their destinies. With plants this is called a "seed" and with animals it is called "egg". With plants, from that wrapping there shoots the young seedling – if the seed is put into suitable environmental conditions. With animals that process of development takes place inside them and once the new energon is capable of acquisition it hatches out, that is it leaves the protecting wrapping.

The other possibility is that the reproducing energon carries out the nourishing of the germ directly and thus takes over the function of protection. In that case the descendant grows inside the host body – exactly like an organ. With animals in particular where that type of propagation is widespread this builds a considerable burden for the propagating energon. Only when the germ has itself become capable of acquisition and able to defend itself ("viable") is it disposed of. Also for that process of "birth" special facilities (especially an appropriate opening and co-ordination blueprints for processes inside the body) are necessary.

With higher animals we find another reproduction technique. There, too, the "young" matures inside the body, if expelled, however, it is not yet fully capable of acquisition and defence. Its further development takes places separately from the parent, yet under its protection and care. This we call the "care of the brood". For that type of reproduction – which is practised by most birds and mammals – innate behavioural patterns are necessary in addition to the other reproduction mechanisms.

A rationalisation of those costly processes is only found in a small number of animals, especially with insects building states. With termites, ants and bees not every individual is still burdened with reproduction – which does not even serve the individual. The "queen" takes over the business. That is an effective combining of functions. In the framework of the energon "insect state" that specialised individual becomes an organ (vehicle of effect) of reproduction. For the balance of the community this means a significant saving of energy.

With humans we still find the individuals burdened with the problem of reproduction. Yet, an important transition took place which passed the further function of construction on to a multi-cellular organ, the central nervous system. With the bigger energons built by us, where we ourselves are only the "germ cells" and the steering centres, the problem of the blueprint-threads constantly getting longer, entailing increasingly difficult division, does not exist. The blueprints that are laid down in the central nervous system can be duplicated much more easily: through language and writing they can be transmitted from one brain to another directly. Finally, they can also leave the body in the shape of artificial organs. Their duplication then becomes an almost banal problem.

If for instance the structural blueprints for an enterprise should be duplicated, it suffices to copy all instructions and drawings – thus all "plans". From every table of instructions and from all specialist literature umpteen numbers of cheap "copies" can be produced fast with the printing process. Only seen from that perspective it becomes clear what the first part of the evolution’s burden was like and how much easier the same function can now be managed.

Inside human communities, specialist literature – science per se – became an aid organ of the construction of blueprints (which today is already available for everybody) .The organised human being draws from that enormous information reservoir via the common organs "school" and "university" and by that learns the art of building blueprints. It is up to him/her to decide what structures of acquisition he builds – which types of energon he reproduces.

Energons are not forced anymore to spend their surpluses on the reproduction of the own species – but instead a completely different mechanism guarantees that the propagation of energons is continued. It is the human "striving for luxury" – the entirety of all inherent and acquired drives which urge humans to the striving for "convenience" in the most ample sense of the term. The units that trigger off that behaviour – we will come back to them later on – make humans especially keen on the construction of energons. They build professional bodies and businesses. Those energons that have not coalesced other reproduce themselves – without the contribution of a relative belonging to the species. A new tailor’s company or a new insurance company can come into existence without the smallest contribution of another tailor’s company or another insurance company. Now the surpluses can be spent in places where the best possibilities of acquisition prevail – a change which is tremendously favourable for the development of energons.

What is more, the human striving for luxury supports the development of energons – and thus of the stream of life – also in another respect. The individual human being does not need to spend the surpluses at his disposal for the construction of energons at all – nevertheless they are of benefit. The jeweller who spends his money in Mallorca contributes to the flourishing of the hotel-energons established there. The attorney who uses his money for belles-lettres or for prostitutes also becomes a source of energy for other energons. Even the playboy who transforms his parents’ fortune into racing cars which he then wrecks supports the development of energons: all professional entities and business organisations who were involved in the construction of those toys have cause to be grateful.

Surveying this course of development entails difficult aspects of the energon theory, i.e. those that run most counter to the habitual way of thinking. To summarise briefly:

• First: with unicellular organisms the genetic blueprint is the most important functional unit for reproduction. In addition there are further advanced facilities – especially those that are needed for the faultless duplication of those blueprints.
• Second: with multi-cellular organisms this reproduction mechanism is maintained. As the blueprint-threads grow increasingly extensive their division becomes an increasingly difficult technical problem. If with every cell division that leads to the human body always the complete blueprint responsible for our construction has to divide itself in every individual chromosome, this is – from a technical point of view – atrocious. It is perhaps the most costly multi-track process in which the development of energons ever became involved.
• Third: through the central nervous system taking over this further function of construction, that functional load was cast off. Non-coalesced energons built by humans do not have to reproduce themselves in accordance with their own species any more. In this second stage of evolution surpluses can flow into the construction of those types of energons that have the best possibilities of acquisition. Principally it is up to the "germ cell" human being which type of energon he constructs – and hence reproduces.
• Fourth: inside organised communities, apart from the oral tradition literature became the auxiliary organ of reproduction for energons. The common organs "schools" and "universities" became protectors, stewards and transmitters of the experiences gained – became protectors, stewards and transmitters of the energons’ structural blueprints.
• Fifth: the human striving for convenience (in the broadest sense of the term) became the driving force for reproduction. Such striving supports the construction and growth of energons in a twofold way. On the one hand, it leads humans to create bodies of acquisition – in order to be able to afford convenience. On the other hand it leads humans to acquire the achievements of others – by which they become the acquisition sources of all those energons whose services or work results they buy.

The original mechanism of "improvement" worked on its own, so to speak. Without special functional units, without its own contribution. Mistakes – mutations – possibly became advantages.

Mutations are sometimes caused from the outside (heat-effects, cosmic radiation, etc.) or they result from mistakes in the process of division. In any case, they are lacking a sense of direction. They usually reduce the power of acquisition and competition of the respective energon (its productivity) but can also increase it. The latter then is, as it were, destiny’s "gift" which some energons and their descendants are lucky to enjoy – and which are opposed by a far higher number of "gifts" that aggravate the balances of the energons that receive them and which then mostly do not even get as far as reproduction.

The second mechanism that supported the higher development of organisms, however, was an immensely more costly one. It is the facility "hermaphroditism". Already with unicellular organisms it becomes apparent what kind of burdens sexual processes constitute for individuals.

Reduced to the simplest formula the second requirement is the following: the genetic blueprints do not only have to be able to divide themselves – they also have to be capable of the opposite: to merge with the genetic blueprint of another individual². One has to consider what that means! The endless thread molecules have to be put together with other similarly long thread molecules so that each of the thousands and hundred thousands or millions of vehicles of commands (genes) can merge exactly with the analogous part of the other thread. Anybody who has to disentangle a ball of wool or a fishing line may be aware of the difficulty which that technical problem involves.

Already with a bacterium as simple as the coli the blueprint threads are a thousand times longer than its diameter. Here the energons were confronted with an extraordinary difficulty.

Special facilities (functional units) first have to make sure that uni-cellular organisms of the same species search for each other, recognise each other and commence the process of uniting. Then the blueprint threads have to find their appropriate partners and the uniting of the cells has to take place in a way that does not extinguish their productivity but, rather, provides the means for a process of division.

With multi-cellular organisms the problem was even bigger. The germ cells nestling inside their bodies had to be merged with those of other individuals. That resulted in the necessity for appropriate openings and insertion organs. In water it might be sufficient if the partners excreted their sexual products together and thus caused them to combine. This is what happens with many types of fish. This, however, was not possible on land as germ cells dry up when they are exposed to air. Here the sexual cells have to be inserted into the body of the partner. The same is also true for those water animals whose descendants grow inside the body of a parent.

The subdivision into "male" and "female" which is so self-evident for us is a rationalisation of that process. One kind of germ cell takes over the task of searching for the partner: the "male" sperm. The other kind takes over the task of the succeeding energon construction: the "female" egg cells that are equipped with appropriate reserves of energy and substances.

With unicellular organisms that distinction does not always exist and among multi-cellular organisms there are many that are both male and female. With most of the higher animals, however, that division of labour became distinct and led to further differentiation. The female animal is specialised in the bringing forth of descendants, the male animal is specialised in the search for the female and the protection of the "family".

The sexual partners have to recognise each other by distinctive marks. The normal tendencies, i.e. hostility to competitors for food, at times have – for the purpose of the copulation process – to become the opposite. Appropriate steering (behavioural patterns, drives) has to impel them to an extremely intimate contact. Correspondingly positive feelings have to accompany the successful performance of the copulation process (or negative ones with the non-performance) – otherwise there is no point in it taking place.

What enormous expenditures – from the viewpoint of the balance – those processes constitute is shown by all kinds of animals which migrate, move to areas with higher dangers or exhaust themselves in fights with rivals and mating ceremonies for the business of copulation.

With land plants growing in the ground, reaching each other became a particular problem for the sexual partners. Here – as has already been discussed – outside energy is utilised. In the fist place it is the wind. Some of them succeeded in inducing insects to transport male sexual cells to the female through their specifically shaped sexual organs, the "blooms".

All parasites have to face even bigger problems due to the necessity of combining germ cells. As has already been explained, often the only possibility for them to attain their actual sources of acquisition – inside the bodies of their hosts – are through complicated detours and through several changes of shape. What makes it even more complicated is the fact that – at least occasionally –the uniting with organisms belonging to the same species also has to be included in those cycles.

Enough has been written about the enormous variety of facilities and types of behaviour which ensure the sexual uniting with the individual kinds of plants and animals. However, not enough stress has been put on the function which makes all that expenditure necessary. The important thing to be mentioned here is that the genetic opportunities that occur by chance have to be mixed so that the chance of changes improving acquisition is increased.

The rather clumsy mechanism’s effectiveness is improved, if among the individuals of a species the more productive ones have preference in mating. This is the biological meaning of fights between rivals. Individuals who seek that process actively (mostly the "male") are by that more likely to attain the partner (the "female") if they are stronger and more capable.

With higher animals another improvement we find is the active recognition of the partner’s qualities (strength and integration). Only distinct marks then trigger the willingness for mating. This also accelerates and supports the slow and ponderous process of natural selection.

According to the energon theory the outer multiplicity of those appearances is secondary. What is primarily important is the fact that here we have altogether an enormous expenditure, an eminent energetic burden which we almost without exception find with every type of organism.

With some plants and animals (especially parasites) there also exist "asexual" processes of reproduction (budding, parthenogenesis). Here reproduction is not preceded by a merging. Yet, also with such types, at least at times, again there is sexual union occasionally. This compels the following conclusion: organisms could not do without the process of the copulation, could not attain further development and an increase of their competitiveness without it³.

More precisely: those species which had that function at their disposal were without exception advantaged. If others came into being without possessing appropriate facilities for the process of mating, they – with rare exceptions – fell by the wayside.

That consideration gives us another argument in answering the dispute whether there was a supernatural force at work which led the organisms to a higher order or not.

The phenomenon of hermaphroditism supplies evidence, which can even be expressed in figures, that no such force ("entelechy") directly intervened in the process of evolution. As far as I know this has not been pointed out before.

If such a force – as the "vitalists" assume – had steered evolution, then the costly and ponderous mechanism of improvement would have been superfluous. There would have been no need for hermaphroditism to develop or it would have been degenerated a long time ago. The guiding force would have led the organisms far more directly and more elegantly to improvements⁴.

One may not put aside that argument lightly. Throughout evolution it is shown clearly that costly structures which are not required degenerate. If animals changed to a mode of living where the visual organs became superfluous, they degenerated. If they changed to a sedentary way of life, then the organs of locomotion degenerated. If plants changed to a parasitic way of life, their leaves degenerated. If organisms living in water changed to living on land, then all functional units serving their life in water degenerated. In the competition energons with functionless parts that burden them and which they still have to nourish and attend to cannot assert themselves. They become disadvantaged in comparison to others which get rid of such burdens and are ousted. Thus, in the end, it is those which who manage the change successfully which remain.

It can be determined measurably what percentage of functionless parts is still tolerable for organisms, that is what is still below the level which burdens competitiveness. The costs of hermaphroditism certainly lie considerably over that mark – for there are hundreds of provable cases where far less costly structures degenerated.

With regard to that fact it can practically be excluded that the functional circle "hermaphroditism" that is so costly and which actually burdens every type of animal’s and plant’s balances would have arrived at such a formation and at such a strong unfolding, had itnot been dictated by an urgent necessity. Yet, all of the results of research we have today clearly point to the fact that this process does not provide any other advantage for the organisms than the following one: to obtain changes, new combinations and hence – possibly – improvements.

The final word has not been spoken regarding whether that mechanism plus mutations and natural selection was sufficient to guarantee the higher development of organisms. Today the majority of biologists share that opinion, yet there are also arguments against it – mainly the relatively "short" duration of evolution (only about 3 billion years). Therefore it is not impossible – in my opinion it is even probable – that yet another connection of effects that favours improvements will be discovered.

Yet, also such an additional mechanism has to be – this can already be said now – constituted in a way that it cannot do without the faculty of "hermaphroditism". The enormous expenditure on that function with all organisms speaks an all too clear language.

That burden was disposed of at the developmental stage "human being". It is true that humans – we will come back to this soon – are particularly burdened by sex and its consequences, but the energons built by them do not need those processes anymore. We do not see a business copulating with another one in delight and orgasm. Yet, all bodies of acquisition built by humans show considerably faster changes of the species and considerably faster higher development.

The function "improvement of the blueprints" was also taken over by the multi-cellular unit of the central nervous system at that developmental stage. Humans devise new structural blueprints and behavioural patterns on their inner projection screen of "fantasy" and can even examine them for their suitability. The individual parts of the energons built by humans are not coalesced any more, so humans can change or exchange them much more easily. The result – as a further consequence – is a considerably greater ability for regulation. The high correspondence between the individuals of one "species" with animals and plants is now lost, is not necessary any more and also not supportive. Similar forms of acquisition still dictate similar structures but the individual energon more and more becomes an individual phenomenon. The value structure which is necessary for all of them remains decisive – in the outer appearance we find a growing number of differences, however.

In the course of development the function "improvement of blueprints" was separated from the individual germ cell "human being". In enterprises we find bigger and even more specialised units entrusted with that task: the departments of research (including those of the market research). Here a number of people combine their abilities of devising plans and are supported by a growing number of artificial functional units: for instance by statistics and computers. These functional units do not have anything in common with the functional units and processes of hermaphroditism superficially – yet, they do exert the same function.

Within the even bigger states that process was continued. Here the functional units of the "improvement of blueprints" also leave the bodies of the individual professional structures and businesses. In the shape of research that is subsidised by the state that function is taken over by common organs, whose results are then generally accessible. Eventually those common organs also detach themselves from state bonds – unite with each other – so that today research can already be called a "techno-structure" of the evolutionary progress. Like a spider’s legs they spread over the whole globe and become the central evolutionary organ as such.

According to our habitual way of thinking sex and research are completely different phenomena: it seems grotesque to equate the act of love, lipstick and prostitutes functionally with seminars, chairs and scientific periodicals. Yet, here it is also the case that in the course of evolutionary development one function was passed on to another functional unit.

Despite the outer difference – as can be expected – there are also structural parallels to be found here.

The first one is: with all organisms we find the functions of improvement and reproduction closely coupled to each other – necessarily. For the merging of blueprints only has a "value" for evolution, if it is followed by a process of reproduction. Although with human acquisition structures the whole situation is different there are also similar couplings here. Accordingly, the common organs "universities" are not only functional units of the reproduction of blueprints but also such of the improvement of blueprints.

A second parallel is even more informative: the fundamental function of hermaphroditism is the merging of different blueprints. Very similar mergings also occur in the second stage of evolution – only they appear in a completely different shape.

Every specialist debate is a merging of blueprints. Blueprints are – via language – transmitted to another energon and are there "mixed" with the ones already there – more precisely: matched with them.

If a researcher reads a scientific work, the same process takes place. The author’s blueprints that are written down come into contact with the ones that are in the brain of the reader. Also, all study thus leads to a merging of blueprints: to new combinations.

With scientific congresses – for instance with symposia – but also with every discussion in businesses or states the blueprints of numbers of people are matched with each other. In that case – this is a novelty of evolution – more than two partners are involved in such a uniting of blueprints.

Certain philosophers of history considered the merging of different nations as the starting point for cycles of cultural development. This is also a merging of blueprints of energons. This also brought forth new combinations, new developments – both in the area of acquisition and of luxury.

It was in the transitional phase of energon development, at the developmental stage "human being" that sexuality lost its meaning. At the same time though – like a final flaring up – particularly with humans it attained a power that was bigger than in any other organism. While most animals only mate at certain times – which is also a form of rationalisation – with humans the drive that urges the uniting is active for the whole year, even almost for life.

Why?

At one time it was considered as a hyper-function (hypertrophy) similar to that found in domestic animals. By shielding them from their natural enemies we work against natural selection. The consequence of that – as is known today – is that some drives are intensified (for instance the eating drive and the sexuality drive). Humans also shielded themselves from their natural enemies through technological progress – thus Lorenz spoke of a "self-domestication" of humans. According to our opinions today, however, hypertrophying is not merely a negative side-effect of our being shielded against natural selection but has a highly positive significance.

With the particularly long "care of the brood" which the human child needs in order to mature, parental protection was particularly important with primeval humans. It is assumed that sexuality then became a means to bind men and women more firmly to each

other. The mechanism which originally only served to improve acquisition also became secondarily an aid for the care of the brood – that is reproduction.

As that drive provides us with particularly strong feelings of desire and joy – that is "convenience" in the broadest sense of the term – it furthermore became a decisive impulse in the human striving for progress. Many of the acquisition structures that have been constructed in the course of history – directly or indirectly – owe their construction, their flourishing to that driving force.

Our sense of beauty, which also derives from that functional circle, not only guides us in the choice of a partner but we also prefer those artificial organs to which the receptive mechanism in our brains especially responds to: organs which we find "beautiful". From the viewpoint of the energon theory this is very natural. For all those units that we create artificially are nothing more than extensions of the human body. If we thus draw up a similar assessment as for the body itself, this is a fully organic development.

Thus, in the first part of evolution the clumsy mechanism of improvement called "hermaphroditism" was at work. In the second part it was replaced by the functional units "intelligence" and "research". At the transitional stage – with the germ cell "human being" – "sex" attained a special place. Even the completely neutral and sexless bodies of acquisition which we create are influenced by that drive. Not few of them owe their existences to that relic. What is more, it imposes a standard of value on their form which not infrequently collides with the economic standard.

It certainly goes without saying that also all functional units relating to "reproduction" and "improvement" have to produce their effects as cheaply, precisely and quickly as possible. However, if we ask how those values have to be fitted into the overall formula of competitiveness – we come across a difficulty.
 
 

Back to the Table of Contents

Continue to "The life flow"
 
 
 
Comments:

¹ If I do not write of combining mistakes“ in this context, which would correspond to the opinions of most biologists today, then this is because it is still open whether there any inheritance of acquired qualities  – according to Lamarck and Darwin  – takes place or not. Then the connection of the effects would be the following: the genetic alteration would not merely be the consequence of mistakes that occur, of mutations. It would rather be the case that individual adaptations (at least as they are possible for higher organisms because of their ability to regulate themselves) become hereditary. In that case, during their lifetime the individual alterations would produce effects on the genetic blueprint and alter it. The process of the division here would already be carried out with a changed genetic blueprint.
² In the beginning of the development of energons the genetic blueprints may still have been so simple as to make the merging of different types possible. In the course of differentiation it happened that only very similar ones  – belonging to the same species  – could be united.
³ With a few rotifers and nematodes no sexual processes have been proven up to today. Here the function might have degenerated to a secondary one. Such species can continue to exist in constant living conditions.  However, the possibility of higher development and of phylogenetic adaptation is reduced in that branch of the life development.
⁴ This is also no argument against the existence of a higher force that constitutes the basis of all phenomena – of “God”, that is. It is only the intention here to provide evidence that such a force – in whatever way we may imagine it – does not intervene in the process of evolution in a direct and shaping way but that this process is left to its own devices. The fundamental laws to which it is subjected – all laws of energy and of mass known to us – naturally again bring up the question: what is their origin or even their meaning? How were they achieved? What ultimately is manifested in them, unknown to us?