Civilization and living body. A fundamental consideration to the evolution theory.
		by Hiromasa Noguti.
	This at first was written in Japanese in 1998 year. (http://www2.justnet.ne.jp/~cotosiro/sinka1.htm or others.)Then, it was translated into English in February 2000. (http://www2.justnet.ne.jp/~cotosiro/with0.htm or others.) However, since it was the unsatisfactory performance, it was rewritten many times. October 10, 2003. This again was rewritten a little in February 13, 2005.
		The vector of the change in a society.
	The social form-genetic factor group stated in former knot reacts not only to the natural environment and his characteristic form and quality, but also to the social environment and so on as well. It is because these environments belong to the outside world to react to if the genetic factors like that try to construct the society. The social environment is an important external factor especially for the construction of the human society. In other words, if it is taken up as an ideal of the form, even if there is no change in the natural environment, there is the possibility the structure of the human society is changed if the above social environment change. However, if it sees the actual relationship between the human society and the natural environment, the society and the natural environment influence each other, keep changing the actual society and nature. And, it can understand the above relationship as follows for the moment if it states it with the mathematical expression.
		The social structure ( the vector of the change ) = a outside environment( a natural environment + a social environment ) + a genetic trait factor + a genetical society formation factor.
	Of course, the 4 elements of the right side also are the vector. And, it can apply the above equation to all the organism. Then, this equation not only controls the behavior of the individual, but also decides even the direction of evolution. However, as for the details, it is stated in the next knot. By the way, what kind of logic or power would lead each individual to construct the society ? And, what kind of logic or power would maintain a living body(a society, a organism) ? As a matter of fact, it is that those two answers are something of sameness, are the fundamental power to make evolution materialize. But, it is explained at the knot of the "Powers and evolution". By the way, in connection with the thing, the social problems we are faced with are born almost from the social environment keeping changing oneself. In other words, the individual or the society itself, with not finishing coping with the change like that, is caught to the misjudgment. Even if it says the troubles of the human society like that are the constant problem, it never be the exaggeration. Then, the volume of the energy to cause such troubles almost can't be seen in the society of other creature. Moreover, one deeper fundamental cause is lurking to the undercurrent of the above-mentioned confusion. It is the collision of the logic (the logic of organization) of gene and the logic of individual. And, it also is the conflict of the self-preservation and the species-preservation, if it is seen from the viewpoint of source. However, it has to realize the conflict like that is the problem lurking in common to the inside of the society and of the individual. As for the details, it is explained later. By the way, if the society or colony is visualized generally, it seems it is the community of the same species. In other words, if it is the society of wolves, it seems the society like that apparently is composed of only wolf without the other creatures. Then, the society of lions apparently looks to be composed of some lions only. In passing, the extent of the freedom about the shift of the members varies corresponding to the various environments, and is different corresponding to each species. And, it has to consider the shifts of the members like that as also our problem as well. However, it thinks to state the thing in other opportunity because the theme is different a little. By the way, if it observes one community strictly, it can't say the members of that community are confined to the organisms of one species. It is because the organisms of one species and the organisms of another species often construct one colony with cooperating together. It can take up the lichens as the good example in the cases like that. It is said the lichens are the community organized from the certain kind of marine algae and the certain kind of mushroom. And, the condition like that is called a symbiosis in biology. It can find out the trace of the morphosis like that even into the cells composing the multicellular organisms. In other words, it can find out the trace of the symbiosis like that into the relationship between the mitochondrion and chloroplast and the cell. It is said their ancestors were originally procaryotic cell, were the creature of the single cells. However, they, after making the symbiotic relationship with other cells, start to shift to the condition unable to live as each individual soon. And, it is said they combined as one cell as the result of evolution like that at last. In other words, it is said it became the eucaryotic cell composing generally the multicellular organism. If so, it seems it is already hard to think it is in the symbiotic condition. It rather would be better to think it is the organism of another new species usually. But, if so, would it have to decide the border line between the individual and the symbiosis body how ? Probably, it seems it is related to the extent of the cooperative relationship. However, it doesn't seem it is the matter solved so easily. In other words, at the conceptions of individual, society, biological species, or other, it doesn't seem it can draw the border line between the contents of those concepts easily. In other words, it can think those conceptions are a kind of the ideal-type, that is, the ideal of the form extracted from a part of the actual situations. Therefore, when the concept like that is applied to the actual world, there is the possibility the concept like that is substituted for the other concept, corresponding to the chosen viewpoint by the observer and corresponding to the relationship between the organism's condition and the outside environment. Then, it seems the above logic is proper also in the viewpoint of psychology if it can think that a organism, a society, a gene, and so on(living body), that is, the objects for perception behave as the cognition-subject. In other words, it can think that they also decide the outside or inside of oneself as the observer decides it. If so, as it thought, it seems there is no definite boundary if the biological concepts like that are seen from the logic of creature. And, if so, it also seems that the movement factor of the society and the ecosystem and so on is the same as the movement factor of the individual. It is because to all appearances, the movement factor like that must be derived from the logic of creature. As for the logic of creature, already it was stated in the first knot. By the way, some time ago, at the equation of the vector of the change in the society, the outside environment was divided to two environments, that is, the natural environment and social environment. It would be the natural conclusion if the former reasoning is considered. It is because the social environment, corresponding to the condition of the object and to the chosen point of view, is chosen as the outside environment or the inside environment. By the way, if the former reasoning is proper, even if it thinks the society is an organism, it isn't always mistake. And, it is natural the individuals composing the society like that are a organism. And, it also is natural that a human being also is a organism because it is that it is living under the logic of creature. However, as for a human being, it seems it is unclear whether it always is obeying the logic of creature. Or, there may be the possibility other organisms also cause the action like that though it may be rare. However, the activities of the individual mind like that would have to be examined in other opportunity probably. It is because it seems a philosophy-like consideration is necessary. At any rate, it seems it isn't so easy it find out the conclusion about the thing. But, it seems it is possible it says as follows. That is, when the individuals try to make each mental activities permeate the society, the society decides under the logic of creature whether it selects the activities like that. And, it is well known the selection like that often decides the destiny of its society. However, at our Japan, would the selection like that be proper now ? This is anxious problem. At any rate, the society is the creature certainly if the logic mentioned above is proper. And, in the same reason, it can think even an ecosystem is one creature. Therefore, the ship carrying the information called "the lives" isn't confined to only the so-called individual. A gene also is the ship carrying the information called "the lives". And, the society and the ecosystem and so on all are the ship carrying the information called "the lives" as well. Today, we would have to think of the thing deeply. However, the reasoning about "the lives" call up one more difficult problem. Who would be able to understand the information called "the lives" ?
2nd knot NEXT PAGE
cotosiro