Conclusion

We do not have an all-encompassing theoretical perspective through which we can look at and explain socio-economic transformation in the Digital Era. In this chapter it is proposed that differences in rates and types of such transformation are a function of differential distributions of knowledge, and that such differences can be explained by evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is knowledge-based. Evolution means changes in the proportion of different knowledge over time, where knowledge is defined as that which creates relationships with the world. The theory states that the world we live in is made up of subsystems, all of which evolved from previously evolved subsystems. All of these subsystems are knowledge-based and survive because each contains mechanisms by which new knowledge is produced without knowing what the future will bring. The system is dynamic and constantly re-relates to itself through the selective retention of any new knowledge which creates dynamic stability. The new relationships are stable in ways that previous relationships were unstable, but will not remain stable forever. As such, the theory looks at socio-economic transformation in terms of differential knowledge distributions and states that such distributions are, and need to be, differential to maintain systemic balance.

The perspective provides us with a reason as to why the world we live in is becoming more overtly knowledge-based while reminding us that it has always been so. It suggests that evolution (and hence the speed and breadth of knowledge transformation) will on average become faster and faster as forms of evolution—such as human genes and memes (human genome project), or human and bacterial genes and memes (anti-infective and antiviral pharmacology), and memes and perhaps some new computer agent based knowledge (software agents within the semantic web)—coevolve and compete. Evolutionary theory suggests that social life is currently socially constructed, often in association with ICT, but evolution is likely to give rise to a new form of 'life' that is technologically determined. Other forms of knowledge will evolve that as yet we cannot even imagine.

Of greatest relevance to the book, the chapter opens up the debate as to the extent to which we have control of the economy and society, because both evolve within a broader system where faster and different forms of knowledge are being created. It asks whether we should allow our understanding of the knowledge that makes us physical beings (genetics) to be used to reduce the variety within that same knowledge base through, for example, cloning. It suggests that computing power will increasingly allow knowledge to re-relate to other knowledge without human intervention.

The evolutionary perspective of the Digital Era fails, however, to close the debate. This is for two reasons. Firstly, because on the one hand it suggests that our best chance of managing the world we live in is to understand and take into consideration evolution in all its current and potential knowledge-based forms. On the other hand, however, doing so involves admitting that we humans are part of a society and economy that we might be somewhat in control of, but which is ultimately part of a broader system, which we are far less able to control. The human genome project and the semantic web show us how we might be losing control. As Tallis (2002) points out, Copernicus' notion that the sun, not man, is the center of our universe, and the Darwinian notion that there might be a complex system instead of a divine designer, have not been easy ideas to accept. The same can be said for Freud's notion of the unconscious questions our ability to control our own minds, in a way similar to that postulated in memetics, has not been easy to accept. The idea that knowledge is increasingly difficult to control (by humans) is difficult to grasp. The chapter suggests that more control can be gained by viewing society and the economy through an evolutionary lens, the essence of which suggests that we are not totally in control!

Secondly, the stance taken in this chapter does not close the debate, as the evolutionary perspective is only one out of many alternative perspectives. As such this perspective might be less 'true' and/or less useful than others, but hopefully stimulates debate and sets the scene for the rest of the book. The rest of the chapters do go into greater and valuable depth about the aspects of the socio-economic interface mentioned above, and make use of different concepts and theories.