I don't see why the superorganism would lack such an embodiment with
selective consequences. The superorganism's "organs" (cities, factories,
etc.) and "circuits" (roads, railways, communication channels) do exist =
in
a physical environment with which they interact. If a city or building =
is
erected on swampy terrain and because of that it becomes ininhabitable, =
it
will be abandoned and rebuilt somewhere else. If a communication =
channel
uses a part of the electromagnetic spectrum in which there is much
interference (e.g. because of sun spots), that part of the spectrum will =
be
abandoned and a new range chosen.
See, the key point here is that you are identifying a selection =
mechanism for parts of the superorganism, but not of the superorganism =
as a whole. In biological systems genes stand for traits, but the traits =
are not selected individually, it is the entire genotype that is =
propagated from generation to generation. Superorganisms/societies (i =
don't quite see a distinction here) seem to be immune to selection as =
whole organisms, which some would say, strips them off their status as =
an organism.
Is it possible actually to talk about superorganisms' extinction =
(leaving asside planetary extinction)? We often say that some societies =
ceased to exist, but is it really like biological extinction? For =
instance, the romans never really disappeared: the pope still lives in =
Rome, kaisers and tzars popped up all over Europe, latin stil flows, =
etc. Sure you can call all these things memes, but then we would have to =
say they are not integrated into a compound "memotype" that is selected =
as a whole. If memes are selected individually, then the organization =
they produce is not a coherent organism in the biological sense. It is =
not selected as a whole.
This is why I don't like the term meme to substitute the terms =
concept/idea/cultural trait, because, with its genetic metaphor, it =
seems to ascribe more organization to social behavior than it is =
actually there. The same thing for superorganism, if selection is not =
possible for it as a whole, it is actually not yet an organism. Then why =
not just use the term society?
This is not to say that I do not see parallels between biology a =
society. I just want to say that caution is in order when we go to such =
higher level concepts as global awareness, gaia, etc. because they are =
not that well grounded in what we know from biology. They are metaphors =
than only work with a high degree of abstraction that many may not be =
able to buy. I agree with you that one way to establish those notions is =
to show that they can be more useful than current models, and of course =
to develop falsifiable hypothesis about the superorganism.
Cheers,
Luis