Noosphere Science Class Reflections — #1

Viewing our geo-, bio-, and noospheres as an entangled-fitness set

As noted before, I have read, written, and wondered about the noosphere concept for some 25 years.  The results began with John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward An American Information Strategy (RAND, 1999), and run through David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla, Whose Story Wins: Rise of the Noosphere, Noopolitik, and Information-Age Statecraft (RAND, 2020), plus a few interim and follow-on articles. 

In May 2021, following circulation of Whose Story Wins, John and I were invited to participate in the new Science of the Noosphere (SON) project sponsored by the Kacyra Family Foundation (KFF).  The project is led by sociologist David Sloan Wilson, with videographer Alan Honick assisting and aiming to produce a documentary.  Other participants include cutting-edge theorists about collective intelligence, global consciousness, complexity theory, network science, artificial intelligence (AI), biological and cultural evolution (esp. “major evolutionary transitions” and “multilevel selection” theories), global commons, and storytelling. 

The goal is to identify ways to foster a more cooperative, peaceful, and adaptable global society as the noosphere emerges.  It’s an impressive project, the first of its kind regarding the noosphere, well worth attention. 

We were delighted to see our work included.  Since the project emphasizes video interviews, John has been the one to represent our work (my voice is shot).  Background about the project and its growing archive of interviews and transcripts (including John’s) are online here: https://humanenergy.io/projects/science-of-the-noosphere/

Then, earlier this year the project’s leaders decided to offer a Science of the Noosphere Master Class, as described here:
https://humanenergy.io/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Master-Class-Course-Description.pdf

I jumped to sign up.  I have further thinking and writing I want to do about the noosphere as a theoretical concept and emerging reality.  Joining this class would commit me (or at least make me feel committed) to finally go through the project’s interview transcripts; and I would get to do so in an environment that is expertly led, offers forward-looking insights, and fosters group discussion.  Besides having some new ideas and observations I want to test out, I also want to know more about what other people are saying and doing.  The course looks to be a fine move for fostering public interest and knowledge about the noosphere’s emergence in scientific terms.  I am in favor of that.

So now I’m in it, heading into our third week.  It's very engaging and going well.  (It’s also more spiritually-oriented than I expected and like.  But more on that in a later post, maybe.) 

One requirement is to write a reflection at the end of each week regarding that week’s reading assignments and class discussions.  Rather than let my written reflections sit there, I am going to post them here as well.  I hope this will interest some readers, though I know that the noosphere remains a rather arcane topic, as does my interest in information-age noopolitics as an alternative and eventual successor to traditional geopolitics.  But at least I will have write-ups ready to post, which is more than I can say for those in-progress draft chapters about TIMN.

SON Master Class Week One: Introduction

The readings for the first week, all of them excellent, were:

• Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1959), “The Formation of the Noosphere,” Chapter 10 in The Future of Man:.  I found it openly available at:
https://www.organism.earth/library/document/formation-of-the-noosphere

• David Sloan Wilson (2021), “Reintroducing Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to Modern Evolutionary Science,” journal article, online at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/2153599X.2022.2143399

• Clement Vidal (2024), project interview on “Teilhard and the Noosphere,” plus his illustrated essay (2021) on “What is the Noosphere,” as posted at:
https://humanenergy.io/clement-vidal/
and
https://humanenergy.io/projects/what-is-the-noosphere/

SON Master Class Reflection #1

Here’s the reflection I provided, with some ideas I have not fielded before:

In seeking to understand how the noosphere may emerge, I have usually relied on the terms originally used by the concept’s co-coiners: Teilhard, Vernadsky, and Le Roy. They used all sorts of scientific and metaphorical terms — many from biology, a few from geology, plus others from physics, chemistry, architecture, early complexity theory, and spiritualism.

While their writings are wonderfully descriptive and analytical, I concluded that,

“Both [Teilhard and Vernadsky] were quite unclear regarding what the transition to the noösphere would be like. They both made the transitional phase seem inevitable. Teilhard even made it seem alluringly smooth and peaceful — for the most part. Yet, if they had offered comparisons (which neither did) to the transitions to the geosphere and biosphere, they’d surely have noted that evolution of any kind is often far from smooth and peaceful; indeed, it is often chaotic, disjointed, and violent. Fortunately, Teilhard and Vernadsky at least allude to this prospect — Teilhard by noting that a global tremor, even an apocalypse, may befall the final fusion of the noosphere; Vernadsky by noting the likelihood of intense ruthless struggles spanning several generations. Both recognized humanity’s capacity for self-destruction.

“Which raises another question about the nature of the transition: Teilhard and Vernadsky both saw the noösphere as evolving piecemeal around the planet, much as did the geosphere and biosphere, with some parts arising here and then spreading there, other parts elsewhere, with interconnections and interactions increasing over time, until the entire planet would be caught up in webs of creation and fusion. But neither Teilhard nor Vernadsky specified exactly what parts and pieces might matter along the way. Teilhard at least indicated that “compartments” and “cultural units” bearing “grains of thought” will do the “fusing.” That isn’t much to go on, but it’s helpful for thinking strategically, as we argue later.” (from Ronfeldt and Arquilla, 2020, pp. 10-11.)

What I have wondered lately, however, is whether it would be helpful to stand way back from focusing so centrally on the noosphere, and broaden my questions to cover all three spheres together: the geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere. Can a case be made that, in some respects, all three have exhibited similar, even identical, patterns of emergence and maturation over time? And if so, can a common set of concepts, even a common theoretical framework, be unearthed for describing and analyzing all three as a set? If so, what may it instruct us to watch for as we endeavor to evaluate and even guide the noosphere’s continued growth and spread?

The optic then would not be about looking at the geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere as distinct entities, each requiring a distinct mode of analysis, with its own specialized concepts and terminology. I’ve taken that approach off and on for twenty five years; and I will continue to do so. But now I’m wondering whether that alone is the optimal approach.

In the approach I’m wondering about, the optic would be to look at all three spheres conjointly: i.e., as an entangled set consisting of a geosphere that can generate a biosphere that can generate a noosphere, and a noosphere that can nurture a biosphere that can nurture a geosphere — in other words, a set in which each sphere may appear to be distinctive, yet in some deeper sense all three have, and need to have, common attributes, perhaps even comparable formations and dynamics, in order to emerge and mature in the most productive ways for each and all.

To put the matter figuratively, could an illuminating chart be designed with three columns, one each for the geosphere, biosphere, and noosphere, and, along the side, lots of rows that specify comparable attributes, such that a positive checkmark can be placed in every box of the ensuing matrix?

That’s what I’m wondering. I don’t have much in the way of answers (yet?), mainly because I know little about geological evolution. The concepts and theories its scientists use seem quite unlike, and at odds with, the concepts and theories used by experts on biological evolution. But if/as I dig into the matter, perhaps intersections and overlaps can be spotted that may lead to the identification of overarching concepts and principles.

One commonality in the evolution of all three spheres is obvious: variety. All three produce, indeed require, immense variety (diversity, plurality) in order to grow as a sphere. Maybe that’s a starting point.

Here’s another commonality: All three spheres generate, indeed depend on generating, diverse forms that can organize, or be organized, into evermore complex formations as they develop.

Here’s a question or two: Cooperation seems essential for biological and noological evolution. Can it be said in some sense that cooperation is also essential for geological evolution? I’m inclined to think so — but how so? Then, could there be such a thing as spherical fitness for conjoint evolution? If so, how about calling it Conjoint Spherical Fitness (CSF) theory?

I could add more, but this comment is already far over the recommended 500-word length. So I shall conclude for now by simply asking: What do you all think about this idea? Any advice? What scientific, spiritual, and noöpolitical consequences and implications might follow, if it is a good idea?

Onward.

References

John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, The Emergence of Noopolitik: Toward An American Information Strategy, RAND Corporation, MR-1033-OSD, 1999.  Available at:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1033.html

David Ronfeldt and John Arquilla, Whose Story Wins: Rise of the Noosphere, Noopolitik, and Information-Age Statecraft, RAND Corporation, PE-A237-1, 2020.  Available at:
https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA237-1.html