Correlation in relationship to competitive interaction

[ap.vanduijn]

Dear Anastassia,

I hope you are doing well. It's been a while. I'm trying to better understand competitive interaction as I'm now convinced of its significance with regards to the biological application of Le Chattelier's Principle. However, there is (at least) one aspect of it that I keep on struggling with and I hope you will be able to help me clear this up. 

In Gorshkov (1995) on page 71 it is stated that "All the individuals in a population are completely free of mutual correlation and live in a state of permanent competitive interaction, ...". On page 10 Gorshkov adds that competitive interaction takes place between autonomous individuals, while in Governance and Societies (2016) you state that competitive interaction takes place between independent units. Just to be absolutely clear these individual are not necessarily individual organisms, but can also be 'generalised individuals' like social groups (e.g. ant hills or bands of hunter-gatherers). The latter is specifically where my interest lies herds and bands of large animals including man. 

Now let me use the term 'independent' to get to my question. When thinking about the meaning of the term independent I usually think of something similar to what Ashby wrote, namely two units are independent if they do not have an ultimate effect on each other. In this case ultimate effects are effects that are not direct, but work through a longer chain of variables and with longer delay (Ashby, 1956). Now two units can share variables like for example a meadow full of flowers in the case of two or more beehives or a migratory herd of bison in the case of two or more bands or tribes. As their niches intersect, these social groups have an ultimate effect on each other. One tribe could kill the herd of bison thus having an ultimate effect on the next band that would encounter the herd on its migratory path. As these social groups have an ultimate effect on each other would you still call them 'independent units' or 'free of mutual correlation' or am I misunderstanding what you mean by correlation? 

I hope I managed to formulate my question clear enough I hope to get back to you in the near future to further discuss the role of large animals (incl. humans) in the biotic regulation of the environment. 

Best wishes, Arie

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear Arie,

Thank you for your question! It is an important topic.

>namely two units are independent if they do not have an ultimate effect on each other

By interacting competitively, the units do have an effect on each other. "Independence" in this context means something different. It means lack of [positive] correlation. For example, organs within a multicellular body are positively correlated. Failure of one leads to extra pressure on all others that must provide a certain compensation or get their functions impaired as well. In contrast, when two male thrushes (a common bird here in Europe) sing on neighboring territories, or compete for the same one, if one fails, the other will be better off.

Gorshkov (1995) explains this on p. 12:

Evidently, stabilization of the existing type of internal correlation of the living individuals based on their competitive interaction and selection in the population
is possible only in cases where all the individuals within this population are completely mutually independent and non-correlated with each other. In the opposite
case, expulsion of a decay individual from the population becomes impossible in exactly the same way a defective organ cannot be expelled from the body. It
also follows from this reasoning that maintaining an inner correlation between the individuals in any population by way of centralized government of that population
as a whole is impossible in principle. In other words neither the population nor the hyperpopulation should be considered as superorganisms.

This lack of correlation is local, i.e. the winning thrush will benefit from his rival's failure, but if all the rivals disappear, there will be nobody to compete with, and the species dies out. Likewise, if all trees die, the biotic pump won't work. So globally we are all dependent on each other's presence in this universe. But this does not preclude, or even fosters, local competitions.

Kind regards,

Anastassia

вт, 4 апр. 2023 г. в 14:42, ap.vanduijn <ap.va...@gmail.com>:

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Biotic Regulation of the Environment" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to biotic-regulat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/biotic-regulation/1ace22b8-b1da-44b8-aede-8fffc959273cn%40googlegroups.com.

[Arie Pieter van Duijn]

Dear Anastassia,

Thank you for your clarification. I include some additional questions in my reply below. I apologize in advance for any confusion in terms. I sometimes get lost in the sea of different disciplines and their jargon.

> By interacting competitively, the units do have an effect on each other. "Independence" in this context means something different. It means lack of [positive] correlation.

In order to be clear with regards to the term [positive] correlation, I would like to make sure that in the present context it has the same meaning as rigid and strict correlation.

> Gorshkov (1995) explains this on p. 12:
Evidently, stabilization of the existing type of internal correlation of the living individuals based on their competitive interaction and selection in the population is possible only in cases where all the individuals within this population are completely mutually independent and non-correlated with each other.

The individuals referred to by Gorshkov can be either individual organisms or generalized organisms (i.e. hyperindividuals). The latter include a variety of communities like hunter-gatherer bands, orca pods, beehives, anthills and local ecological communities (i.e. a tree plus accompanying microbiota). Within their respective populations all of these individuals are non-correlated with each other (i.e. absence of [positive] correlation). While “competitive interaction and selection in the population is possible only in cases where all the individuals within this population are completely mutually independent and non-correlated with each other” this does not automatically provide us with information about the nature of  “existing type of internal correlation of the living individuals”. If I understand correctly this existing type of internal correlation can be either rigid (strict) or weak (modular). Is that correct?

> This lack of correlation is local, i.e. the winning thrush will benefit from his rival's failure, but if all the rivals disappear, there will be nobody to compete with, and the species dies out. Likewise, if all trees die, the biotic pump won't work. So globally we are all dependent on each other's presence in this universe. But this does not preclude, or even fosters, local competitions.

Similar to your example of thrush, if all but one hunter-gatherer band were to disappear, there would be no bands to compete with, and the species dies out. In other words, if we are left with only one single internally correlated global civilization, humanity is in fact staring into the abyss.

I am particularly interested in the relationship of the living individual (either an individual organism or generalized organism/hyperindividual) with its environment. Or in other words an individual’s subset of the total environment often referred to as niche or habitat. In my view a niche is what Ashby (1960) refers to as environment: “those variables whose changes affect the organism, and those variables which are changed by the organism’s behaviour”. In Section 3.3 of Governance and Societies (2016) you write the following: “every local community tends to stabilize its local environment towards the optimum.” Now I assume that by local community you only mean the elementary unit of biotic regulation (i.e. “a tree or a group of neighboring trees together with the accompanying local microbiota”). Or do you mean every community including that of mobile animals (under normal conditions in an optimal environment)? What we are looking at here is the relationship between a rigidly internally correlated community and the local environment (or internal milieu that characterizes an internally correlated spatial association) that it stabilizes towards the optimum. In G&M 2000 (p.11) you point out that ”the very existence of an optimal environment implies a correlation between morphological and behavioural properties of living beings on the one hand, and characteristics of their optimal environment on the other hand. Such correlation may be called adaptedness or adaption.” Now I agree with your elaboration on this topic on (p.265) where you explain that this rigid correlation between species in a community (i.e. the aforementioned “correlation between morphological and behavioural properties of living beings”) is often wrongly referred to as adaptation to the external environment (i.e. internal milieu, habitat or niche?) comprising of a set of physical as well as biological characteristics. This should be referred to as adaption or adaptedness (i.e. a state instead of a process). However, based on my current understanding I would refer to the weak correlation between the members of for example a hunter-gatherer band or an orca pod as adaptation to the external environment (i.e. a process instead of a state). As I understand it, in this case adaptation can be regarded as the process of conservation of social relations (i.e. operation of Le Chatelier) that enables the harnessing of existing sources of energy and the potential alternation of social relations (i.e. following a failure of Le Chatelier) that enables the harnessing of new sources of energy (Y.A. Cohen, 1968; Ashby 1960). In the case of human civilization this seems to have parallels with Gorshkov’s (1995) concept of technology overhaul.  However, in my opinion we should be careful not to confuse the process of adaptation of a hunter-gatherer band with that of (a single) human civilization. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I hope you have a nice weekend.

Best regards,
Arie

--

Arie Pieter
M +31 (0)6 22 06 69 72
Skype ap_vanduijn

"Ambulator nascitur, non fit" (Thoreau 1854)

[Anastassia Makarieva]

Dear Arie,

Please see my responses below yours

сб, 22 апр. 2023 г. в 16:49, Arie Pieter van Duijn <ap.va...@gmail.com>:

Dear Anastassia,

Thank you for your clarification. I include some additional questions in my reply below. I apologize in advance for any confusion in terms. I sometimes get lost in the sea of different disciplines and their jargon.

> By interacting competitively, the units do have an effect on each other. "Independence" in this context means something different. It means lack of [positive] correlation.

In order to be clear with regards to the term [positive] correlation, I would like to make sure that in the present context it has the same meaning as rigid and strict correlation.

> Gorshkov (1995) explains this on p. 12:
Evidently, stabilization of the existing type of internal correlation of the living individuals based on their competitive interaction and selection in the population is possible only in cases where all the individuals within this population are completely mutually independent and non-correlated with each other.

The individuals referred to by Gorshkov can be either individual organisms or generalized organisms (i.e. hyperindividuals). The latter include a variety of communities like hunter-gatherer bands, orca pods, beehives, anthills and local ecological communities (i.e. a tree plus accompanying microbiota). Within their respective populations all of these individuals are non-correlated with each other (i.e. absence of [positive] correlation). While “competitive interaction and selection in the population is possible only in cases where all the individuals within this population are completely mutually independent and non-correlated with each other” this does not automatically provide us with information about the nature of  “existing type of internal correlation of the living individuals”. If I understand correctly this existing type of internal correlation can be either rigid (strict) or weak (modular). Is that correct?

Yes it is correct. This correlation can be relatively loose. E.g. the many leaves of a single tree are loosely correlated.

 

> This lack of correlation is local, i.e. the winning thrush will benefit from his rival's failure, but if all the rivals disappear, there will be nobody to compete with, and the species dies out. Likewise, if all trees die, the biotic pump won't work. So globally we are all dependent on each other's presence in this universe. But this does not preclude, or even fosters, local competitions.

Similar to your example of thrush, if all but one hunter-gatherer band were to disappear, there would be no bands to compete with, and the species dies out. In other words, if we are left with only one single internally correlated global civilization, humanity is in fact staring into the abyss.

Indeed. This global internal correlation can only be maintained for a short period of time.

 

I am particularly interested in the relationship of the living individual (either an individual organism or generalized organism/hyperindividual) with its environment. Or in other words an individual’s subset of the total environment often referred to as niche or habitat. In my view a niche is what Ashby (1960) refers to as environment: “those variables whose changes affect the organism, and those variables which are changed by the organism’s behaviour”. In Section 3.3 of Governance and Societies (2016) you write the following: “every local community tends to stabilize its local environment towards the optimum.” Now I assume that by local community you only mean the elementary unit of biotic regulation (i.e. “a tree or a group of neighboring trees together with the accompanying local microbiota”).

Yes.

 

Or do you mean every community including that of mobile animals (under normal conditions in an optimal environment)?

No, the local community is meant.

 

What we are looking at here is the relationship between a rigidly internally correlated community and the local environment (or internal milieu that characterizes an internally correlated spatial association) that it stabilizes towards the optimum. In G&M 2000 (p.11) you point out that ”the very existence of an optimal environment implies a correlation between morphological and behavioural properties of living beings on the one hand, and characteristics of their optimal environment on the other hand. Such correlation may be called adaptedness or adaption.” Now I agree with your elaboration on this topic on (p.265) where you explain that this rigid correlation between species in a community (i.e. the aforementioned “correlation between morphological and behavioural properties of living beings”) is often wrongly referred to as adaptation to the external environment (i.e. internal milieu, habitat or niche?) comprising of a set of physical as well as biological characteristics. This should be referred to as adaption or adaptedness (i.e. a state instead of a process).

Agreed.

 

However, based on my current understanding I would refer to the weak correlation between the members of for example a hunter-gatherer band or an orca pod as adaptation to the external environment (i.e. a process instead of a state). As I understand it, in this case adaptation can be regarded as the process of conservation of social relations (i.e. operation of Le Chatelier) that enables the harnessing of existing sources of energy and the potential alternation of social relations (i.e. following a failure of Le Chatelier) that enables the harnessing of new sources of energy (Y.A. Cohen, 1968; Ashby 1960). In the case of human civilization this seems to have parallels with Gorshkov’s (1995) concept of technology overhaul.  However, in my opinion we should be careful not to confuse the process of adaptation of a hunter-gatherer band with that of (a single) human civilization. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

I have been recently reading "The Dawn of Everything: A new history of humanity" by D. Graeber and D. Wengrow. They emphasize the great diversity of the modes of interaction with the environment of the hunter-gatherer social groups. I see potential parallels here with what Victor Gorshkov described as the natural ecological niches of Homo sapiens (see Fig. 6.2 in his 1995 book). He pointed out that per capita energy expenditures have a minimum at a certain population density (below and above the cost of living increases). Probably some human societies did exist in a natural state (which could be called an adaption).  But this could not be stable in all environments, especially in those with a large resource surplus. There humans began to "adapt" , extracting more and more resources and ultimately depleting the ecosystem. 

 

Thank you for your questions!