About a year ago I started writing an article about evolution of information and processes in communities. You can find it in [a now undisclosed place due to conflicts] if you’re curious. Although the main ideas of the article are valid, it contains some naiveties.

For example I wrote “we” (eukaryotes) are more advanced than bacteria because we reproduce sexually, allowing our DNA to be mixed. The truth is, bacteria have their own way of exchanging DNA (which is also called “sex” to add some confusion), which doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction. What’s more, they are capable of doing this across very different species. The reason they are primitive (for some definitions of primitive) is that the trick only works for single cells. Of course our different trick also only works for single cells only, which is why it is linked to reproduction, the only moment at which we are single cells. And then there are the single-cellular eukaryotes, some of those do have ways of sharing DNA, about others I’m not sure. Some of those are way more “advanced” than bacteria, others aren’t.

Also, consider the fact our bodies contain more bacteria than human cells. Who is more successful now?

The whole analogy about sharing of information leading to better results just falls apart. The right thing to conclude from the analogy is that keeping your information well-organized (in a nucleus) leads to the ability to create more complex designs. A wise lesson, but not what we were looking for. On the other hand, the fact that (nearly?) all lifeforms are capable of sharing information with each other still leads to the old conclusion: sharing ideas is good.

Another thing that doesn’t appear in the article is that the idea of all ideas are part of an evolutionary process isn’t exactly new. One person who wrote about that is Karl Popper, who also wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies, see also: Open Society, something I really should read.

The conclusions of all this? I should probably discontinue but save the article, dig deeper into biology, philosophy and sociology, and then write a book rather than an article. It would keep me busy for a few years, so I’m not sure if I would… Anyone willing to give me a well-paid parttime job after I finish my computer science studies?