Complexity and Simplicity in Big History - Essay Example

Complexity and Simplicity in Big History Institution Name Institution Course Instructor’s name Date of submission Big history seeks to explain the history of man and the universe in large-scale showing common themes and patterns. This theory explains the very beginning of the universe and mankind unbounded by time and space. Through a large scale approach, Big History creates complex inter-relationships between energy and matter in different stages to simultaneously create complexity and create simplicity up to the present time. There are several key threshold areas that David Christian has used to highlight complexity and simplicity. This include the big bang and moment of origin, lighting up of stars, chemical enrichment of the universe, formation of planets, life on earth, collective learning, agriculture and modern revolution. This paper will thus discuss the theme of increasing and decreasing simplicity in Big History from the eight mentioned thresholds drawing support from current and relevant literature. The very first beginning of the universe, as has been noted by Big Historians is that there was nothing orderly, just matter floating in space randomly. “At this time of the beginning there would have been no complexity at all” (Spier 2005, p. 24). This was before time, a period that is commonly ignored by mainstream history. David Christian on the other hand recognizes this period as the beginning of complexity from which the whole idea of big history is founded. However, Christian acknowledges the weakness of declaring this particular phase less complex as there is no accepted formula to determine the level of complexity of matter or interactions or even regime. It is therefore an assumption that this regime was the most basic form of simplicity. Complexity to big history therefore is explained by the number of interactions between building blocks and functional relationships (Neubauer 2011, p. 186). However, Chaisson (2001, p. 12–13) explains that complexity is higher if the whole is more complex than the individual parts. From this viewpoint, humans are considered very complex when compared to the individual cells. Spier (p. 25) says that complexity “should be considered relatively autonomous. Before assessing the theme of complexity and simplicity in the various regimes, it is paramount to acknowledge the different types of complexity. These are the physical inanimate nature, culture and life (Spier 2005). The complexity in the inanimate nature is organized from the simplest atoms to large masses as big as the earth or even the universe. Numerous interactions between many atoms create more complex compounds that form matter in its various forms (gases, liquid and solid). Life as one type of complexity also comprises of matter. Living organisms (organic) ingest matter to obtain energy. Organic matter has shown more complexity than inorganic matter through their ability to reproduce. The third type of complexity is culture. Culture is evidenced through the organization skills of human beings using information stored in their brain cells. However, it must be noted that life according to the big bang theory originated from non-living matter or energy. At the very beginning of time, the universe comprised of matter that was packed extremely close together in space. This period, about t13 billion years ago, was characterized by indifferentiation, disorder and intense heat. This according to Christian and McNeill (2005, p. 54) is the most basic form of simplicity. Chaisson (2005, p. 17) writes that there were very little differences in temperature between matter. Reaction levels were high and there were no stable elements. The temperatures thus provided an enabling environment for different unstable elements to combine and form other compounds. However, such a process would be immediately reversed by the intense heat and high radiation levels. This is what Chaisson (2005, p. 3) calls the radiation period. Fluctuation in radiation from the different elements created three types of forces namely, nuclear force, electromagnetism and gravity which were responsible for creating order and setting the foundation for complexity. The nuclear force had the shortest reach and attracted atoms and subatomic particles. Electromagnetism had a medium reach and strength hence attracted atoms and molecules. The third force, gravity, was the weakest but with the largest reach. It attracted larger structures (Spier 2005). For about 10 000 years, these forces were in action creating some complex compounds and a resulting fall in temperatures. Continued cosmic expansion led a further fall in temperatures and radiation. This provided an enabling environment for creating stable compounds while at the same time hindered continuation of complexity as not many compounds could react at such lowered temperatures (Spier 2005, p. 90). With stable compounds, matter was formed with positively charged particles combining with negatively charged ones. This allowed increased radiation in a transparent universe and further cosmic expansion. Further cosmic expansion implied lower temperatures. With a larger universe, the gravitational force had a larger area to operate in. The result was formation of larger structures of different sizes ranging from galaxies to asteroids. Stars were formed from remnant elements mostly from hydrogen and helium as a result of gravity. Gravitational pressures at the core ensured that the stars produced their own energy emitted as light. Energy differences on the surface and the core of stars, planets and galaxies implied that the surface and core had different chemical compositions. For stars, the energy on the stars’ surface is still high hence cannot support higher complexities while for planets, higher surface temperatures are more moderate hence support more complexities (Christian and McNeill 2005, p. 508). This same order is witnessed in biological and cultural complexities where very high energy flows would destroy complexity and very low energy flows would hinder complexity. This explains why earth is the only known planet to support life. This is so because the earth’s medium size allows just enough gravitational pull to hold earth matter such as the atmosphere and surface water together while a larger earth would result to too much gravitational pull which would crush life on earth (Spier 2005). Though the support of life on the earth’s surface is well explained by Big History, the emergence of life has been rather controversial. The earliest evidence of life on the planet dates back to 3.8 billion years ago whilst the earth was formed 4.8 billion years ago (Christian 2011, p. 210). Some scientists believe that a billion years are not enough for evolution to give rise to life. As such, there are suspicions that life could have originated from other celestial bodies and transported to earth. Arguments in support of life originating on the earth’s surface claim life started from long processes of chemical evolution powered by a number of forces among them gravitational force and radioactive decay (Spire 2005). Big historians believe that self-organization gave rise to life spontaneously starting with single celled organisms (prokaryotics). According to Christian and McNeill ( 2005p. 13) some cells devised ways of tapping energy from the environment. Other cells formed cooperation to improve efficiency in tapping energy from the environment. Increased cooperation led to division of labour and specialization thereby making them mutually dependent but biologically separate cells. This gave rise to the complex eukaryotic cells and more complex organisms. Organisms developed into two major types, the ancestors of modern day plants and the ancestors of modern day animals. For the plants, they sourced their energy directly from the environment, i.e. sun and soil. These organisms did not need movement in search of energy neither did they develop brains. As for the animals, they sourced their energy from consuming other organisms. They thus required movement and a brain to do this. As conditions got harsher, they developed advanced mechanisms to protect themselves against fellow hunters. The weaker ones always lost to the stronger and more adapted organisms. This is where Darwin’s theory of natural selection came into play. Organisms used best tactics for survival and hence in the process, ineffective were filtered out. This gave rise to higher complex organisms through natural “breeding”. Reproduction arose out of the necessity to multiply and increase and dominate energy flows (Spier 2005, p. 23). At this time, much of this processes were taking part in the salty oceans. This is explained by the fact the cellular salt levels in modern man closely resemble the salt levels in modern oceans. This indicates that the oceans provided the most enabling environment for development of higher complexities. As a result, the largest organisms (whales and sharks) were formed in oceans. The environment was and continues to be the greatest influence on different complexities in life and even culture as this paper will demonstrate later. This is because the rise of different species through increased complexities was a response to changes in the environment. Christian (2011, p. 398) explains the existence of single celled organisms in the modern world, which according to the complexity theory, should have formed more complex organisms courtesy of their environment. He says that for environments that remained relatively the same, simple organisms did not need to form mutual cooperation (complex organisms) to tap energy from the environment hence remained independent. Complex cell organisation was thus powered by environmental changes and the need to survive. Increased complexities implied increased vulnerability to environmental changes. This explains the extinction of higher complexity organisms such as dinosaurs following environmental changes. Brains on the part of animals had a central role to play. Animals that could obtain energy both from fellow animals and plants developed the most complex brains. Such brains allowed them to filter themselves into more complex species (Spier 2005). For example, brains allowed animals to choose animals with desirable qualities with whom to mate with and reproduce. This offered the resultant animals higher chances of survival in an increasingly harsher environment. The brains that could facilitate communication, coordination and adaptation proved superior. In the animal kingdom, the human brain developed the highest level of complexity with a relatively very high energy level intake. This brain is the only major weapon that the early man had that guaranteed his survival. Other animals developed claws, horns and even big teeth for their survival. The brain runs complex software that allows man to store information and also adapt to the prevailing environment. Social scientists have come to label this software as culture. Language and communication are epitomizes culture in diverse ways and have facilitated collective learning. Therefore, a cultureless individual, with no collective learning can be said to be the most basic level of simplicity with no complexity at all. This can be compared to the very beginning of the formation of the planets or even the very beginning of life before chemical reactions through complexity gave rise to life. However, big history views culture as a response to control and store energy. Smil (1994, p. 1) expounded on culture to say that “From the perspective of natural science, both prehistoric human evolution and the course of history may be seen fundamentally as the quest for controlling greater energy stores and flows.” Social scientists however, oppose this view arguing that human behaviour is more diversified than just mere harnessing of energy. The early human beings living in the east African savannas about four million years ago have recorded the earliest signs of culture. Tools dating back to 2.5 million years ago have been discovered. These tools point to the need for early man to develop better ways to harness energy from the environment. Renowned Dutch astronomer, Anton Pannekoek claims that tool making and tool use by the early man developed at the same time of language development (Spier 2011, p 118). As the brain developed further, the early man devised better tools to harness energy. Again changes in the environment led to more adaptation with new species in form of Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus developing in Africa. Homo erectus also discovered fire to cook and for lighting purposes. This species was also the first to leave Africa and explore other contents and adapt to the different environments. Environmental changes, such as the end of ice age and population pressures pushed man into agriculture. Man needed to create micro climate in which he would optimise energy harnessing and ensure security for energy. Ability to produce more facilitated more reproduction and population growth (McNeill and McNeill 2003, p. 141). This ushered in the domestication of animals and growing of plants to supplement hunting and gathering. The growing demands for energy required interdependence and specialisation between different individuals. Males, owing to their physical attributes were better suited at hunting and gathering while females could handle the less physically demanding activities such as child care and farming (Chaisson 2001, p. 139). This period again is comparable to the emergence of life during the Cambrian explosion where mutually interdependent cells became specialised to form larger complex organisms. These settlements increased in their population forcing them to split up as competition for resources increased. The need to store and control resources thus led to intensification of agriculture. More and more people settled around areas that supported agriculture such as around water bodies, along rivers and in areas with favourable climates (Neaubauer 2011, p. 186). These attractions can be compared to the forces responsible for creation of planets and stars but attracting different types of particles. Humans formed alliances that would ensure they could control the resources. This marked the rise of states. These states thus being higher on energy demands extracted energy from others in forms of taxes (Christian and McNeill 2005, p. 547). Techniques for extracting energy from others underwent revolutionary change to usher in the industrial revolution. With more demand for energy, there was need to gain more control o these sources hence the invention of and guns and ammunition (Chaisson 2001, p. 135). Competition for energy between states has led to war. As a result, states have formed complex alliances based on trade, economics and military help to increase their chances of survival amid competition (Christian, 2008). From this discussion, it is apparent that out of nothing, so much has been created including the universe, the earth and all that is in it. The theme of increasing complexity to form more advanced clusters of matter/energy is replicated from the very beginning up to the present. The universe started from random particles into planets and stars. Communities and states started out as individuals. Increased interactions between individuals created communities and states. Competition and control for energy sources has created superior states and individuals with higher appetite and control for energy amounting to power and control over other states. From a Big history perspective, the current state of affairs and life as we know is just a stage in a journey into higher complexity for energy, living things and the universe. References Chaisson, E. J. 2001. Cosmic evolution: The rise of complexity in nature. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Christian, D. (2011). Maps of time: An introduction to Big History. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Christian, D. (2008). This fleeting world: A short history of humanity. London: Berkshire Publishing Christian, D. and McNeill, W. (2005). Maps of time: An introduction to big history. Los Angeles: Taylor & Francis. McNeill, J. R., and McNeill, W. H. (2003). The Hhuman web: A Bird's-Eye View of World History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Smil, V. (1994). Energy in world history. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Spier, F. (2011). Big History and the future of humanity. London: John Wiley & Sons. Spier, F. (2005). How big history works: energy flows and the rise and demise of complexity. Social evolution and history. Vol. 4. No. 1. Read More