Evolution towards higher net profit in a population of ensembles of ensembles leads to division of labour

Friedrich, Thomas (2018): Evolution towards higher net profit in a population of ensembles of ensembles leads to division of labour.

Abstract

In this model the basic ensemble consists of a source and a sink, three basic ensembles constitute an organism or company (both an ensemble of ensembles) and nine organisms/companies form a population or a branch of industry. Each organism is composed of either connected or unconnected ensembles. Linear cost-functions and saturating benefit-functions create superadditivity (better net profit) through a rational and peaceful transfer of substrate within a basic ensemble. Transfers by force and deception are not jet considered. All ensembles have an identical and limited concentration range and all concentrations are of the same probability. Random mutations change cost factors (cf), Michaelis-Menten constants (Km) and the maximal reaction velocities (Vmax) in source and sink of the basic ensemble. Km and Vmax shape a saturating benefit-function in Michaelis-Menten type enzyme kinetics resembling the utility function in economics. The result of mutations in the basic ensemble is a higher or lower cumulative superadditivity of an organism/company and its master if installed. The most effective organisms or masters prevail within the population. Recombination of ensembles between organisms accelerates evolution. Independent of the starting point and with or without a fix cost I observe the evolution towards strong asymmetry and inequality with a division of labour resulting in the development of a collector and a manufacturer. Although I observe a win-win situation reciprocity will become a necessity.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: ensemble, transfer space, benefit, cost, utility, net profit, mutation, recombination, division of labour, asymmetry, inequality, quantity to quality transition, complexity
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A19 - Other; P - Economic Systems > P4 - Other Economic Systems > P40 - General

References

1. Chang TG, Zhu XG, Raines C (2017) Source-sink interaction: a century old concept under the light of modern molecular systems biology. Journal of Experimental Botany. Vol. 68(16):4417-4431

2. Turgeon TR (1989) The sink-source transition in leaves; Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology. Vol. 40:119-138

3. van der Aalst WMP (2013) Business process management: a comprehensive survey. Hindawi Publishing corporation, ISRN Software Engineering, Article ID 507984

4. Friedrich T and Köpper W (2013) Schumpeter´s Gale - Mixing and compartmentalization in Economics and Biology. MPRA_paper_45405

5. Friedrich T (2014) Work cycles of independent ensembles. MPRA_paper_55090

6. Friedrich T (2014) Entanglement by Genes or Shares; Hamilton´s rule of kin selection revisited. MPRA_paper_60267

7. Friedrich T (2015) The limits of wise exploitation in dependent and independent symmetric ensembles. MPRA_paper_68250

8. Friedrich T (2016) Aquila non captat muscas: Homo Economicus between exploration and exploitation. MPRA_paper_75601

9. Felsenstein J (1974), The evolutionary advantage of Recombination. Genetics Vol. 78 no. 2:737-756

10. Takeuchi N, Hogeweg P, Kaneko K (2017) The origin of a primordial genome through spontaneous symmetry breaking. Nat Commun. No. 8, art. 250

11. Schweinfurth, MK and Taborsky M (2018) Reciprocal Trading of Different Commodities in Norway Rats. Curr Biol (28) 1-6

12. Kirk DL (2005) A twelve-step program for evolving multicellularity and a division of labor. Bioessays 27, 299–310

13. Ratcliff WC, Denison RF, Borrello M, and Travisano M (2011) Experimental evolution of multicellularity. PNAS 109, 1595–1600

14. Barker JL, Loope KJ, Reeve HK (2016) Asymmetry within social groups: division of labour and intergroup competition. J Evol Biol 29(3), 560-571

15. Bulmer MG and Taylor PD (1981) Worker-queen conflict and sex ratio theory in social Hymenoptera. Heredity 47(2) 197-207

16. Guiard Y (1987) Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: the kinematic chain as a model. J Mot Behav 19(4), 486-517

17. Szathmáry E and Smith JM (1995) The major evolutionary transitions. Nature 374(6519):227-32

18. Szathmáry E (2015) Toward major evolutionary transitions theory 2.0. PNAS 112 (33) 10104-10111

19. Gowdy J and Krall L (2016) The economic origins of ultrasociality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, E92. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1500059X

20. Carneiro, RL (2000) The transition from quantity to quality: A neglected causal mechanism in accounting for social evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 12926–12931

21. Odum, HT (1988) Self-Organization, Transformity, and Information. Science Vol. 242 (4882), 1132-1139