- Email: [email protected]
Design principles for extraterrestrial communities
104
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
FOR
EXTRATERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES Magoroh Maruyama
The first extraterrestrial human settlement for IO ooo dwellers is being designed in a series of conferences and workshops sponsored by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Subsequent settlements will be much larger and se&supporting. This article discusses social and cultural considerations in the design of extraterrestrial settlements. The basic principle of biological and social processes is the increase of heterogeneity and symbiotisation. Diversity has survival value as well as contributing to a higher rate of cultural evolution. Designs must vary between settlements and within each settlement. Three different types of settlement designs are discussed : hierarchical ; individualistic ; and symbiotic.
I WOULD like to begin this article by pointing out that: the basic principle of biological, social, and even some physical processes is the increase of heterogeneity and symbiotisation; diversity has a survival value for several reasons; and diversity contributes to a higher rate of cultural evolution. The three basic notions Heterogenisation and symbiotisation So far there have been two phases in the development of mutual causal models in engineering, biology, operations research, and systems science; the third phase is about to emerge. The first phase was characterised by deviation-counteracting, equilibriating mutual causal models by means of negative-feedback loops. This phase began on a large scale during the Second World War when radar and anti-aircraft guns, and computers, were hooked The author is Professor of Systems Science at Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, Oregon, 97207, USA.
FUTURES
April 1976
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
105
up in a mutual causal system. The second phase was characterised by di~erentiation-amplif~ng, heterogeneity-generating, evolution-creating mutual causal models by means of positive-feedback loops1 This phase began in the 1960s and initially drew much interest from biologists because these models could do what Shannon’s theory of information could not do, ie increase structuredness and complexity.2 The third phase of the development of mutual causal models, which has hardly begun, will have to deal with the mathematical methods or heuristics that hook up heterogeneous elements into symbiotic networks. In biological evolution, species which are symbiotic survive better than those which are not. By the way, %rvival of the fittest” is not %u-vival of the biggest” or “survival of the strongest” as average Americans or Europeans tend to interpret, but rather %n-vival of the most symbiotic”. But in the social process we do not wait for people to die OK We must identify which combinations are symbiotic and which are not, and recombine unsymbiotic ones into other networks in which they will be symbiotic. Suppose individual A has three alternative ways, a,, a2, a3, to implement his goal, and individual B has five ways b,, b,, b,, b,, b,, to impIement his. Then there are 15 combinations of agbj, some of which may be symbiotic. If none of the 15 is, then A and B must be separated into different networks. On the other hand, those who are now separate may be symbiotic if they are together. We do not yet have the mathematics to deal with such combinations in a large society. Regardless of whether we have the mathematics or not, it is now recognised that the basic principle of biological and social processes is heterogenisation and symbiotisation.
Diversity has survival value for at least three reasons: symbiosis, resource use, and catastrophe contingencies. The traditional Western logic and paradigm preached the ideology of unity by similarity, and considered differences as sources of conflicts. This amounts to the ideology of homogenisation, standardisation, religious and technological universalism, missionarism, and ethnocentrism. On the other hand, the new scientific paradigm is “symbiosis thanks to diversity”. For example, animals convert oxygen into carbon dioxide and plants do exactly the opposite, and by so doing they help each other. Another example of the survival value of diversity is the heterogeneity of species in a coral reef or in a tropical rain forest. The heterogeneity allows the m~mum use of solar energy and diversification of food requirements. If all species ate the same food, there would be a food shortage. And diversity allows for a higher probability of survival in case of catastrophes such as radical changes of environment. It is interesting to note that the philosophies of American Indians, east and west Africans (but not north Africans), Far East Asians, and Eskimos are similar to this new scientific paradigm. However, Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese philosophies which Westerners often refer to as “Eastern” philosophies, are much closer to the Western philosophies than to sub-Sahara African, Japanese, or American Indian ways of thinking. These latter are more markedly based on the principles of symbiotisation and heterogenei~.s FUTURES
April IS76
106
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
~eterogenei~ and the rate of ~~~tu~a~euotution In 193 1 S. Wright pointed out how the speed of biological evolution is related to the ratio between the mutation rate and the size of the population.* When the mutation rate is low and the size of population is large, interbreeding tends to cancel out the mutations, and the speed of evolution is very slow. However, if the mutation rate is very high and the size of population is small, inbreeding tends to amplify the mutations rapidly, and evolution may occur so fast that the species has no time to adapt to the environment or to seek out a new environment, or time to work out new types of relationships among individuals, and may become extinct. When the mutation rate is moderate, random drift occurs. A faster rate of evolution occurs when the total population is divided into isolated independently evolving sub-populations, which are connected with occasional interbreeding. In other words, heterogeneity between sub-populations contributes to a higher rate of evolution. Wright’s theory holds true when the Mendelian law is operative. Cultural intercourse does not always follow the Mendelian law. For example, an idea can be communicated to many individuals at the same time; or a new idea may may deliberately suppress be ignored by the receiver; or the establishment new ideas, etc. Nevertheless, the notion that heterogeneity contributes to a higher rate of evolution holds true even in the case of cultural evolution. And, needless to say, cultural heterogeneity enriches human life. What
we canlearnfrozn existingcdtures
There are many different patterns, forms, and styles of life in the world. Not to learn from them would be unscientific, unwise, and uneconomical as well. I would like to discuss what we can learn from other cultures under the following headings: the effects of day, night, and the seasons; shelter and clothing; and landproxemics ; time structure (of work, calendar, etc); architecture scaping; different logics; different paradigms of life; community structure; the family structure; sexual relations; decision processes and administration; matching between individuals, between individuals and jobs, and the individually optimal rate of communication, of activities, etc. Eficts of day, night, and the seasons Many species of animals maintain diurnal and annual cycles in their biological activities even when they are kept under constant temperature and lighting conditions. Humans who move quickly from one time zone to another show some physiological disturbance. However, there are human populations who live and have lived in geographical areas which lack diurnal or seasonal cycles. Eskimos who live north of the arctic circle have no nights during the summer and no daylight during the winter. On the other hand, at the equator there is no appreciable change in the length of daylight during the entire year. The Balinese calendars ignore completely the 365-day cycle, and instead use the 210-day cycle and 420-day cycle which are mathematically derived (the product of four prime numberstwo, three, five, and seven). The 24-hour cycle is also not an absolute necessity for the human species.
FUTURES
April 1976
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
107
For instance, the Eskimo’s life was not regulated by it. They often hunted four or five days without sleeping, and then slept two or three days at a stretch. Likewise, they might hunt for a few days without much food and with eating time unrelated to the 24-hour cycle, and then feast for a few days without interruption. As for the seasonal cycle, the most extreme seasonal climatic variations are found in polar areas and in the inland areas of large continents. These areas have four seasons, even though any of the four may be very short or very long, which regulate the life of the inhabitants. There are busy seasons (harvest seasons, fishing seasons, etc) and relatively idle ones, which are used in many cultures as a time of festivities. There are also seasons of intercommunity activities and of isolation, depending on the ease of travel. For Eskimos the winter snow on land and ice served as unlimited highways: summer was a time of less mobility and for camp settlement. Tropical areas lack the seasonal variations in the length of daylight. However, many of these areas have rainy seasons and dry seasons which form an annual cycle. This cycle is of importance in agricultural communities, but less important in fishing communities. Shelter and clothing Human adaptation to the climate by means of shelter and clothing has extremely varied forms. Traditionally, the Alaskan Eskimos lived in houses half-underground, covered with dirt, which was further covered by snow in winter. This extremely efficient thermal insulation enabled a small seal-oil lamp to keep the indoor temperature at 32°C. Most males lived completely naked indoors, and most females wore only a narrow band around the genitals. When it was necessary to sleep in an unheated temporary shelter such as an igloo, an efficient way to keep bodies warm was to sleep naked, many people together, in one wide bed made of animal skins. It is interesting to note that the Eskimo principle of sleeping was also widely practised among the ordinary people in medieval France, where the entire family slept naked in one large bed. Outdoors the Eskimos wore animal skins. Seal hunting meant that the body was unmoving for a long period on ice, but animal-skin clothing was sufficient for the Eskimos. Other examples of human adaptation to cold weather can be found in the southern end of South America and Australia where many people lived completely naked in extremely cold conditions. Proxemics The spatial patterns between individuals or for an individual’s activities vary from culture to culture. For example, physical crowding is more tolerated in some cultures than in the American culture. In the American culture, a close distance between two individuals, of the same or opposite sex, is interpreted as having a sexual intention. In many non-hierarchical cultures, people sit in a circle even in official meetings, and the Western pattern of seating in rows before a podium is unthinkable. Americans tend to define space in terms of walls and enclosures. In other cultures, for example in Bali, space is defined around something rather than inside something. The traditional Japanese considered the indoor as a continua-
FUTURES
April 1976 8
108
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
tion of the outdoor, and houses had removable walls (sliding partitions). The American concept of privacy requires one enclosed, lockable room for each individual, while in other cultures privacy is achieved by a thin paper screen, or privacy is found “in the bush” rather than in the house, In some cultures privacy is achieved by simply turning off the lamp, or by looking in another direction. In the Navajo culture, a man was not supposed to look at his mother-in-law, and had to look in another direction. In some cultures there were no secrets or visual taboos, and the concept of ‘rprivacy” did not exist. Americans require sound-proofing for individual space, while Japanese do not “hear” the conversation taking place behind a paper screen. Americans also require olfactory insulation. Time structure Christians have a seven-day week. On the other hand, the Balinese have several types of weeks running concurrently which “heterodyne” to give a 105-day anniversary, a 2 lo-day anniversary, a 420-day anniversary, etc. Most Americans eat three times a day, there are cultures in which the number of meals per day is one, two, or five. In France and in Italy, the largest meal of the day is the noon meal, and the “lunch break” lasts two to three hours. Most Americans have weekends. Traditional American Indians work without a weekend, but take time off whenever a relative or a friend comes to visit. Many Japanese companies give paid menstruation leave to women workers. However, American workers are put to work on the assumption of homogeneity of time; and expected to work in the same way, whatever the conditions may be. Architecture and landscaping Esthetic principles vary from culture to culture. Some Islamic designs are characterised by intricate repetitions of minute details. The European Vitruvius principle also achieves its design unity by repetitions of similar elements. Many of the French and Italian gardens, as well as ancient Chinese city designs, are geometrical and symmetrical. All these are based on homogenistic principles. On the other hand, the Japanese gardens and flower arrangements, and English landscaped gardens to a great extent, avoid repetitions and redundancies, and create a harmony of dissimilar elements. These are based on heterogenistic principles. Another contrast can be found between the two concepts sappari and kudoi. In Japan repetitiousness, whether in design, in poetry or in human behaviour, is considered kudoi (heavy, overdone, obnoxious) and is avoided. The contrary of kudoi is sappari (fresh, clear), and is a very important consideration in the Japanese esthetics. The architectural designs by Walter Gropius and Frank Lloyd Wright as well as the Swedish glassware are sappari, while art nouveau, Gothic, and the psychedelic are kudoi. There are also different basic numbers in different cultures. In Navajo, the basic number is four. In Sioux, the basic numbers are four and six, corresponding to the four directions of west, north, east and south, with sky and earth sometimes included as two additional dimensions. The Japanese flower arrangement is based on various principles of making a composition out of three, five, seven, or nine different elements. Many Japanese designs use a triangle of
FUTURES
April 1876
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
109
unequal sides as a basic layout, often with secondary triangles added which should be dissimilar from the main triangle. Another contrast is between the contextual principle and the individualistic principle. For example, in the Japanese architecture there has been, and there still is, a great deal of concern in harmonising the building with its surrounding environment. On the other hand, many of the American architects tend to regard the building mainly as an expression of its, or his, individuality, unrelated to the surroundings. Le Corbusier had another philosophy. He thought that the man-made building should not imitate the nature; to do so would mean a lack of respect for nature. Another consideration is that, as mentioned earlier, the Japanese regard the indoor as a continuation of the outdoor, and minimise the barriers between them. This principle was adopted by Frank Lloyd Wright. The traditional Japanese house is like an astronomical black hole, designed to suck the outside into the inside instead of proclaiming its presence against the outside. Where the outdoor is not readily available as in urban areas, the Japanese employ techniques to create a perspective of the outdoor. Another cultural comparison concerns the use made of rooms. In the US house, most of the space is taken up by furniture and different rooms are required for different furniture. In Japan, the entire room space can be used by people, because the furniture is removable; and the same room can be used as a living room, a dining room, and a bedroom, thus resulting in an enormous economy of space. This consideration may be important in extraterrestrial communities. Bi$erent logics Many in the West know only one type of logic : the Aristotelian deductive logic, and believe this to be tile logic. However, there are many other types of logic, and I do not mean the multivalued logic or the fuzzy logic, which are nothing more than variations of the Aristotelian logic. One of the drawbacks of the deductive logic is that it prohibits “circular reasoning”. Until recently the deductive logical order was often confused with the causal order in physical, biological, and social processes. As a result of this confusion, the concept of mutual causality (A and B causes each other: many things cause one another) was taboo, in spite of the fact that mutual causal relations are abundant in biological, social and some physical processes. Mutual causal processes can increase differentiation, heterogeneity, and complexity, and make evolution and growth possible. Without mutual causal relations, such processes are impossible. Philosopher Hans Reichenbach,6 who did not recognise mutual causality, had to introduce a teleology (the future determining the present) in order to explain growth and evolution. Another drawback is that deductive logic leads to ~erarchical social structure, dictatorship, aristocracy, elites, technocracy, bureaucracy, etc. Deductive logic cannot see any alternative order for society. The only alternative conceivable within its logic limitations is anarchy or numerocracy (majority rule, domination by quantity). However, once we recognise other types of logics, other alternatives become possible. For example, mutual causal logic enables us to conceive a network system of mutual interaction.
FUTURES
April 197tl
110
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
One of the most serious drawbacks of deductive logic is that it fosters homogenistic thinking, belief that differences create conflicts, belief in the existence of one truth, one ultimate god, etc. As these are very basic problems, let me comment on them one by one. The logic of the Mandenka tribe,” who live in west Africa, is heterogenistic. According to their logic, it is homogeneity, not heterogeneity, which creates conflict: if you force individuals to be similar, the only way left to them to be different is to get on top of one another. The Japanese think in terms of poly-ocular vision: that is in binocular vision it is irrelevant to raise the question as to which eye is correct and which is wrong. Binocular vision works because the ~z~T~~t~~~between the two images enables the brain to compute the ~~~~~~Zedimension. If you cut down the binocular vision to parts on which two eyes agree, what is left is much less than the monocular vision. For the same reason, insistence on the “objective” parts on which everybody agrees is a tremendous impoverishment of our vision, even though many people would consider this is the “scientific” thinking. The belief in the existence of one truth, one universal formula for happiness, etc, is very common among engineers. On the other hand, theoretical physicists who appreciate the hypothetical nature of physical theories, and mathematicians who understand the axiomatic basis of mathematical theories, are less prone to blind belief in one formulation. I may add that the belief in one truth is an aspect of what is called “monopolarisation” : ‘3 * a psychological need to seek and hang onto one authority, one way of doing things, one explanation, one god, etc. The tendency towards monopolarisation is particularly strong among those brought up in the nuclear family system. ~~~e~en~~a~ad~grns of lzxe The word “culture” is used in social sciences in the sense of philosophy and pattern of life shared by a number of interacting individuals. It does not mean fine arts, music, and literature as is the case in many European countries, or entertainment facilities and restaurants as is the case among urban planners in America. “Culture” includes lifestyle, but it goes much deeper. It also goes further than what is commonly called “social value system” which consists in the preferential order in which the community members rank various physical, psychological, ethical and esthetic qualities. More basically, “culture” means the cognitive and behavioural ~~~c~~e with which a person interacts with others and interprets the universe. It is more like “philosophy of life” or “paradigm of life”. Some examples may be helpful. Example A: Life is cut-throat competition. The stronger takes advantage of the weaker. Success depends on effort, ie if someone is unsuccessful, it is his fault, Outdo others or you will be a loser. People who are equal to you are your competitors. People who are different are your enemies. Life is a zero-sum game: what someone gains is what someone else loses. Life is a constant competition. Exarn~~e B: Life is a harmony of mutual relations. Life is a non-zero-sum game. People can help one another and gain from one another without anybody necessariIy losing. Some people are born and live under disadvantaged conditions, and they should be helped. Example C: Everybody should earn his living. He can work as much as he wants or as little as he wants. But he must be self-sufficient. He must save for rainy days. He
FUTURES
Aprl M76
Design Principlesfor ExtraterrestrialCommunities
111
does not need to help others. Do your own thing. Everybody minds his own business. Example D: Life is exploitation. I have been exploited. I am a victim. It is not my fault. Rich people should give me what they owe me. I will go begging for a dime on the street, not because I am starving, but because I am entitled to the dime. Exu~p~e E: I tend to have surplus. There is no need to save for rainy days because when I am in need, someone will help me. So I keep giving away my surplus. Example F: I keep giving things to others because I want to have power over others. Others, who want to receive things from me, would have to obey me. I keep showing off my ability to give, because those who have not yet received anything from me would obey me in the hope of getting something from me. Example G: I give things to others because I want to be famous for being generous. I do not expect anything in return. I just want to be a generous man. I am a good guy and a do-gooder. I am superior to others. Culture is not a geographical concept. People within the same office or the same family can belong to different cultures. Example A stems from the hierarchical, competitive logic, while B is based on the mutual&tic logic. Example C is an individualistic, isolationist paradigm. This paradigm is closely related to the logic of probabilistic independent events.* It is different from both hierarchism and mutualism. There may also be several different paradigms based on one logic; such as D, which stems from the hierarchical logic but is different from A. Similarly, example E is based on mutualistie logic but is slightly different from B. Examples F and G are based on the hierarchical logic, even though the behaviour may look identical to example E which is based on the mutualistic logic. As these examples show, culture cannot be identified from, or defined by, behaviour and other observable manifestations only. The paradigm underlying the behaviour, and the logic underlying the paradigm, must be understood. There are, and can be, many different principles of community structure, but I give three here as examples: hierarchical, individualistic, and mutualistic. Theoretically it is possible for each of the three to be either homogenistic or heterogenistic. In fact, a hierarchical community is heterogeneous in the sense of vertical stratification. But philosophically it tends to be homogenistic for the reason that hierarchism is related to deductive logic. A mutualistic community has no vertical stratification, and allows for horizontal heterogenei~. As discussed before, mutual causal processes are more capable of producing heterogeneity than the process of random independent events (individualistic systems). It is useful to discuss the distinction between the homogenistic and heterogenistic principles. We must also distinguish between homogeneous and homogenistic, and between heterogeneous and heterogenistic. For example, US society has been heterogeneous in its population, but ideologically it has been homogenistic with its concepts of the melting pot, assimilation, and standardisation. Canada has been much more heterogenistic than the USA, with its official recognition of at least two cultural groups and two languages. Recently heterogenism began to emerge in USA, especially in the forms of ethnic movements and counter-culture movements, but some aspects of the ethnic movements and much of the womens’ liberation movement are aiming towards the homogenisation of the entire society.
FUTURES
April 1870
It is also useful to discuss the distinction between Gesellschaft structure and Gemeinschaft structure in terms of horizontal mobility, as they are relevant to heterogenisation and homogenisation. There are aIs0 two different textures of heterogeneity : l~ca~isat~on and ~nte7~ea~i~g. The word “hierarchy” is used with different meanings in different fields of specialisation. In the physical sciences, it is often used in the sense of a unit of organisation : eg atoms make a molecule; molecules make a biological cell; cells make a tissue; etc. On the other hand, in social sciencies the world “hierarchy” is used in the sense of power structure: who has power over whom. A hierarchical society has a vertical power structure. If the physical-science definition of “hierarchy” is used, then all communities are hierarchical. However, when the social-science definition of hierarchy is used, there are communities which are not hierarchical. For instance, the Navajo universe consists of mutual relations between several types of beings as well as between beings within the same type : humans, animals, supernaturals, ghosts, and natural forces, but there is no hierarchy in the sense of nonreciprocal directions of influence. The inevitable sceptic will say that hierarchy is necessary in a large society, and that non-~erarchical systems work only in small societies. (Here the world “hierarchy” is used in the sense of power stratification, not in the sense of organisational units.) But the Navajo society has a population of 150 000 on the reservation alone. This is about one-half the size of Dayton, Ohio or Portland, Oregon. It is fifteen times the size of all Model I communities combined together. lo But even if future extraterrestrial communities become much larger and more complex, this wil1 not be an obstacle to the extension of nonhierarchical principles, because we can mobilise computer and communication technology. It is important to distinguish two opposite concepts of social integration: one is homogenistic, and the other is heterogenistic. A non-white person who wants to move into a white neighbourhood in order to behave like a white person is aiming at homogenistic integration. On the other hand, a Japanese who wants to move into a white neighbourhood and build a Japanese house is aiming at heterogenistic integration. It is also important to consider two different principIes of heterogenisation: ~Qcal~satio~and ~~~er~ea~~~g.In localisation, each of the heterogeneous elements separates itself and settles in one locality. Chinatown in San Francisco is an example. In localisation, heterogenisation increases between different localities, but each locality becomes homogeneous. In interweaving, each of the heterogeneous elements is not localised, but is interwoven with others. In this system the accessibility to different elements increases, and within each locality there is a great diversity. In an interwoven system, it becomes easier for the individual to ~e~e~oge~~sehimself or to become something else than what he was. For example, a white person may eat Chinese food on Sunday, learn Judo on Wednesday, and become a full-time Tibetan monk. All these involve the concept of Gesellschaft. German sociologist Tonnies made an important distinction between two types of social systems: GesellschaJt and Gemeinschaft.ll It is easy to move in and FUILJRES
April 197tl
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
113
out of a Gesellschaft, but it is difficult to do so with a Gemeinschaft. Gesellschaften allow for horizontal mobility of people between them. For example, one can relatively easily change jobs between companies or agencies in USA, while it is more difficult to do so in Germany or in Japan. In this respect American companies and agencies are more of Gesellschaften, and German and Japanese companies are more like Germeinschaften. One of the characteristics of a Gesellschaft is that it can amplify its eccentricity: those who do not like it will leave. Thus, homogeneity tends to increase within a Gesellschaft, though heretogeneity may increase between Gesellschaften. At the same time, a Gesellschaft may become very intolerant towards non-conformists. A Gemeinschaft, on the other hand, must dealwith non-conformists differently. It must either suppress non-conformists, or accept them. Thus it may become either homogenistically totalitarian or heterogenistic, depending on its policy and philosophy. The degree to which the extraterrestrial communities are like Gesellschaften or Gemeinschaften will make a great difference to the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity they attain. There must be heterogeneity between communities as well as within each community. However, heterogenisation is only the first step. The fact that heterogenisation has taken place does not determine what the relations between the heterogeneous elements are. There are many possible types of interrelations: hierarchism, separatism, parasitism, antibiosis, etc.
TABLE Type Hierarchism Separatism Symbiosis Parasitism Antibiosis Mutual antibiosis
Farnib
1. SOME POSSIBLE Gain some persons no person all persons some persons no person no person
COMMUNITY Loss some persons no person no person some persons some persons all persons
STRUCTURES Remarks central control no interaction positive sum zero sum negative sum negative sum
structure
A usual American family consists of a father, a mother, and their children. This type of family system is called the nuclear family. In many cultures a family may include grandparents or other relatives. This is called the extended family system. In others, such as the west Alaska Eskimos, children move between different families from time to time. In some cultures children may be disciplined by specific relatives such as uncles, but not by their biological father or mother. Israel and Russia have a system of raising children collectively away from the homes during the working hours of the parents. In the USA, many young people are experimenting with alternative family systems. Some examples are the commune and multi-marriage in which several adults of both sexes live together with their children; lesbian colonies in which there are no adult males, and women live with their children (women go out for a date to get pregnant) ; and male homosexual households with adopted or borrowed children. We have already mentioned one disadvantage of the nuclear family: people who are reared within it have a tendency towards monopolarisation. They tend
FUTURES
April 1976
to have psychological need to seek and hang onto one authority, one way of doing things, etc, and if they face many theories or many alternatives, they feel insecure until they decide which one is right and which one is wrong. They try to impose their logic or their belief upon others. They also tend to misinterpret and reduce others into their own logic. A typical misinterpretation is: “Different religions worship the same god by different names”. They cannot see the difference between polytheistic harmonism and monotheistic homogenism. Of course I am not saying that the nuclear family will always produce monopolarisation. There are perhaps ways for the nuclear family to avoid this. The nuclear family also places certain strains, both on children and on parents. If the personalities of the children do not match with the personalities of the parents, the relationship will be strained. On the other hand, in a nonnuclear family, the child has more diverse sources of emotional and intellectual gratification, and is more secure and less vulnerable if one relationship does not work. Aside from these psychological considerations, practical reasons are making more and more people seek alternatives to the nuclear family. For example, if the mother has a career, she cannot stay home to take care of her children, The communal rearing of children in extraterrestrial communities, as an alternative to the nuclear family, must be seriously examined.
Sex and love Contraceptives have separated sex from pregnancy. As more women choose to remain unmarried, sex and marriage become separated. And as professional and geographical mobility of people increases, love and marriage will become more and more separated. In the traditional US society, love, marriage, sex and pregnancy occurred inseparably and in that order, Now that this pattern is breaking down, we may need insights from other patterns in other cultures. For Eskimos, marriage and sex were separate: marriage was for economic activities, and sex was for enjoyment. A hunter needed a wife to process the skins of the animals he hunted. If his wife was pregnant, a hunter borrowed someone else’s wife to go on his hunting trip. Visitors were sexually entertained by their hosts’ wives. In long winter nights, Angmagssalik Eskimos of East Greenland who lived in semi-communal long houses played the game of “putting out lamp”. For Marquise Islanders, marriage and sex were also separate. Before marriage, girls could enjoy sex with many men. But after marriage they had to confine their sexual activities to their husbands. On the day of the wedding, the bride gave a sexual farewell party to her old friends: she lay down, and her old friends lined up for their last intercourse with her. The longer the line, the prouder the bridegroom. As for love, the American concept of love used to require constant verbal and nonverbal demonstrativeness (kissing, or saying “I love you”) as well as some exclusive feeling (I love you more than anybody else). But the younger generation is redefining the concept of love. In many other cultures, love consisted of something other than such demonstrativeness or exclusivity of feelings.** l2
FUTURES
April 1976
Design Princi’les for ExtraterrestrialCommunities
115
Decision processes and administration The principle of US democracy involves two logical fallacies: first, it is based on majority rule which amounts to domination by quantity and the imposition of homogeneity, without regard to minorities; second, it is based on “voting for your own interest”, and encourages one to disregard others’ interest. This promotes non-contextual thinking, competitiveness, and partisan-mindedness. The consensus system is proposed by many as an alternative to the majority system. However, the consensus system also tends to be homogenistic if it assumes that everybody should do the same thing. Another criterion is the elimination of the hardship suffered by any single individual. This system is practiced by the Navajos. Let me illustrate how the three systems produce three different solutions to the same problem. Suppose we have to decide whether or not to build a bridge over a river. If people disagree, we cannot build just half-a-bridge. We must build either the whole bridge or no bridge at all. The majority system will count the votes, take the majority decision, and forget about the minorities. This is considered democratic. The consensus system will listen to the minorities, and works hard until a unanimous decision is reached and everybody agrees. The hardship-on-nobody system is concerned not so much with whether to build the bridge or not, but more with what to do for those who will suffer from any hardship, no matter which way the decision goes. In a large society, consensus is difficult to reach, even with the help of computers and communication technology. The third system, on the other hand, is less difficult, and should be feasible with the currently available communication and computer technology. Nevertheless, I suspect that the voting system will continue for a while until the no-hardship-on-anyone system becomes established. If so, then the majority has the responsibility of taking the minorities’ point of view into consideration when they vote. In a long run, this will require more communication, education, and information than the replacement of the voting system by the no-hardshipon-anyone criterion. However, there is another reason for promoting the “understand others” policy. It is symbiotisation. As I mentioned, there is no method yet for the symbiotisation of heterogeneous elements. Before we can find symbiotic combinations, we must understand each of the heterogeneous elements. The problem of matching Needless to say, individuals vary in their taste, abilities, and even in their optimal rate of communication. No culture is “healthy” or “unhealthy” for everybody.ls Each culture is healthy for those whose tastes, abilities, and rate of communication match it, and unhealthy for others. The same holds for the matching of individuals to jobs, or individuals to individuals. Successful matching requires the availability of variety, and this depends on the number of different types of communities, as well as on the degree of heterogeneity within a community. However, certain types of facilities require a certain size of population to support them: eg a symphony orchestra or a university. There is also the problem of size versus number. For example, many
FUTURES
April 1976 9
116
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
areas of the mid-western USA have a large number of small colleges each with a library containing more or less the same basic books. In a way this large number of small colleges creates heterogeneity. But a small number of large universities can also create more heterogeneity, eg in the variety of library books or departmental subjects. The planning of extraterrestrial communities will have the same problem. Certain types of heterogeneity can be maximised by having a large number of small communities: others by having a small number of large communities. The horizontal mobility (migration between communities) of individuals to increase matching, also presents a problem. There will also be the Gesellschaft syndrome to contend with: localised homogeneity and intolerance. Design suggestions
for extraterrestrial
communities
Heterogeneity between settlements not only increases the probability of the survival of the human species, but also increases the speed of the cultural evolution, as well as enriching human life. Furthermore, since we do not know which social systems work well and which do not, until we have actually tried them out, we need to experiment with several different social systems. Hence our first consideration in the design of Model I (see illustrations) extraterrestrial communities:14 The three urban centres may be based on three di$erent social and cultural principles. Table 2 shows one suggestion for the choice of the three types. TABLE
2. THREE DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
FOR THE THREE URBAN
CENTRES
Community
Basic principle
Elements
Decision
2 C
Hierarchical Individualistic Symbiotic
Standardised Insulated Heterogeneous
Majority rule As it happens Find symbiotic combination, eliminate hardship on any single individual
process
Community A (hierarchical and homogenistic) People in this community believe that if there are many ways, there must be a best way among them, and that the “best way” is “good for” everybody. They think in terms of maximisation, optimisation etc. They consider majority rule as the basis of democracy, and competition as the basis of “progress”. They look for universal criteria and universal categories which would apply to all people, and look for unity by means of similarities. Differences are considered accidental, inconvenient, or bothersome, and are ignored as much as possible. Diversity, non-standard behaviour, minority groups, etc are considered abnormal or undesirable, to be corrected to be more “normal”. If such people are inconvenienced by the system, which is geared towards the majority, the fault is considered to reside in the “abnormal” people. Because of the belief in the “best way” for all people and in maximum efficiency, all living units are designed alike. Because of the belief that unity is achieved by homogeneity and that differences create conflicts, residents are divided into age groups, occupational groups etc, in such a way that each group is homogeneous within itself. Similarly, all living units are concentrated in one zone; recreation facilities in another zone; industrial facilities in the third zone. This allows for a large continuous area for recreation suitable for recreational activities which require a large space.
FUTURES
April lW6
The Japanese regard the indoor as a continuation of the outdoor and minimise the barriers between them. Where the outdoor is not readily available, as in urban areas, the Japanese employ techniques to create a perspective of the outdoor. Once, in a Japanese inn, I was surprised to see part of a large beautiful garden opening up around the corner of the next room. But as I approached the corner, what looked like the entrance to a large garden turned out to be a small recession in the wall. There was no garden at all
SPACE
ALLOCATIONS
IN
COLONY
ENCLOSURE
The macro-geometry of the Model 1 space community as recommenaea by rne 1~1s NASA/AStt/StantOrU summer study project’;’ is a torus 835 m in radius (from the centre of the torus to the centre of the ring-shaped tube, see over). The allocation of space, and a section through the agricultural area, are shown above
!
I
I
I
~
~-___I__
_ ._
_~
. _-
~~
.-
.-
-----. ---..- ----
.1
The diameter of the tube is 130 m. The torus is divided into three urban areas and three agricultural areas; the urban areas are out of sight of one another. The artist’s impression (top) also includes the solar power plant which extends below the torus. The torus will be placed approximately a quarter of a million miles from both the earth and the moon at one of the Lagrangian points, libration point 5. Near this point there is an orbit which is stable under the combined gravitational effects of the earth, moon, and sun. Artificial gravity, equivalent to that at the earth’s surface, will be maintained inside the torus by rotating it once a minute
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
119
Community B (indi~idua~~tic and isolationist) People in this communi~ think that independence is a virtue, both for the person who is independent and for the others from whom he is independent. They consider self-sufficiency as the highest form ofexistence. Dependency and interdependence are looked down upon as a weakness or sin. Each living unit is like a self-contained castle, and insulated against others in terms of sight, sound, and smell. Each unit contains its own recreational facilities, and there is no communal recreation area. Within each unit, everything is adjustable to the individual taste. Protection of privacy is a major concern in thii communi~. Community C (heterogenistic, mutualistic, and symbiotic) People in this community believe that the basic principle of biological and social processes is heterogenisation and symbiotisation due to mutual interaction. Heterogeneity is considered as sources of enrichment, symbiosis, resource diversification, flexibility, survival, and evolution. They believe that there is no “best way” for all people. They think in terms of choosing and matching instead of maximisation or optimisation. They consider majority rule as homogenistic domination by quantity and, instead, use the principle of elimination of or compensation for hardship which even a single individual may suffer when a decision is taken. They consider competition useless and cooperation usefiu1.They think that criteria and categories shouId be flexible and variable depending on the context and the situation. They look for harmony and symbiosis thanks to diversity, instead of advocating unity by means of similarities. Homogeneity is considered as the source of quantitative competition and conflict. The houses are all different, based on different design principles taken from different cultures and from different systems of family structure, including communes. Each building is different, and within each building, each apartment is different. The overall design principle is the harmony of diversity and the avoidance of repetition. Different elements are not thrown together but carefully combined to produce harmony. People of different ages, different occupations, different family compositions, etc are mixed and interwoven, but care is taken to place together people who can help one another and antagonistic combinations are avoided. For example, old peopIe who Iove chiidren are placed near families who need babysitters. Let us keep in mind that these three communities in Model I are within a few minutes of each other. Therefore people in community A, who would like to eat exotic food once in a while, can visit community C; and large-scale recreational facilities are available in community A for those from communities B and C who may wish to use them. The second consideration in the design of extraterrestrial commu~ties is how to select the immigrants for each type of community: The immigrants must be selected.for each @pe of extraterrestrial community by psychological tests and other criteria. Even though each community type has no a priori discrimination against any race or occupation, it may turn out that people in certain occupations or from certain cultural backgrounds tend to prefer a certain type of community. For example, people from communist countries may prefer community A, west Africans might prefer community C, etc. Care must be taken to ensure that the psychological tests are not ethnocentric. For example, it is well-known that the IQ test test measures white middle-classness rather than intelligence. Psychological tests must be developed that are applicable to a11 cultures. They cannot be developed by US an~ropolo~s~
FUTURES
April lS76
120
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
and psychologists alone. We need the participation of psychologists and social scientists from all cultures in the development of such psychological tests. The third consideration is people’s residential mobility between communities. We must avoid certain Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft syndromes: Ihe regulation of migration between communities should be neither so strict that it suppresses individuals, nor so loose that it accelerates the eccentrisation of each community and the consequent intolerance of nonconformists. In the sociocultural design of extraterrestrial communities, we do not know definitely whether an idea will work or not until we have tried it out. This is because there are many more variables in social processes than in physical processes. But we must begin somewhere and the comments above outline some tentative suggestions. All we can do is to keep our minds open and to keep on experimenting.
References and notes 1. M. Maruyama, “The second cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes”, 1963, American Scientist, 51, pages 164-179; 250-256. 2. Shannon’s information theory, similar to the theory of thermodynamics, was based on a different paradigm, which I call a “random process paradigm” or a “random influence paradigm”, and it could only account for loss of information, but could never generate information. The most it could do was to combat information loss by error-correcting methods based on various forms of negative feedback. As mathematician Stanislaw Ulam has pointed out, complex patterns can be generated by means of simple rules of interaction, and it takes a greater amount of Shannonian information to describe the generated pattern than to describe the generating rules, ie the amount of Shannonian information increases in these processes; see S. Ulam, “On some mathematical problems connected with patterns of growth figures”, 1962, Proceedings & Sjmposium on Applied Mathematics, 14, pages 215-224; M. Maruyama, “Generating complex patterns by means of simple rules of interactions”, 1963, Methodos, 14, pages 17-26; M. “The second cybernetics : deviation-amplifying mutual causal Maruyama, processes”, 1963, American Scientist, 51, pages 164-179; 250-256. It is this feature of the differentiation-amplifying mutual causal models that drew much interest from embryologists and geneticists in the early 1960s. In the late 1960s some sociologists began applying these models to the study of social evolution and social changes; see W. Buckley, Modern Systems Research for the Behavioural Scientist (Chicago, Aldine, 1968). In addition to the creative and generative features of mutual causal processes, there is also a possibility of run-away situations. This feature was first pointed out by Gunnar Myrdal; see G. Myrdal, American Dilemma (New York, Harper & Row, 1944) ; G. Myrdal, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions (London, Duckworth, 1957). More recently it has received much more elaboration and publicity by Jay For-rester of MIT and his school. 3. M. Maruyama, “Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary, crossprofessional and cross-cultural communication”, 1974, Cybernetica, 17, pages 136-156; 237-281; S. Camara, “The concept of heterogeneity and change among the Mandenka”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, pages 273-284; M. Maruyama, “Symbiotization of cultural heterogeneity: scientific, epistemological and esthetic bases”, 1974, Co-existence, 11, pages 42-56.
FUTURES
April 1876
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
121
4. S. Wright, “Evolution in Mendelian population”, 1931, Genetics, 16, pages 97159. 5. H. Reichenbach, Direction of Time (Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1956). 6. S. Camara, “The concept of heterogeneity and change among the Mandenka”, 1975, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, pages 273-284. 7. M. Maruyama, “Monopolarization, family and individuality”, 1966, Pqhiatric &art+, 40, pages 133-149. 8. M. Maruyama, “Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary, cross-professional and cross-cultural communication”, 1974, Cybernetica, pages 136-156; 237--281. 9. C. Kluckhohn, “The philosophy of Navaho Indians”, in Ideological D@rences and World Order, F. S. C. Northrop, ed. (Conn., Yale University Press, 1949); M. Maruyama, “The Navajo philosophy: an esthetic ethic of mutuality”, 1967, Mental Hygiene, 51, pages 242-249. 10. The plan is to place the first extraterrestrial communities at libration point 5. This point, the earth, and the moon form an equilateral triangle. The planned layout of Model 1 is shown in the illustrations. Il. F. Tonnies. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887). 12. F. L. K. Hsu, Th American and the Chinese (USA. c 1953). 13. M. Maruyama, “A critique of some widely held assumptions on the relationship between culture and mental health”, 1959, Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, 14, pages 273-276; M. Maruyama, “The multilateral mutual simultaneous causal relationships among the modes of communication, sociometric pattern and intellectual orientation in the Danish culture”, 1961, Phylon, 22, pages 41-58. 14. G. K. O’Neill, “The colonization of space”, September 1974, Physics Today, 118, pages 32-40; “Space colonies and energy supply to the earth”, December 1975, Physics Today, 190, pages 943-947. 15. NASA-Ames/American Society for Engineering Education/Stanford University Summer Study Report, System Design for Space Colonization (Mountain View, California, NASA-Ames Research Laboratory, 1976).
FUTURES
April lS76
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
FOR
EXTRATERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES Magoroh Maruyama
The first extraterrestrial human settlement for IO ooo dwellers is being designed in a series of conferences and workshops sponsored by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Subsequent settlements will be much larger and se&supporting. This article discusses social and cultural considerations in the design of extraterrestrial settlements. The basic principle of biological and social processes is the increase of heterogeneity and symbiotisation. Diversity has survival value as well as contributing to a higher rate of cultural evolution. Designs must vary between settlements and within each settlement. Three different types of settlement designs are discussed : hierarchical ; individualistic ; and symbiotic.
I WOULD like to begin this article by pointing out that: the basic principle of biological, social, and even some physical processes is the increase of heterogeneity and symbiotisation; diversity has a survival value for several reasons; and diversity contributes to a higher rate of cultural evolution. The three basic notions Heterogenisation and symbiotisation So far there have been two phases in the development of mutual causal models in engineering, biology, operations research, and systems science; the third phase is about to emerge. The first phase was characterised by deviation-counteracting, equilibriating mutual causal models by means of negative-feedback loops. This phase began on a large scale during the Second World War when radar and anti-aircraft guns, and computers, were hooked The author is Professor of Systems Science at Portland State University, PO Box 751, Portland, Oregon, 97207, USA.
FUTURES
April 1976
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
105
up in a mutual causal system. The second phase was characterised by di~erentiation-amplif~ng, heterogeneity-generating, evolution-creating mutual causal models by means of positive-feedback loops1 This phase began in the 1960s and initially drew much interest from biologists because these models could do what Shannon’s theory of information could not do, ie increase structuredness and complexity.2 The third phase of the development of mutual causal models, which has hardly begun, will have to deal with the mathematical methods or heuristics that hook up heterogeneous elements into symbiotic networks. In biological evolution, species which are symbiotic survive better than those which are not. By the way, %rvival of the fittest” is not %u-vival of the biggest” or “survival of the strongest” as average Americans or Europeans tend to interpret, but rather %n-vival of the most symbiotic”. But in the social process we do not wait for people to die OK We must identify which combinations are symbiotic and which are not, and recombine unsymbiotic ones into other networks in which they will be symbiotic. Suppose individual A has three alternative ways, a,, a2, a3, to implement his goal, and individual B has five ways b,, b,, b,, b,, b,, to impIement his. Then there are 15 combinations of agbj, some of which may be symbiotic. If none of the 15 is, then A and B must be separated into different networks. On the other hand, those who are now separate may be symbiotic if they are together. We do not yet have the mathematics to deal with such combinations in a large society. Regardless of whether we have the mathematics or not, it is now recognised that the basic principle of biological and social processes is heterogenisation and symbiotisation.
Diversity has survival value for at least three reasons: symbiosis, resource use, and catastrophe contingencies. The traditional Western logic and paradigm preached the ideology of unity by similarity, and considered differences as sources of conflicts. This amounts to the ideology of homogenisation, standardisation, religious and technological universalism, missionarism, and ethnocentrism. On the other hand, the new scientific paradigm is “symbiosis thanks to diversity”. For example, animals convert oxygen into carbon dioxide and plants do exactly the opposite, and by so doing they help each other. Another example of the survival value of diversity is the heterogeneity of species in a coral reef or in a tropical rain forest. The heterogeneity allows the m~mum use of solar energy and diversification of food requirements. If all species ate the same food, there would be a food shortage. And diversity allows for a higher probability of survival in case of catastrophes such as radical changes of environment. It is interesting to note that the philosophies of American Indians, east and west Africans (but not north Africans), Far East Asians, and Eskimos are similar to this new scientific paradigm. However, Islamic, Hindu, and Chinese philosophies which Westerners often refer to as “Eastern” philosophies, are much closer to the Western philosophies than to sub-Sahara African, Japanese, or American Indian ways of thinking. These latter are more markedly based on the principles of symbiotisation and heterogenei~.s FUTURES
April IS76
106
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
~eterogenei~ and the rate of ~~~tu~a~euotution In 193 1 S. Wright pointed out how the speed of biological evolution is related to the ratio between the mutation rate and the size of the population.* When the mutation rate is low and the size of population is large, interbreeding tends to cancel out the mutations, and the speed of evolution is very slow. However, if the mutation rate is very high and the size of population is small, inbreeding tends to amplify the mutations rapidly, and evolution may occur so fast that the species has no time to adapt to the environment or to seek out a new environment, or time to work out new types of relationships among individuals, and may become extinct. When the mutation rate is moderate, random drift occurs. A faster rate of evolution occurs when the total population is divided into isolated independently evolving sub-populations, which are connected with occasional interbreeding. In other words, heterogeneity between sub-populations contributes to a higher rate of evolution. Wright’s theory holds true when the Mendelian law is operative. Cultural intercourse does not always follow the Mendelian law. For example, an idea can be communicated to many individuals at the same time; or a new idea may may deliberately suppress be ignored by the receiver; or the establishment new ideas, etc. Nevertheless, the notion that heterogeneity contributes to a higher rate of evolution holds true even in the case of cultural evolution. And, needless to say, cultural heterogeneity enriches human life. What
we canlearnfrozn existingcdtures
There are many different patterns, forms, and styles of life in the world. Not to learn from them would be unscientific, unwise, and uneconomical as well. I would like to discuss what we can learn from other cultures under the following headings: the effects of day, night, and the seasons; shelter and clothing; and landproxemics ; time structure (of work, calendar, etc); architecture scaping; different logics; different paradigms of life; community structure; the family structure; sexual relations; decision processes and administration; matching between individuals, between individuals and jobs, and the individually optimal rate of communication, of activities, etc. Eficts of day, night, and the seasons Many species of animals maintain diurnal and annual cycles in their biological activities even when they are kept under constant temperature and lighting conditions. Humans who move quickly from one time zone to another show some physiological disturbance. However, there are human populations who live and have lived in geographical areas which lack diurnal or seasonal cycles. Eskimos who live north of the arctic circle have no nights during the summer and no daylight during the winter. On the other hand, at the equator there is no appreciable change in the length of daylight during the entire year. The Balinese calendars ignore completely the 365-day cycle, and instead use the 210-day cycle and 420-day cycle which are mathematically derived (the product of four prime numberstwo, three, five, and seven). The 24-hour cycle is also not an absolute necessity for the human species.
FUTURES
April 1976
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
107
For instance, the Eskimo’s life was not regulated by it. They often hunted four or five days without sleeping, and then slept two or three days at a stretch. Likewise, they might hunt for a few days without much food and with eating time unrelated to the 24-hour cycle, and then feast for a few days without interruption. As for the seasonal cycle, the most extreme seasonal climatic variations are found in polar areas and in the inland areas of large continents. These areas have four seasons, even though any of the four may be very short or very long, which regulate the life of the inhabitants. There are busy seasons (harvest seasons, fishing seasons, etc) and relatively idle ones, which are used in many cultures as a time of festivities. There are also seasons of intercommunity activities and of isolation, depending on the ease of travel. For Eskimos the winter snow on land and ice served as unlimited highways: summer was a time of less mobility and for camp settlement. Tropical areas lack the seasonal variations in the length of daylight. However, many of these areas have rainy seasons and dry seasons which form an annual cycle. This cycle is of importance in agricultural communities, but less important in fishing communities. Shelter and clothing Human adaptation to the climate by means of shelter and clothing has extremely varied forms. Traditionally, the Alaskan Eskimos lived in houses half-underground, covered with dirt, which was further covered by snow in winter. This extremely efficient thermal insulation enabled a small seal-oil lamp to keep the indoor temperature at 32°C. Most males lived completely naked indoors, and most females wore only a narrow band around the genitals. When it was necessary to sleep in an unheated temporary shelter such as an igloo, an efficient way to keep bodies warm was to sleep naked, many people together, in one wide bed made of animal skins. It is interesting to note that the Eskimo principle of sleeping was also widely practised among the ordinary people in medieval France, where the entire family slept naked in one large bed. Outdoors the Eskimos wore animal skins. Seal hunting meant that the body was unmoving for a long period on ice, but animal-skin clothing was sufficient for the Eskimos. Other examples of human adaptation to cold weather can be found in the southern end of South America and Australia where many people lived completely naked in extremely cold conditions. Proxemics The spatial patterns between individuals or for an individual’s activities vary from culture to culture. For example, physical crowding is more tolerated in some cultures than in the American culture. In the American culture, a close distance between two individuals, of the same or opposite sex, is interpreted as having a sexual intention. In many non-hierarchical cultures, people sit in a circle even in official meetings, and the Western pattern of seating in rows before a podium is unthinkable. Americans tend to define space in terms of walls and enclosures. In other cultures, for example in Bali, space is defined around something rather than inside something. The traditional Japanese considered the indoor as a continua-
FUTURES
April 1976 8
108
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
tion of the outdoor, and houses had removable walls (sliding partitions). The American concept of privacy requires one enclosed, lockable room for each individual, while in other cultures privacy is achieved by a thin paper screen, or privacy is found “in the bush” rather than in the house, In some cultures privacy is achieved by simply turning off the lamp, or by looking in another direction. In the Navajo culture, a man was not supposed to look at his mother-in-law, and had to look in another direction. In some cultures there were no secrets or visual taboos, and the concept of ‘rprivacy” did not exist. Americans require sound-proofing for individual space, while Japanese do not “hear” the conversation taking place behind a paper screen. Americans also require olfactory insulation. Time structure Christians have a seven-day week. On the other hand, the Balinese have several types of weeks running concurrently which “heterodyne” to give a 105-day anniversary, a 2 lo-day anniversary, a 420-day anniversary, etc. Most Americans eat three times a day, there are cultures in which the number of meals per day is one, two, or five. In France and in Italy, the largest meal of the day is the noon meal, and the “lunch break” lasts two to three hours. Most Americans have weekends. Traditional American Indians work without a weekend, but take time off whenever a relative or a friend comes to visit. Many Japanese companies give paid menstruation leave to women workers. However, American workers are put to work on the assumption of homogeneity of time; and expected to work in the same way, whatever the conditions may be. Architecture and landscaping Esthetic principles vary from culture to culture. Some Islamic designs are characterised by intricate repetitions of minute details. The European Vitruvius principle also achieves its design unity by repetitions of similar elements. Many of the French and Italian gardens, as well as ancient Chinese city designs, are geometrical and symmetrical. All these are based on homogenistic principles. On the other hand, the Japanese gardens and flower arrangements, and English landscaped gardens to a great extent, avoid repetitions and redundancies, and create a harmony of dissimilar elements. These are based on heterogenistic principles. Another contrast can be found between the two concepts sappari and kudoi. In Japan repetitiousness, whether in design, in poetry or in human behaviour, is considered kudoi (heavy, overdone, obnoxious) and is avoided. The contrary of kudoi is sappari (fresh, clear), and is a very important consideration in the Japanese esthetics. The architectural designs by Walter Gropius and Frank Lloyd Wright as well as the Swedish glassware are sappari, while art nouveau, Gothic, and the psychedelic are kudoi. There are also different basic numbers in different cultures. In Navajo, the basic number is four. In Sioux, the basic numbers are four and six, corresponding to the four directions of west, north, east and south, with sky and earth sometimes included as two additional dimensions. The Japanese flower arrangement is based on various principles of making a composition out of three, five, seven, or nine different elements. Many Japanese designs use a triangle of
FUTURES
April 1876
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
109
unequal sides as a basic layout, often with secondary triangles added which should be dissimilar from the main triangle. Another contrast is between the contextual principle and the individualistic principle. For example, in the Japanese architecture there has been, and there still is, a great deal of concern in harmonising the building with its surrounding environment. On the other hand, many of the American architects tend to regard the building mainly as an expression of its, or his, individuality, unrelated to the surroundings. Le Corbusier had another philosophy. He thought that the man-made building should not imitate the nature; to do so would mean a lack of respect for nature. Another consideration is that, as mentioned earlier, the Japanese regard the indoor as a continuation of the outdoor, and minimise the barriers between them. This principle was adopted by Frank Lloyd Wright. The traditional Japanese house is like an astronomical black hole, designed to suck the outside into the inside instead of proclaiming its presence against the outside. Where the outdoor is not readily available as in urban areas, the Japanese employ techniques to create a perspective of the outdoor. Another cultural comparison concerns the use made of rooms. In the US house, most of the space is taken up by furniture and different rooms are required for different furniture. In Japan, the entire room space can be used by people, because the furniture is removable; and the same room can be used as a living room, a dining room, and a bedroom, thus resulting in an enormous economy of space. This consideration may be important in extraterrestrial communities. Bi$erent logics Many in the West know only one type of logic : the Aristotelian deductive logic, and believe this to be tile logic. However, there are many other types of logic, and I do not mean the multivalued logic or the fuzzy logic, which are nothing more than variations of the Aristotelian logic. One of the drawbacks of the deductive logic is that it prohibits “circular reasoning”. Until recently the deductive logical order was often confused with the causal order in physical, biological, and social processes. As a result of this confusion, the concept of mutual causality (A and B causes each other: many things cause one another) was taboo, in spite of the fact that mutual causal relations are abundant in biological, social and some physical processes. Mutual causal processes can increase differentiation, heterogeneity, and complexity, and make evolution and growth possible. Without mutual causal relations, such processes are impossible. Philosopher Hans Reichenbach,6 who did not recognise mutual causality, had to introduce a teleology (the future determining the present) in order to explain growth and evolution. Another drawback is that deductive logic leads to ~erarchical social structure, dictatorship, aristocracy, elites, technocracy, bureaucracy, etc. Deductive logic cannot see any alternative order for society. The only alternative conceivable within its logic limitations is anarchy or numerocracy (majority rule, domination by quantity). However, once we recognise other types of logics, other alternatives become possible. For example, mutual causal logic enables us to conceive a network system of mutual interaction.
FUTURES
April 197tl
110
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
One of the most serious drawbacks of deductive logic is that it fosters homogenistic thinking, belief that differences create conflicts, belief in the existence of one truth, one ultimate god, etc. As these are very basic problems, let me comment on them one by one. The logic of the Mandenka tribe,” who live in west Africa, is heterogenistic. According to their logic, it is homogeneity, not heterogeneity, which creates conflict: if you force individuals to be similar, the only way left to them to be different is to get on top of one another. The Japanese think in terms of poly-ocular vision: that is in binocular vision it is irrelevant to raise the question as to which eye is correct and which is wrong. Binocular vision works because the ~z~T~~t~~~between the two images enables the brain to compute the ~~~~~~Zedimension. If you cut down the binocular vision to parts on which two eyes agree, what is left is much less than the monocular vision. For the same reason, insistence on the “objective” parts on which everybody agrees is a tremendous impoverishment of our vision, even though many people would consider this is the “scientific” thinking. The belief in the existence of one truth, one universal formula for happiness, etc, is very common among engineers. On the other hand, theoretical physicists who appreciate the hypothetical nature of physical theories, and mathematicians who understand the axiomatic basis of mathematical theories, are less prone to blind belief in one formulation. I may add that the belief in one truth is an aspect of what is called “monopolarisation” : ‘3 * a psychological need to seek and hang onto one authority, one way of doing things, one explanation, one god, etc. The tendency towards monopolarisation is particularly strong among those brought up in the nuclear family system. ~~~e~en~~a~ad~grns of lzxe The word “culture” is used in social sciences in the sense of philosophy and pattern of life shared by a number of interacting individuals. It does not mean fine arts, music, and literature as is the case in many European countries, or entertainment facilities and restaurants as is the case among urban planners in America. “Culture” includes lifestyle, but it goes much deeper. It also goes further than what is commonly called “social value system” which consists in the preferential order in which the community members rank various physical, psychological, ethical and esthetic qualities. More basically, “culture” means the cognitive and behavioural ~~~c~~e with which a person interacts with others and interprets the universe. It is more like “philosophy of life” or “paradigm of life”. Some examples may be helpful. Example A: Life is cut-throat competition. The stronger takes advantage of the weaker. Success depends on effort, ie if someone is unsuccessful, it is his fault, Outdo others or you will be a loser. People who are equal to you are your competitors. People who are different are your enemies. Life is a zero-sum game: what someone gains is what someone else loses. Life is a constant competition. Exarn~~e B: Life is a harmony of mutual relations. Life is a non-zero-sum game. People can help one another and gain from one another without anybody necessariIy losing. Some people are born and live under disadvantaged conditions, and they should be helped. Example C: Everybody should earn his living. He can work as much as he wants or as little as he wants. But he must be self-sufficient. He must save for rainy days. He
FUTURES
Aprl M76
Design Principlesfor ExtraterrestrialCommunities
111
does not need to help others. Do your own thing. Everybody minds his own business. Example D: Life is exploitation. I have been exploited. I am a victim. It is not my fault. Rich people should give me what they owe me. I will go begging for a dime on the street, not because I am starving, but because I am entitled to the dime. Exu~p~e E: I tend to have surplus. There is no need to save for rainy days because when I am in need, someone will help me. So I keep giving away my surplus. Example F: I keep giving things to others because I want to have power over others. Others, who want to receive things from me, would have to obey me. I keep showing off my ability to give, because those who have not yet received anything from me would obey me in the hope of getting something from me. Example G: I give things to others because I want to be famous for being generous. I do not expect anything in return. I just want to be a generous man. I am a good guy and a do-gooder. I am superior to others. Culture is not a geographical concept. People within the same office or the same family can belong to different cultures. Example A stems from the hierarchical, competitive logic, while B is based on the mutual&tic logic. Example C is an individualistic, isolationist paradigm. This paradigm is closely related to the logic of probabilistic independent events.* It is different from both hierarchism and mutualism. There may also be several different paradigms based on one logic; such as D, which stems from the hierarchical logic but is different from A. Similarly, example E is based on mutualistie logic but is slightly different from B. Examples F and G are based on the hierarchical logic, even though the behaviour may look identical to example E which is based on the mutualistic logic. As these examples show, culture cannot be identified from, or defined by, behaviour and other observable manifestations only. The paradigm underlying the behaviour, and the logic underlying the paradigm, must be understood. There are, and can be, many different principles of community structure, but I give three here as examples: hierarchical, individualistic, and mutualistic. Theoretically it is possible for each of the three to be either homogenistic or heterogenistic. In fact, a hierarchical community is heterogeneous in the sense of vertical stratification. But philosophically it tends to be homogenistic for the reason that hierarchism is related to deductive logic. A mutualistic community has no vertical stratification, and allows for horizontal heterogenei~. As discussed before, mutual causal processes are more capable of producing heterogeneity than the process of random independent events (individualistic systems). It is useful to discuss the distinction between the homogenistic and heterogenistic principles. We must also distinguish between homogeneous and homogenistic, and between heterogeneous and heterogenistic. For example, US society has been heterogeneous in its population, but ideologically it has been homogenistic with its concepts of the melting pot, assimilation, and standardisation. Canada has been much more heterogenistic than the USA, with its official recognition of at least two cultural groups and two languages. Recently heterogenism began to emerge in USA, especially in the forms of ethnic movements and counter-culture movements, but some aspects of the ethnic movements and much of the womens’ liberation movement are aiming towards the homogenisation of the entire society.
FUTURES
April 1870
It is also useful to discuss the distinction between Gesellschaft structure and Gemeinschaft structure in terms of horizontal mobility, as they are relevant to heterogenisation and homogenisation. There are aIs0 two different textures of heterogeneity : l~ca~isat~on and ~nte7~ea~i~g. The word “hierarchy” is used with different meanings in different fields of specialisation. In the physical sciences, it is often used in the sense of a unit of organisation : eg atoms make a molecule; molecules make a biological cell; cells make a tissue; etc. On the other hand, in social sciencies the world “hierarchy” is used in the sense of power structure: who has power over whom. A hierarchical society has a vertical power structure. If the physical-science definition of “hierarchy” is used, then all communities are hierarchical. However, when the social-science definition of hierarchy is used, there are communities which are not hierarchical. For instance, the Navajo universe consists of mutual relations between several types of beings as well as between beings within the same type : humans, animals, supernaturals, ghosts, and natural forces, but there is no hierarchy in the sense of nonreciprocal directions of influence. The inevitable sceptic will say that hierarchy is necessary in a large society, and that non-~erarchical systems work only in small societies. (Here the world “hierarchy” is used in the sense of power stratification, not in the sense of organisational units.) But the Navajo society has a population of 150 000 on the reservation alone. This is about one-half the size of Dayton, Ohio or Portland, Oregon. It is fifteen times the size of all Model I communities combined together. lo But even if future extraterrestrial communities become much larger and more complex, this wil1 not be an obstacle to the extension of nonhierarchical principles, because we can mobilise computer and communication technology. It is important to distinguish two opposite concepts of social integration: one is homogenistic, and the other is heterogenistic. A non-white person who wants to move into a white neighbourhood in order to behave like a white person is aiming at homogenistic integration. On the other hand, a Japanese who wants to move into a white neighbourhood and build a Japanese house is aiming at heterogenistic integration. It is also important to consider two different principIes of heterogenisation: ~Qcal~satio~and ~~~er~ea~~~g.In localisation, each of the heterogeneous elements separates itself and settles in one locality. Chinatown in San Francisco is an example. In localisation, heterogenisation increases between different localities, but each locality becomes homogeneous. In interweaving, each of the heterogeneous elements is not localised, but is interwoven with others. In this system the accessibility to different elements increases, and within each locality there is a great diversity. In an interwoven system, it becomes easier for the individual to ~e~e~oge~~sehimself or to become something else than what he was. For example, a white person may eat Chinese food on Sunday, learn Judo on Wednesday, and become a full-time Tibetan monk. All these involve the concept of Gesellschaft. German sociologist Tonnies made an important distinction between two types of social systems: GesellschaJt and Gemeinschaft.ll It is easy to move in and FUILJRES
April 197tl
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
113
out of a Gesellschaft, but it is difficult to do so with a Gemeinschaft. Gesellschaften allow for horizontal mobility of people between them. For example, one can relatively easily change jobs between companies or agencies in USA, while it is more difficult to do so in Germany or in Japan. In this respect American companies and agencies are more of Gesellschaften, and German and Japanese companies are more like Germeinschaften. One of the characteristics of a Gesellschaft is that it can amplify its eccentricity: those who do not like it will leave. Thus, homogeneity tends to increase within a Gesellschaft, though heretogeneity may increase between Gesellschaften. At the same time, a Gesellschaft may become very intolerant towards non-conformists. A Gemeinschaft, on the other hand, must dealwith non-conformists differently. It must either suppress non-conformists, or accept them. Thus it may become either homogenistically totalitarian or heterogenistic, depending on its policy and philosophy. The degree to which the extraterrestrial communities are like Gesellschaften or Gemeinschaften will make a great difference to the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity they attain. There must be heterogeneity between communities as well as within each community. However, heterogenisation is only the first step. The fact that heterogenisation has taken place does not determine what the relations between the heterogeneous elements are. There are many possible types of interrelations: hierarchism, separatism, parasitism, antibiosis, etc.
TABLE Type Hierarchism Separatism Symbiosis Parasitism Antibiosis Mutual antibiosis
Farnib
1. SOME POSSIBLE Gain some persons no person all persons some persons no person no person
COMMUNITY Loss some persons no person no person some persons some persons all persons
STRUCTURES Remarks central control no interaction positive sum zero sum negative sum negative sum
structure
A usual American family consists of a father, a mother, and their children. This type of family system is called the nuclear family. In many cultures a family may include grandparents or other relatives. This is called the extended family system. In others, such as the west Alaska Eskimos, children move between different families from time to time. In some cultures children may be disciplined by specific relatives such as uncles, but not by their biological father or mother. Israel and Russia have a system of raising children collectively away from the homes during the working hours of the parents. In the USA, many young people are experimenting with alternative family systems. Some examples are the commune and multi-marriage in which several adults of both sexes live together with their children; lesbian colonies in which there are no adult males, and women live with their children (women go out for a date to get pregnant) ; and male homosexual households with adopted or borrowed children. We have already mentioned one disadvantage of the nuclear family: people who are reared within it have a tendency towards monopolarisation. They tend
FUTURES
April 1976
to have psychological need to seek and hang onto one authority, one way of doing things, etc, and if they face many theories or many alternatives, they feel insecure until they decide which one is right and which one is wrong. They try to impose their logic or their belief upon others. They also tend to misinterpret and reduce others into their own logic. A typical misinterpretation is: “Different religions worship the same god by different names”. They cannot see the difference between polytheistic harmonism and monotheistic homogenism. Of course I am not saying that the nuclear family will always produce monopolarisation. There are perhaps ways for the nuclear family to avoid this. The nuclear family also places certain strains, both on children and on parents. If the personalities of the children do not match with the personalities of the parents, the relationship will be strained. On the other hand, in a nonnuclear family, the child has more diverse sources of emotional and intellectual gratification, and is more secure and less vulnerable if one relationship does not work. Aside from these psychological considerations, practical reasons are making more and more people seek alternatives to the nuclear family. For example, if the mother has a career, she cannot stay home to take care of her children, The communal rearing of children in extraterrestrial communities, as an alternative to the nuclear family, must be seriously examined.
Sex and love Contraceptives have separated sex from pregnancy. As more women choose to remain unmarried, sex and marriage become separated. And as professional and geographical mobility of people increases, love and marriage will become more and more separated. In the traditional US society, love, marriage, sex and pregnancy occurred inseparably and in that order, Now that this pattern is breaking down, we may need insights from other patterns in other cultures. For Eskimos, marriage and sex were separate: marriage was for economic activities, and sex was for enjoyment. A hunter needed a wife to process the skins of the animals he hunted. If his wife was pregnant, a hunter borrowed someone else’s wife to go on his hunting trip. Visitors were sexually entertained by their hosts’ wives. In long winter nights, Angmagssalik Eskimos of East Greenland who lived in semi-communal long houses played the game of “putting out lamp”. For Marquise Islanders, marriage and sex were also separate. Before marriage, girls could enjoy sex with many men. But after marriage they had to confine their sexual activities to their husbands. On the day of the wedding, the bride gave a sexual farewell party to her old friends: she lay down, and her old friends lined up for their last intercourse with her. The longer the line, the prouder the bridegroom. As for love, the American concept of love used to require constant verbal and nonverbal demonstrativeness (kissing, or saying “I love you”) as well as some exclusive feeling (I love you more than anybody else). But the younger generation is redefining the concept of love. In many other cultures, love consisted of something other than such demonstrativeness or exclusivity of feelings.** l2
FUTURES
April 1976
Design Princi’les for ExtraterrestrialCommunities
115
Decision processes and administration The principle of US democracy involves two logical fallacies: first, it is based on majority rule which amounts to domination by quantity and the imposition of homogeneity, without regard to minorities; second, it is based on “voting for your own interest”, and encourages one to disregard others’ interest. This promotes non-contextual thinking, competitiveness, and partisan-mindedness. The consensus system is proposed by many as an alternative to the majority system. However, the consensus system also tends to be homogenistic if it assumes that everybody should do the same thing. Another criterion is the elimination of the hardship suffered by any single individual. This system is practiced by the Navajos. Let me illustrate how the three systems produce three different solutions to the same problem. Suppose we have to decide whether or not to build a bridge over a river. If people disagree, we cannot build just half-a-bridge. We must build either the whole bridge or no bridge at all. The majority system will count the votes, take the majority decision, and forget about the minorities. This is considered democratic. The consensus system will listen to the minorities, and works hard until a unanimous decision is reached and everybody agrees. The hardship-on-nobody system is concerned not so much with whether to build the bridge or not, but more with what to do for those who will suffer from any hardship, no matter which way the decision goes. In a large society, consensus is difficult to reach, even with the help of computers and communication technology. The third system, on the other hand, is less difficult, and should be feasible with the currently available communication and computer technology. Nevertheless, I suspect that the voting system will continue for a while until the no-hardship-on-anyone system becomes established. If so, then the majority has the responsibility of taking the minorities’ point of view into consideration when they vote. In a long run, this will require more communication, education, and information than the replacement of the voting system by the no-hardshipon-anyone criterion. However, there is another reason for promoting the “understand others” policy. It is symbiotisation. As I mentioned, there is no method yet for the symbiotisation of heterogeneous elements. Before we can find symbiotic combinations, we must understand each of the heterogeneous elements. The problem of matching Needless to say, individuals vary in their taste, abilities, and even in their optimal rate of communication. No culture is “healthy” or “unhealthy” for everybody.ls Each culture is healthy for those whose tastes, abilities, and rate of communication match it, and unhealthy for others. The same holds for the matching of individuals to jobs, or individuals to individuals. Successful matching requires the availability of variety, and this depends on the number of different types of communities, as well as on the degree of heterogeneity within a community. However, certain types of facilities require a certain size of population to support them: eg a symphony orchestra or a university. There is also the problem of size versus number. For example, many
FUTURES
April 1976 9
116
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
areas of the mid-western USA have a large number of small colleges each with a library containing more or less the same basic books. In a way this large number of small colleges creates heterogeneity. But a small number of large universities can also create more heterogeneity, eg in the variety of library books or departmental subjects. The planning of extraterrestrial communities will have the same problem. Certain types of heterogeneity can be maximised by having a large number of small communities: others by having a small number of large communities. The horizontal mobility (migration between communities) of individuals to increase matching, also presents a problem. There will also be the Gesellschaft syndrome to contend with: localised homogeneity and intolerance. Design suggestions
for extraterrestrial
communities
Heterogeneity between settlements not only increases the probability of the survival of the human species, but also increases the speed of the cultural evolution, as well as enriching human life. Furthermore, since we do not know which social systems work well and which do not, until we have actually tried them out, we need to experiment with several different social systems. Hence our first consideration in the design of Model I (see illustrations) extraterrestrial communities:14 The three urban centres may be based on three di$erent social and cultural principles. Table 2 shows one suggestion for the choice of the three types. TABLE
2. THREE DESIGN
PRINCIPLES
FOR THE THREE URBAN
CENTRES
Community
Basic principle
Elements
Decision
2 C
Hierarchical Individualistic Symbiotic
Standardised Insulated Heterogeneous
Majority rule As it happens Find symbiotic combination, eliminate hardship on any single individual
process
Community A (hierarchical and homogenistic) People in this community believe that if there are many ways, there must be a best way among them, and that the “best way” is “good for” everybody. They think in terms of maximisation, optimisation etc. They consider majority rule as the basis of democracy, and competition as the basis of “progress”. They look for universal criteria and universal categories which would apply to all people, and look for unity by means of similarities. Differences are considered accidental, inconvenient, or bothersome, and are ignored as much as possible. Diversity, non-standard behaviour, minority groups, etc are considered abnormal or undesirable, to be corrected to be more “normal”. If such people are inconvenienced by the system, which is geared towards the majority, the fault is considered to reside in the “abnormal” people. Because of the belief in the “best way” for all people and in maximum efficiency, all living units are designed alike. Because of the belief that unity is achieved by homogeneity and that differences create conflicts, residents are divided into age groups, occupational groups etc, in such a way that each group is homogeneous within itself. Similarly, all living units are concentrated in one zone; recreation facilities in another zone; industrial facilities in the third zone. This allows for a large continuous area for recreation suitable for recreational activities which require a large space.
FUTURES
April lW6
The Japanese regard the indoor as a continuation of the outdoor and minimise the barriers between them. Where the outdoor is not readily available, as in urban areas, the Japanese employ techniques to create a perspective of the outdoor. Once, in a Japanese inn, I was surprised to see part of a large beautiful garden opening up around the corner of the next room. But as I approached the corner, what looked like the entrance to a large garden turned out to be a small recession in the wall. There was no garden at all
SPACE
ALLOCATIONS
IN
COLONY
ENCLOSURE
The macro-geometry of the Model 1 space community as recommenaea by rne 1~1s NASA/AStt/StantOrU summer study project’;’ is a torus 835 m in radius (from the centre of the torus to the centre of the ring-shaped tube, see over). The allocation of space, and a section through the agricultural area, are shown above
!
I
I
I
~
~-___I__
_ ._
_~
. _-
~~
.-
.-
-----. ---..- ----
.1
The diameter of the tube is 130 m. The torus is divided into three urban areas and three agricultural areas; the urban areas are out of sight of one another. The artist’s impression (top) also includes the solar power plant which extends below the torus. The torus will be placed approximately a quarter of a million miles from both the earth and the moon at one of the Lagrangian points, libration point 5. Near this point there is an orbit which is stable under the combined gravitational effects of the earth, moon, and sun. Artificial gravity, equivalent to that at the earth’s surface, will be maintained inside the torus by rotating it once a minute
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
119
Community B (indi~idua~~tic and isolationist) People in this communi~ think that independence is a virtue, both for the person who is independent and for the others from whom he is independent. They consider self-sufficiency as the highest form ofexistence. Dependency and interdependence are looked down upon as a weakness or sin. Each living unit is like a self-contained castle, and insulated against others in terms of sight, sound, and smell. Each unit contains its own recreational facilities, and there is no communal recreation area. Within each unit, everything is adjustable to the individual taste. Protection of privacy is a major concern in thii communi~. Community C (heterogenistic, mutualistic, and symbiotic) People in this community believe that the basic principle of biological and social processes is heterogenisation and symbiotisation due to mutual interaction. Heterogeneity is considered as sources of enrichment, symbiosis, resource diversification, flexibility, survival, and evolution. They believe that there is no “best way” for all people. They think in terms of choosing and matching instead of maximisation or optimisation. They consider majority rule as homogenistic domination by quantity and, instead, use the principle of elimination of or compensation for hardship which even a single individual may suffer when a decision is taken. They consider competition useless and cooperation usefiu1.They think that criteria and categories shouId be flexible and variable depending on the context and the situation. They look for harmony and symbiosis thanks to diversity, instead of advocating unity by means of similarities. Homogeneity is considered as the source of quantitative competition and conflict. The houses are all different, based on different design principles taken from different cultures and from different systems of family structure, including communes. Each building is different, and within each building, each apartment is different. The overall design principle is the harmony of diversity and the avoidance of repetition. Different elements are not thrown together but carefully combined to produce harmony. People of different ages, different occupations, different family compositions, etc are mixed and interwoven, but care is taken to place together people who can help one another and antagonistic combinations are avoided. For example, old peopIe who Iove chiidren are placed near families who need babysitters. Let us keep in mind that these three communities in Model I are within a few minutes of each other. Therefore people in community A, who would like to eat exotic food once in a while, can visit community C; and large-scale recreational facilities are available in community A for those from communities B and C who may wish to use them. The second consideration in the design of extraterrestrial commu~ties is how to select the immigrants for each type of community: The immigrants must be selected.for each @pe of extraterrestrial community by psychological tests and other criteria. Even though each community type has no a priori discrimination against any race or occupation, it may turn out that people in certain occupations or from certain cultural backgrounds tend to prefer a certain type of community. For example, people from communist countries may prefer community A, west Africans might prefer community C, etc. Care must be taken to ensure that the psychological tests are not ethnocentric. For example, it is well-known that the IQ test test measures white middle-classness rather than intelligence. Psychological tests must be developed that are applicable to a11 cultures. They cannot be developed by US an~ropolo~s~
FUTURES
April lS76
120
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
and psychologists alone. We need the participation of psychologists and social scientists from all cultures in the development of such psychological tests. The third consideration is people’s residential mobility between communities. We must avoid certain Gesellschaft and Gemeinschaft syndromes: Ihe regulation of migration between communities should be neither so strict that it suppresses individuals, nor so loose that it accelerates the eccentrisation of each community and the consequent intolerance of nonconformists. In the sociocultural design of extraterrestrial communities, we do not know definitely whether an idea will work or not until we have tried it out. This is because there are many more variables in social processes than in physical processes. But we must begin somewhere and the comments above outline some tentative suggestions. All we can do is to keep our minds open and to keep on experimenting.
References and notes 1. M. Maruyama, “The second cybernetics: deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes”, 1963, American Scientist, 51, pages 164-179; 250-256. 2. Shannon’s information theory, similar to the theory of thermodynamics, was based on a different paradigm, which I call a “random process paradigm” or a “random influence paradigm”, and it could only account for loss of information, but could never generate information. The most it could do was to combat information loss by error-correcting methods based on various forms of negative feedback. As mathematician Stanislaw Ulam has pointed out, complex patterns can be generated by means of simple rules of interaction, and it takes a greater amount of Shannonian information to describe the generated pattern than to describe the generating rules, ie the amount of Shannonian information increases in these processes; see S. Ulam, “On some mathematical problems connected with patterns of growth figures”, 1962, Proceedings & Sjmposium on Applied Mathematics, 14, pages 215-224; M. Maruyama, “Generating complex patterns by means of simple rules of interactions”, 1963, Methodos, 14, pages 17-26; M. “The second cybernetics : deviation-amplifying mutual causal Maruyama, processes”, 1963, American Scientist, 51, pages 164-179; 250-256. It is this feature of the differentiation-amplifying mutual causal models that drew much interest from embryologists and geneticists in the early 1960s. In the late 1960s some sociologists began applying these models to the study of social evolution and social changes; see W. Buckley, Modern Systems Research for the Behavioural Scientist (Chicago, Aldine, 1968). In addition to the creative and generative features of mutual causal processes, there is also a possibility of run-away situations. This feature was first pointed out by Gunnar Myrdal; see G. Myrdal, American Dilemma (New York, Harper & Row, 1944) ; G. Myrdal, Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions (London, Duckworth, 1957). More recently it has received much more elaboration and publicity by Jay For-rester of MIT and his school. 3. M. Maruyama, “Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary, crossprofessional and cross-cultural communication”, 1974, Cybernetica, 17, pages 136-156; 237-281; S. Camara, “The concept of heterogeneity and change among the Mandenka”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, pages 273-284; M. Maruyama, “Symbiotization of cultural heterogeneity: scientific, epistemological and esthetic bases”, 1974, Co-existence, 11, pages 42-56.
FUTURES
April 1876
Design Principles for Extraterrestrial Communities
121
4. S. Wright, “Evolution in Mendelian population”, 1931, Genetics, 16, pages 97159. 5. H. Reichenbach, Direction of Time (Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1956). 6. S. Camara, “The concept of heterogeneity and change among the Mandenka”, 1975, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 7, pages 273-284. 7. M. Maruyama, “Monopolarization, family and individuality”, 1966, Pqhiatric &art+, 40, pages 133-149. 8. M. Maruyama, “Paradigmatology and its application to cross-disciplinary, cross-professional and cross-cultural communication”, 1974, Cybernetica, pages 136-156; 237--281. 9. C. Kluckhohn, “The philosophy of Navaho Indians”, in Ideological D@rences and World Order, F. S. C. Northrop, ed. (Conn., Yale University Press, 1949); M. Maruyama, “The Navajo philosophy: an esthetic ethic of mutuality”, 1967, Mental Hygiene, 51, pages 242-249. 10. The plan is to place the first extraterrestrial communities at libration point 5. This point, the earth, and the moon form an equilateral triangle. The planned layout of Model 1 is shown in the illustrations. Il. F. Tonnies. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887). 12. F. L. K. Hsu, Th American and the Chinese (USA. c 1953). 13. M. Maruyama, “A critique of some widely held assumptions on the relationship between culture and mental health”, 1959, Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, 14, pages 273-276; M. Maruyama, “The multilateral mutual simultaneous causal relationships among the modes of communication, sociometric pattern and intellectual orientation in the Danish culture”, 1961, Phylon, 22, pages 41-58. 14. G. K. O’Neill, “The colonization of space”, September 1974, Physics Today, 118, pages 32-40; “Space colonies and energy supply to the earth”, December 1975, Physics Today, 190, pages 943-947. 15. NASA-Ames/American Society for Engineering Education/Stanford University Summer Study Report, System Design for Space Colonization (Mountain View, California, NASA-Ames Research Laboratory, 1976).
FUTURES
April lS76