Synthese

, Volume 185, Issue 1, pp 53–72 | Cite as

Autopoiesis and Darwinism

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical approach to the theory of autopoiesis in order to see how it challenges mainstream Darwinism. In the first part of the paper, I characterize Darwinism from the concepts of natural selection, heredity, reproduction, and evolution. This characterization is absolutely schematic, and I hope not controversial at all, since my aim is to provide a general background for the discussion of the rest of the paper. The second part presents the main tenets of the theory of autopoiesis, also paying special attention to the concepts of natural selection, heredity, reproduction, and evolution. The third and final part considers some criticisms that have been directed against the theory and suggests some new ones. As I said, my intention is to offer a critical approach, so that I pretend to assess neither autopoiesis nor Darwinism. The assessment, it seems to me, would be a matter of scientific debate—not properly of philosophy. Therefore, given that my approach attempts to be a conceptual clarification, my contribution to the contemporary debate about Darwinism is twofold. On the one hand, I show that conceptually autopoiesis constitutes an important challenge to Darwinism, but on the other, I also show that some fundamental aspects of the theory appear to be both epistemologically and empirically problematic, which perhaps helps to understand why autopoiesis is not widely accepted in mainstream Darwinism.

Keywords

Autopoiesis Darwinism Evolution Reproduction Natural selection Natural drift Fitness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Camus P. A. (2000) Evolution in Chile: Natural drift versus natural selection, or the preservation of favoured theories in the struggle for knowledge. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 73: 215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Etxeberria A. (2004) Autopoiesis and natural drift: Genetic information, reproduction, and evolution revisited. Artificial Life 10: 347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Guiloff, G. D. (1981). Autopoiesis and neobiogenesis. In Zeleny (Ed.) Autopoiesis: A theory of the living organization (pp. 118–125). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  4. Krohn W., Küppers G. (1989) Self-organization: A new approach to evolutionary epistemology. In: Hahlweg K., Hooker C. A. (eds) Issues in evolutionary epistemology. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 151–170Google Scholar
  5. Luisi P. L. (2003) Autopoiesis: A review and a reappraisal. Naturwissenschaften 90: 49–59Google Scholar
  6. Maturana, H. R. (1981). Autopoiesis. In Zeleny (Ed.) Autopoiesis: A theory of the living organization (pp. 21–33). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  7. Maturana H. R. (1995) La realidad: ¿objetiva o construida? Fundamentos biológicos de la realidad (Vol. 1), Fundamentos biológicos del conocimiento (Vol. 2). Anthropos, MadridGoogle Scholar
  8. Maturana H. R., Mpodozis J. (2000) The origin of species by means of natural drift. Revista chilena de historia natural 73: 261–310Google Scholar
  9. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. ([1973] 1994). De máquinas y seres vivos. Autopoiesis: La organización de lo vivo. (Santiago: Editorial Universitaria).Google Scholar
  10. Maturana H. R., Varela F. J. (1980) Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Maturana H. R., Varela F. J. (1987a) The tree of knowledge. Shambala, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Maturana H. R., Varela F. J. (1987b) El árbol del conocimiento. Editorial Universitaria, Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  13. Mingers J. (1989) An introduction to autopoiesis: Implications and applications. Systems Practice 2: 159–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mingers J. (1995) Self-producing systems: Implications and applications of autopoiesis. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Scheper W. J., Scheper G. C. (1996) Autopsies on autopoiesis. Behavioral Science 41: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valenzuela C. Y. (2007) Within selection. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 80: 109–116Google Scholar
  17. Varela F. J. (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. North Holland-Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Varela F. J. (1981) Describing the logic of the living: The adequacy and limitations of the idea of autopoiesis. In Zeleny (Ed.) Autopoiesis: A theory of the living organization (pp. 36–48). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  19. Varela F. J. (2000) El fenómeno de la vida. Dolmen Ensayo, Santiago de ChileGoogle Scholar
  20. Varela F. J., Maturana H. R., Uribe R. (1974) Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems 5: 187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Weber B. H., Depew D. J. (2001) Developmental systems, Darwinian evolution, and the unity of science. In: Oyama S., Griffiths P. E., Gray R. D. (eds) Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 239–253Google Scholar
  22. Zeleny, M. (ed.) (1980) Autopoiesis, dissipative structures, and spontaneous social orders. Westview Press, Boulder, COGoogle Scholar
  23. Zeleny, M. (Ed.) (1981). Autopoiesis: A theory of the living organization. New York: North HollandGoogle Scholar
  24. Zolo D. (1990) Autopoiesis: Critique of a postmodern paradigm. Telos 23: 61–80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program in History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations