Authors:Jamie Kirkpatrick Pages: 1 - 18 Abstract: The gathering and hunting humans who evolved from earlier manifestations of Homo changed the distribution of forests on the planet through their use of fire to direct biological productivity to their sustenance, and through their contribution to the elimination of much of the global terrestrial megafauna. Land clearance at any scale awaited the development of agriculture, the several independent origins of which may indicate that it is an emergent outcome from the combination of a social animal who can transmit knowledge through generations and who lives in environments that support high numbers of food plants. The transition from uncleared forest and treeless land to land cleared for agriculture was slow, often reversed, and limited by the necessity to produce more energy in food production than in the inputs that created comestibles. Increases in cleared land until the nineteenth century were largely a product of the displacement of gathering and hunting people by disease-ridden European agriculturalists and world trade imposed on non-Europeans by colonialists. The explosion in fossil fuel usage from the nineteenth century onwards enabled exponential growth in human populations and cleared land, with the consequence of a crash in forest cover. Ironically, attempts to mitigate global warming caused by increased fossil fuel use, deforestation and land clearance have resulted in more land clearance for biofuels. While settlements, roads, logging, plantation establishment and dam construction have all contributed to the decrease in the native terrestrial cover of the planet, their contribution has been minor compared to the massive impact of agricultural development. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7301 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:Cassey Lee Pages: 19 - 30 Abstract: Structural change is an important process that is much studied in economic history. Early studies include industrialization and the stadial theories of human activities. Biologists have adopted “economic” concepts of competition, cooperation and innovation to study the history of life in a broader sense. Extending the study of structural change over an even longer time frame is likely to require the adoption of new analytical frameworks. One possible approach is the computational-information-entropy-complexity framework. This could lead to a novel perspective that places economic history within a broader Big Economic History. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7302 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:Hans Contreras-Pulache Pages: 31 - 41 Abstract: La hipótesis central de esta investigación es que actualmente existen dos propuestas teóricas dentro de la Gran Historia: la propuesta declarada y reconocida mundialmente de Fred Spier y la propuesta desconocida de Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas implícitamente contenida en su Teoría Sociobiológica Informacional. Se procederá a sintetizar y presentar las dos propuestas teóricas de Gran Historia de Spier y de Ortiz, comparándolas e identificando puntos de contacto y diferencias. La propuesta teórica de Spier, sintéticamente, presenta el devenir del universo en tres momentos: cosmológico, biológico y social; siendo la base epistemológica una teoría cualitativa de la complejidad. La propuesta de Ortiz (sobre la base de una teoría cualitativa de la información) presenta el devenir del universo en seis niveles de complejidad. De modo paralelo tendríamos: el nivel 0 (el momento cosmológico de Spier); el nivel uno, dos, tres y cuatro (el nivel biológico de Spier); y el nivel 5 (el momento social de Spier). Existen diferencias puntuales entre ambos planteamientos, pero más son las articulaciones y puntos de contacto. La hipótesis de esta investigación es correcta: tanto Spier (explícitamente) como Ortiz (implícitamente) tienen teorías explicativas de la Gran Historia. Aun cuando Spier y Ortiz nunca tuvieron contacto (ni personal ni académico), sus teorías se articulan en un mismo esquema explicativo y se nutren epistemológicamente de modo simultaneo. La Gran Historia se fortalece a partir de lo que aquí se devela. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7303 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:Hans Contreras-Pulache Pages: 42 - 52 Abstract: The central hypothesis of this research is that there are currently two theoretical proposals within the Big Story: the better known proposal of Fred Spier (1952 - ) and the lesser known proposal of Pedro Ortiz Cabanillas (1933 – 2011) implicitly contained in his Sociobiological Informational Theory. We will proceed to present and synthesize the two theories of Big History made by Spier and Ortiz, comparing them and identifying points of contact and differences. Spier’s theoretical proposal presents the becoming of the universe in three moments: cosmological, biological and social. The epistemological basis being a qualitative theory of complexity. Ortiz’s proposal (based on a qualitative theory of information) presents the evolution of the universe in six levels of complexity. In parallel, we would have: level 0 (Spier’s cosmological moment); level one, two, three and four (Spier’s biological level); and level 5 (Spier’s social moment). There are occasional differences between the two approaches, but more are the articulations and points of contact. The hypothesis of this research is correct: Spier (explicitly) and Ortiz (implicitly) have explanatory theories of Big History. Even if Spier and Ortiz never had contact (neither personally nor academically), their theories are articulated in the same explanatory scheme and are epistemologically nourished simultaneously. Big History is strengthened by what is presented here PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7309 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:Sun Yue Pages: 52 - 65 Abstract: I know only what I know. What I know is limited, usually from that limited life experience that I have had, i.e., with the near at hand as anchor. I love those who gave me life and provide me with life’s necessities, especially those with a natural inkling of attachment. I wish to see the due wish of each and every one of us humans be granted and satisfied. I like to see the world flourish on the order of its participants roaming freely as well as following rules and keeping promises. If I wish to know and experience further, to the point of knowing the whole, I have to rely on the effort and fruit of others, every one of them. And even so, what I finally fathom and get is something of my own. It’s an exploration of my own self in a larger world after all. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7304 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:Ye Chen Pages: 66 - 80 Abstract: This is the third article in a series about the General Law of Being, a science philosophy that was introduced by Chinese scholar Wang Dongyue twenty years ago and then expanded upon by Chen Ye, who linked it to other scientific and philosophical traditions as well as to Big History. We encourage readers to review the previous two articles in the Journal of Big History, volume 6, issues 1 and 2. Article 1 addressed how all entities in the universe – ‘beings’ – are finite and dependent. Horizontally, their existence is realized through the structural coupling of their interactive-quality with other being(s)’s interactable-quality, and vertically through the superposition of their historical structural-coupling states. Article 2 reveals the interplay of the two opposite forces that govern evolution – conservation and variation. This evolution / variation progress occurs through the differentiation of beings, level by level – each level of organization results from differentiation of beings at a lower level of organization, with the ‘adaptation task’ distributed to specialized roles at higher levels. However, this ascent comes with a trade-off – the existence of a higher-level being depends on an increasing number of conditions. These conditions not only facilitate its functioning but also expose it to greater risks, which means that higher-level beings have weaker, or more unstable structures. Meanwhile, the increasing number of conditions perplexes the sense-reaction process, giving rise to more advanced cognitive patterns to coordinate the process. In this article, we first examine the situation of the most sophisticated ‘natural’ structure formed by the most complex species – human society, by applying the fundamental principles discussed in Articles 1 and 2. We then systematize various clues in macro-evolution and based on theories previously outlined, we build our model of evolution to address the ultimate driving force behind evolution. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7305 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:André de Vinck Pages: 81 - 113 Abstract: Darwin’s theory of natural selection raises two critical questions: What is ultimately being selected' Why is it inevitably being innovative' In response, the five key theories of evolution begin with species, genes, organisms, systems, processes. And they lead to a sixth key theory that begins with exchange. Specifically, I re-configure Darwin-Peirce-Einstein’s special theories of evolution-semiosis-relativity in a radical theory of exchangesignificationvalue. In this context I suggest that the relative signifying relations of exchange are both exuberantly innovative and restrictively selective and they drive the process of evolution. Instead of beginning with a post hoc theory of restrictive selection, therefore, I begin with an ad hoc theory of exuberant innovation. Every so-called thing in this so-called universe is actually no-thing more and no-thing less than a co-incidental articulation of the long evolutionary history of the relative signifying relations of exchange—beginning with energymass massenergy. In fact, time itself can be understood as the rhythmic syntax of exchange. While some recent general theories of evolutionary history begin with energy flows, quantum bits, emergent complexities, etc., I suggest that the dynamic of exchange evolves nature, the practice of exchange evolves culture, the syntax of exchange evolves history. Here we arrive at the proof that is to be demonstrated: Evolution = Exchange. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7306 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Authors:Hideaki Yanagisawa Pages: 114 - 123 Abstract: The Big Bang theory is believed to be based on three problems to the tired light model. In this report, “time dilation of high redshift quasars” is first explained with the stress cosmology. A proceeding (delaying) speed of time is shown as a logarithm of changed energy. Second, “surface brightness” relates to “time dilation” and the combined luminosity per unit time. It decreases with time dilation. Third, according to the stress cosmology, the “cosmic microwave background” is explained with a relation between movement distance and decreasing energy quantity of discharged light. Thus, three problems can be explained with the stress cosmology being part of the tired light model. Therefore, there is no absolute proof of the Big Bang theory. Moreover, there is a fatal contradiction relating to the first law of thermodynamics in the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory required that the universe be a closed system according to the first law of thermodynamics. Nevertheless, the ekpyrotic universe theory is utilized to explain the Big Bang. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that our universe was an open system. The Big Bang theory is optional. PubDate: 2024-06-24 DOI: 10.22339/jbh.v7i3.7307 Issue No:Vol. 7, No. 3 (2024)
Open Access journal
