1

The foundations of ekistics An attempt to test the validity of Anthropocosmos model in the context of modern evolutionary theory Constantinos R. Pertsemlidis The author is an Architect, Regional Planner and Systems Consul-tant. From 1971 to 1979 he worked with Doxiadis Associates, Con-sultants on Development and Ekistics, as town, city and regional planner. From 1980 to 2004 he worked with the business consul-tants CEGOS GROUP as Deputy General Manager of its affiliate in Greece. Since 2005 he provides consultancy on implementing so-cial and information technology. The document that follows is an edited version of the text on which a presentation by the author on the same theme was based at a symposion organized by the Asso-ciation of Colleagues and Friends of Constantinos A. Doxiadis on “Constantinos Doxiadis and his work,” 19-21 January, 2007, in Athens, Greece.

Foreword • Saturday, April 13th, 1974: “I have been trying to learn Ekistics for the last 44 years, and to formulate it as a science for 33. Now, after all these years I am ready to speak about the final articulation of the science. So, I start today speaking about the foundations of Ekistics.” (DOXIA-DIS, 1974b, p. 1) During the last 12 years of his life, C.A. Doxiadis started a project to unify the basic concepts of Ekistics, by developing a formalization scheme of ekistics theory and knowledge, a meta-ekistics for which he coined the term Anthropocosmos Model. The roadmap to its final articulation was presented on April 13th, 1974 entitled “The Foundations of Ekistics”. The text was read by George Perpinias, because Doxia-dis could no longer speak, but as he “said”: “Probably, if I could speak, this presentation would be ready after 5 or more years. When one doesn’t speak, one thinks more.” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, p. 1) • Saturday, January 20th, 2007: “The Foundations of Ekis-tics” still serves as a plan for the formalization of the ekistics theory and knowledge, in so far as no other general theory for Human Settlements has yet emerged, at least as ex-tended as Ekistics. In the course of the last 30 years, the sense of fragmenta-tion of knowledge has perceptibly decreased thanks to the unification theories in Sciences and the Humanities. By us-ing the current state of the unification knowledge, we can try

to update the thoughts of C.A. Doxiadis; thanks to his asto-nishing intuition that he acquired from a unique experience – with respect to quantity and variety – his ideas constitute to-day a sound basis for the renewal of the science and art of Human Settlements. I hope that the use of extracts for Doxiadis’ writings (in italics) does not betray the meaning of the original text, and that my comments contribute to an update of Doxiadis’ gen-eral ideas. Some familiarity with the basic ekistic notions is required for the reading of this paper.

Introduction Scope: Anthropocosmos “...Today the earth is not only the base of our life, but it is also affected by our actions. For this reason we must con-sider the earth as the cosmos (world) of Anthropos (man), the Anthropocosmos, which covers the territory of the Anthroposphere plus its functions and dynamics...” “…The real dimensions of Anthropocosmos cover the area from chromosomes to the sun. But for practical rea-sons, we accept that Anthropocosmos contains the bios-phere and the lower part of [the] atmosphere, the hydros-phere and the upper part of the lithosphere…” “…Anthropocosmos is our system of life. So, we must try to understand it and its relations as a whole. The relations between Man and Nature start as an attack, and finish as human settlements, the expression of balance between Anthropos and Nature…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 2-3). According to the European Environment Information and Observation Network, the term Anthroposphere covers the built environment, human settlements, and land uses, i.e. a geographic entity and not a man-nature system as Doxiadis wished. For this reason he introduced a neologism: “Man and the space surrounding him are connected in many ways within a very complex system. This is the real world of man, the Anthropocosmos half way between the electron and the universe” (DOXIADIS, 1966a: 1). The term was coined by Doxiadis from the Greek words Anthropos and cosmos (man and world), and he used it for the first time in his lec-ture given at the Swarthmore College Centennial Year Cel-ebrations in 1964, entitled “The Human Crust of the Earth.” Anthropocosmos, as a physical entity, was born when the interactions between man and nature started having perma-nent marks on earth: deforestation for agriculture, human settlements, etc. Since then:

2

Fig. 1: Views of Anthropocosmos; (a) Ecological View, (b) Cultural View, (Ekistic View). • The boundary of Anthropocosmos is continuously extend-

ing to include new marks, like the ozone layer depletion, independently of their spatial and temporal distance from human life’s activities (fig. 1a, Ecological View).

• The accumulation of human artifacts transformed many parts of the natural system into artificial socio-physical systems, which we call civilizations. Today, as Carl Mit-cham (1994, p. 175) states “the planet clearly influenced not just in part but as a whole by human activity, studied by earth system science and on the verge of being ma-naged by a planetary technology, has become a kind of artifact” (fig. 1b, Cultural View).

• The knowledge about Anthropocosmos, that Doxiadis (1970b, p. 35) used to classify into five chapters which he called the five ekistic elements, is subject to revision. This need is reflected in his personal thinking when he writes: “The systematic subdivision of knowledge related to the five elements is now being used by the documenta-tion center of the Athens Center of Ekistics and has proved very useful even though it may still need further development on the basis of continued experience” (fig. 1c, Ekistic View).

Purpose: The Anthropocosmos Model “The purpose of this study is to help us clarify Anthropo-cosmos and to understand how we can be more successful in dealing with human settlements. Anthropocosmos is our system of life and human settlement is our goal. Its purpose must always be to serve Anthropos and not any individual interests that work against the broader human goal… The completion of such a purpose is not an easy task. All of us must start the effort, and I take here the first step by defining the five tasks of this study: the overall concept of Anthropo-cosmos, the notion of human settlements, the language we should use, the taxonomic frame of reference, the basic classification we need. Defining the five tasks is the first of

many steps we have to take; the second step is the synthe-sis of the five tasks to form the total Anthropocosmos mode” (DOXIADIS 1974b, pp. 3-4, 37; 1974c, p. 1). By the term Anthropocosmos model, Doxiadis refers to a mental representation, assuming that Anthropocosmos ex-ists independently of the human mind; this is basically the philosophical stance of realism. He also assumes that the Anthropocosmos follows physical, genetic, neurological and cultural laws which can be gradually discovered thanks to the ability of the human mind to classify entities and rela-tionships; this is the position of scientific realism. “Where is the justification for this position? There is none. At least, there is no justification that will satisfy a scientist demanding a body of hard evidence, though there may be arguments that might be convincing to a philosopher.” (BAGGOT, 2005, p. 239). Eric Berne (1971, p. 54) vividly described this philo-sophical position: “No one has ever seen an atom or elec-tricity, but we must not for this reason doubt the existence of the forces of nature or we shall be quite unable to under-stand the physical world. Nature proceeds as if what we speak of as atoms and electricity existed, and so we sup-pose that they exist.” Scientific realism supported Doxiadis’ conviction that the construction of a model for Anthropo-cosmos, although a laborious one, is a realistic project scientifically justifiable. The text of C.A. Doxiadis on the Foundations of Ekistics is organized in two sections: Section 1: The Five Tasks

• Task 1: Global conception • Task 2: Notion of Human Settlements • Task 3: Nomenclature of elements • Task 4: Taxonomic Frame • Task 5: Fundamental classification scheme

Section 2: Synthesis We follow the same structure in our paper.

3

Section 1: The five tasks

1st Task: The Overall Concept of Anthropocosmos “…The solution of the problem of our confusion about the overall concept of Anthropocosmos is to create a frame model which can help us understand how to conceive and to build the whole Anthropocosmos properly. We can begin to do this in the following way:

1. Define our total system of life – Anthropocosmos – by creating a systematic frame so that any part of it can be clearly located within it.

2. Define all relationships (causal and non-causal) that may exist between any parts of the system so that we can understand its functions and changes.

3. Define a method for the measurement or evaluation of all parts of the system and their interrelationships (including those that cannot now be scientifically measured), so that we can recognize the relative importance of each situation and each problem.

Into this comprehensive model we can insert the input from all the disciplines concerned. The model can also help to work out a strategy for breaking down mental barriers and connecting disciplines together. Thus, we may hope to avoid interdisciplinary anarchy and build up a team which, having grasped the concept of a total system can bring all the ne-cessary hard-headed expertise together…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 4-7; 1974c, p. 1).

A spatial world view Knowing one’s house thoroughly makes one feel “at home”.

Center Leo Apostel (1994, p. 5)

When I read the following extract I really thought it was writ-ten by Doxiadis: “We often have the impression that what remains of the world is a collection of isolated fragments, without any structure and coherence. Our personal ‘every-day’ world seems unable to harmonize itself with the global world of society, history and cosmos. It is our conviction that the time has come to make a conscious effort towards the construction of global world views, in order to overcome this situation of fragmentation. It is precisely because we lack such global views of the world that our ability even to start looking for lasting solutions to these problems is li-mited.” But it is part of a text published twenty years after Doxiadis’ death, by seven prominent scholars of the “Center Leo Apostel” (1994, p. 5). In fact, Doxiadis reacted to the analytic fragmentation of knowledge with his holistic concept of Anthropocosmos in 1964. Since then, until 1975, he was transforming step by step that concept into a frame of reference for the under-standing of all phenomena related to man’s life. Conse-quently, the Anthropocosmos model has been articulated by Doxiadis as a world view for the structure, function, and evo-lution of man’s personal and social living in earth’s space and time. He could not have behaved otherwise: he was not repairing chinks; he considered them to be reasons for restructuring his world view; or at least that was my feeling working with him during his last four years. Doxiadis organized his world view on the basis of systems thinking, which developed into a paradigm from 1937 to 1968 as Ludwig Bertanlanffy himself stated (1968, p. xvii): “The systems viewpoint has penetrated a vast variety of

scientific and technological fields, and represents a novel paradigm in scientific thinking (to use Thomas Kuhn’s ex-pression)”. The General Systems Theory, incorporating day after day the Darwinian evolutionary perspectives, and other scientific advancements, is taking progressively the place of a para-digm for scientific thinking (positive stance) and engineering practice (normative stance) regarding the structure, function and evolution of complex entities; this paradigm holds today the place of a universal language at the syntactic level of human cognition, permitting the effective organization of da-ta. Furthermore, the evolutionary perspectives of systems theory have already formed a communication protocol which helps many philosophers and scientists to develop unifica-tion theories at the semantic level of human cognition, per-mitting non redundant classification of data into knowledge, as E.O. Wilson (1998, p. 297) states: “It is the custom of scholars when addressing behavior and culture to speak va-riously of anthropological explanations, psychological expla-nations, biological explanations, and other explanations. I have argued that there is intrinsically only one class of ex-planation. It traverses the scales of space, time, and com-plexity to unite the disparate facts of the disciplines by con-silience, the perception of a seamless web of cause and ef-fect.” The application of these intellectual advancements of the last 30 years (1975-2005), automatically cause more accurate descriptions for Doxiadis’ definitions of structure, function and evolution of Anthropocosmos.

Structure of Anthropocosmos To the Greeks, the laws, like the wall around the city, were products

of making; legislator and architect belonged in the same category Hanna Arendt (1958, pp. 194-195)

Doxiadis (1970, p. 1) described Anthropocosmos as “a very complex system of five elements, a system of natural (Na-ture and Anthropos), social (Society) and man-made (Shells and Networks) elements which can be seen in many ways: economic, social, political, technological and cultural”. Al-though he adopted (1975, pp. 264) the “hard” conception of Society as a system, in which the individual is merely a fo-cus in a network of relationships, the Society as an element of Anthropocosmos remained an unclearly cut notion in his theoretical work. A more cohesive description of the structure of Anthropo-cosmos could probably be: a system of two (NATURE and ANTHROPOS) naturally constructed and three (INSTITU-TIONS, SHELLS and NETWORKS) culturally constructed elements, interconnected through natural (ecological) and cultural (economic, political and social) functions (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Ekistic Elements revisited

4

Nature and Anthropos are arrangements of matter informed by nature’s technology. Shells and Networks are arrange-ments of matter, informed by man’s physical technology; we may refer to them as mind-independent physical structures: “they do not go away when we stop believing in them” (DICK, 1978). (Social) Institutions may be conceived as mental images, “sets in the pool of neuronal circuits”, pro-grammed by man’s social technology; we may refer to them as mind-dependent social structures: “they go away when we stop believing in them” (DICK, 1978). Institutions, Shells and Networks are interwoven in a sense similar to John Searle’s social realities (1995), forming the set of the world’s “cultural realities”, the CIVILIZATIONS: sets of organic and inorganic material arrangements constructed according to culturally accepted physical and social technologies. Many people may dislike this definition as mechanistic, as Forrester (1998) has explained, but physical technology has advanced so rapidly while social systems remain puzzling, because it is difficult to recognize that social institutions like families, corporations, governments are indeed systems of the same class of chemical refineries. Scholars like Nelson (2005) and Halal (2005) propose that social institutions should not be considered as the invisible and unquestiona-ble foundations of societies, but as subclasses of social technologies designed to serve social needs best. We are not used to thinking in these terms, though it makes sense from a scientific point of view.

Function of Anthropocosmos The things that depreciate are the real wealth of our lives.

They require continual repair and replacement. Howard Odum (1996, p. 6)

Functions maintain structures. Anthropocosmos is a dy-namically stable subsystem of the universe, practically closed with respect to matter due to gravitational and elec-tromagnetic potential barriers, and open in respect to energy and information flows. Its living forms function, i.e. they re-pair and replicate their structures by transforming low-entropy solar energy into high-entropy thermal energy ac-cording to naturally determined instructions “using” time (biological and ecological metabolism). Humans, by using reservoirs of fossil fuels (solar energy accumulated in the form of chemical energy), have transformed a part of Cos-mos to Anthropocosmos according to naturally and culturally determined instructions (industrial metabolism). These processes can be classified into two broad classes of func-tions: Ecological and Economic. Its three constituents – matter, energy and information – are open with respect to all classes of inputs and outputs. The direct flows between Natural and Human Capital are today restricted only to ecosystem services, while all other transactions between them are mediated by industrial meta-bolism “a notion developed away from the 19th century con-cept of metabolism as an exchange of energy and sub-stances between organisms and the environment. In the 1990s there was a virtual explosion of research dealing with industrial metabolism, as a unifying concept to relate the functioning of the economy and society to its consequences on the environment” (FISCHER-KOWALSKI, 2003, pp. 35-45). The flows between Human and Cultural Capital (function-ing of the economic system) are measured in monetary units according to various accounting systems. The flows between Nature and the economic system (functioning of the ecosystem) are measured in mass units according to re-cently developed environmental accounting systems like Material Flow Accounting (EUROSTAT, 2001). “The illusion of

continuous economic growth is nourished by the false notion that the economy is an isolated cyclical process that es-capes the energy laws of the physical world. The opposite directions of the circular flows of money and energy, and the possibility for creating money, have probably helped to rein-force this illusion. In the end one must pay. The bill for growth has just been given us, and it is enormous. In fact there is nothing cyclical in the economic process” (ROSNAY, 1975, pp. 164-165). At this point it is worth remembering the famous post-ulates of Jane Jacobs (1969, p. 6) that cities are not only primary organs of cultural development but are also primary economic organs.

Evolution of Anthropocosmos The recent history of the evolution of Anthropocosmos started 10,000 years ago with the adoption of the most im-portant social technology: labor division. The evolution of physical systems has been extensively studied and today is well understood as fig. 3a (Physical Structure) illustrates. But trying to understand the structure, function and evolution of social systems is still a very difficult task expressed vividly by the following statement: “Our modern skulls house a stone age mind, better at solving the kinds of problems our ancestors faced on the African savannahs than they are at solving the more familiar tasks we face in a college class-room or a modern city” (COSMIDES, 1997). Fig. 3b (Social Structures) depicts the emergence of the three realms of social existence: personal, private, and public, and fig. 3c (Ekistic Elements) depicts this evolution in terms of ekistic elements, as if each period had its own “DOXIADIS”:

{MAN, NATURE, TRIBE} {MAN, NATURE, FAMILIES, POLIS} {MAN, NATURE, INSTITUTIONS, SHELLS, NET-WORKS}

The evolution of private realms and public spheres has been analyzed by Arendt (1958) in relation to human activities in the course of the last 2,500 years.

2nd Task: The Notion of Human Settlements “…Human settlements are the territorial arrangements made by Anthropos for his own benefit and welfare. They are the results of human action and their goal is human survival, an easier and better life; happiness and safety (as Aristotle demanded); and opportunities for human development…” “…The term ‘human settlements’ is not yet clearly de-fined. What exactly are human settlements? Are they ci-ties, villages, housing, people, society, buildings, or some-thing else? In 1964 I proposed using the term ‘human set-tlements’ instead of ‘housing, building and planning’ to the United Nations Committee on Housing, Building and Plan-ning. My proposition was rejected then, but a few years lat-er ‘human settlements’ was accepted as the correct term, al-though — even within the United Nations itself — there is no ‘agreed-upon definition.’ This is because human settle-ments are the most complex systems of life on our globe. They are two orders higher than cells and one order higher than ‘bodies’ (if we follow Sir Julian Huxley's classification of individuals). However, human settlements not only have a complexity many times higher than their component bodies (or individuals), they are further confusing because they are much younger and more primitive than bodies, and very much more so than cells…However, the actual cause of the

5

Fig. 3: Main Evolutionary Stages of Anthropocosmos current confusion is that we have not studied them in a sys-tematic and scientific way. The conclusion is clear: we have to proceed to a science for human settlements, Ekistics…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 12; 1974c, pp. 2-3).

A General Theory of the Nature of Human Set-tlements

There is nothing as practical as a good theory. Kurt Lewin, Field theory in social science, 1952

Doxiadis (1970, p. 2) expressed Lewin’s quote with these words: “This field is a science, even if in our times it is usually considered a technology and an art, without the foundations of a science. This is a mistake for which we pay very heavily.” Having recorded very successfully the de-structions of the ekistic wealth during WWII he became con-vinced that human settlements are susceptible to systematic investigation. In 1942, during his lectures at the National Technical University of Athens, he coined the term Ekistics for this field of knowledge. Doxiadis, being aware of the unifying power of systems thinking and particularly of the biological and evolutionary

reference models as used by many famous biologists-philosophers of his generation, especially Sir Julian Huxley (1887-1975), Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-75), Denis Gabor (1900-79), René Dubos (1901-82), George G. Simp-son (1902-84), and Conrad H. Waddington (1905-75), used the biological model to describe the ekistic behavior of Anth-ropos (the five principles) and the evolutionary model to ex-plain the morphogenesis of human settlements (the eleven forces, the hierarchical structure of human settlements, dy-napolis, Ecumenopolis). Finally, he formulated a general theory which considers human settlements as living organ-isms subject to evolution. This evolution might be guided by Anthropos using Ekistic knowledge. After 1975 the biological-evolutionary paradigm has been extensively used mainly by urban geographers in various forms and for various purposes. An example: “Self-organization is a theory about complexity and it can help us guide our actions. The first approach would claim that self-organization is a conceptual and mathematical theory about complexity and consequently it will teach us how to control the complexity of cities. The second approach claims that self-organization is a new way of seeing cities as unstable,

6

chaotic, far-from-equilibrium, unpredictable self-organizing systems, and consequently we have to find ways to live with their complexity; from this, follows a new type of city plan-ning, the aim of which is not to control but to participate. Which of the two approaches will dominate in the future is hard to say.” (PORTUGALI, 1999, pp. 335-336)

3rd Task: The Language of Ekistics “...To make communication between professionals possible, we must feel the need for a common language and termi-nology, which must have the following properties:

1. It must be clear and exact 2. It must combine and shorten long terms so that it can ex-

press all meanings 3. It must serve man by transmitting the proper messages...”

“…For example we can regard the total human settlement as consisting of four types of areas: the Naturareas (where Anthropos is only a visitor and hunter), Cultivareas (where Anthropos cultivates Nature), Anthropareas (where Anthro-pos lives and uses Nature's territories for all expressions of life, from houses to work, entertainment, sports, etc.), and Industrareas (where Anthropos transforms natural resources as in mining and industry)…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 13-18; 1974c, p. 3). Doxiadis had the ambition that Ekistics should acquire the characteristics of a formal system. But being aware of the difficulties of reaching such a goal, he restricted himself to saying: “...the moment when we shall feel the need for such a language and start creating it, we will have made the first step to the taxonomy of settlements...” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, p. 18). Table 1 is an illustration of his mental picture of an ekis-tic language. Table 1 Example of Ekistic Language

Source: DOXIADIS, 1974b, p. 17

4th Task: The Logical and Taxonomic Frame “…The next task is the creation of a logical and taxonomic frame for a systematic understanding and classification of Anthropocosmos and human settlements. Taxonomy is the basis of ‘the theoretical study of classification, including its bases, principles, procedures and rules’ (G.G. Simpson, Principles of Animal Taxonomy, 1941) and numerical tax-onomy uses taxonomy as the proper term. The following classification system uses both Aristotelian logic, as Lin-naeus did, and taxonomy which provides a means ‘to arrive

at judgments of affinity based on multiple and unweighted characters without the time and controversy which seem necessary at present for the maturation of taxonomy judg-ments.’ (R. Sokal and P. Sneath, Principles of Numerical Taxonomy, 1963, p. 3) The first question is how we can proceed to classify hu-man settlements. At present we have only very general categories, such as villages, towns, cities, etc. Among sev-eral efforts for more specific classification there is a tenden-cy (especially since photography is the main method of vis-ual presentation of human settlements) to attempt a classifi-cation on the basis of their appearance and to speak of a morphogenesis. But a ‘purely morphological definition must be subordinated to the concept that the species is com-posed of populations in which variability is inherent.’ (Tax-onomy, in Encyclopedia Britannica)…” “…It is necessary to bring in the notion of developmental phases (like an applied science of medicine for human set-tlements), as a classification which only refers to a static sit-uation may confuse the situation instead of clarifying it… The effort will be a long lasting one, but we hope that we can reach conclusions for the kinship of species indepen-dently of time...” “..The basic taxonomic frame (Fig. 4) consists of two di-mensions: the population size (first in importance) and the territorial extend (second in importance). It is expressed by the combination of the 15 levels of the Ekistic Population Scale (EPS) and the 20 levels of the Ekistic Territorial Scale (ETS), which produces 300 theoretic sets of human settle-ments …” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 18-25; 1974c, p. 4)

Fig. 4: The Taxonomic Frame (Source: DOXIADIS, 1974b, p25, 1974c, p. 6)

7

Strategies for Organizing Ekistic Knowledge After centuries of thought, we still can only portray space and time

as the most familiar of strangers. Brian Green (2005, p. 492)

“For the systematic understanding of Anthropocosmos and Human Settlements, there are two taxonomic routes: the synthetic, which means that we start with comparisons of all settlements, we form groups, and then we proceed to larger groups and so on. The second process [analytic] is to start from the top using a logical representation and proceed to basic divisions and sub divisions. It is quite normal to follow both routes” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 19-20). Either using analytic (top-bottom, out-in, seek causes) or synthetic (bottom-up, in-out, infer effects) taxonomic routes, aided by simple or complex mathematical tools, we always try to achieve a structural, a functional, or an evolutionary description of human settlements (fig. 5). The structural aspects concern the arrangement in space of the elements of a system (e.g. fig. 5a, Structural Tax-onomy). Such elements are the Shells (acting as physical reservoirs), Institutions (acting as social information reser-voirs), and Networks (permitting flows of matter, energy and information among the reservoirs). The variables used to measure or describe structures are called state variables (or stocks), e.g. population, area, buildings (elements), density (static relations), aging of buildings (dynamics indices), etc. The functional aspects concern phenomena dependent on the time necessary for the maintenance of structural as-pects (e.g. fig. 5b, Functional Taxonomy). The variables used to measure or describe functions are called flow va-riables, e.g. annual income, daily births, annual needs for housing replacement, variation of monthly rainfall, etc.

The evolutionary (phylogenetic) aspects (fig. 5c) concern the transformation phenomenon of the structural and func-tional aspects of a system, described as meta-system tran-sitions by Turchin (1977). The completeness of an evolutio-nary taxonomy depends on the degree of understanding the information system (type of information, protocols, commu-nication network, etc.) used by the systems under scrutiny, which ultimately defines the ways by which the elements are organized into ontological levels of increasing complexity: atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, biosocieties. In the case of human settlements, the information systems di-recting their exchange networks are not well understood. However, according to Ekistics Theory human settlements undergo an evolutionary process which tends to incorporate all human settlements in a universal net, the Ecumenopolis. This theory might be articulated in terms of intensities of flows of goods and services

• in relation to communication, transportation and institu-tional technologies of a region, and

• according to the potential barriers imposed by national or international trade laws, and mainly by political premises.

Attempts towards this perspective are developing in the field of economic geography; e.g. Ray Hudson (2005).

5th Task: The Fundamental Classi-fication “…A proper classification requires the consideration of a very great number of characteristics, but here, following the analytic route, I am only using a few, just to demonstrate the process that we need to achieve the goal. I propose a tax-

Fig. 5: Strategies for Organizing Knowledge

8

Table 2 The Fundamental Classification

Source: DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 33-36; 1974c, p. 4.

onomy of human settlements which is similar in structure and terminology to that of animals and plants (table 2)…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 25-33; 1974c, pp. 5-8).

The Model of Basic Dimensions “…The main economic function forms six basic Divisions of human settlements: hunters’ settlements, agricultural, indus-trial, urban, central and mixed (Fig. 7a). For each division there are two subdivisions according to the transportation system: walking, walking plus machine. Each subdivision is classified into Classes according to the basic dimensions of the central places. Further classification into subclasses is done according to their stability. Subclasses are classified into Orders of central or peripheral settlements with respect to how many levels of EUs they serve. The characteristic that describes the Orders under which any settlement should be classified is whether it has one level (like the terri-tory of a hunting band or a very isolated village) or many le-vels (its own territory plus that of other settlements which depend on it for central services and/or serve it with their products)…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 25-28; 1974c, pp. 6-7). A review of taxonomic studies of human settlements indi-cates that population, area, and the main economic activi-ties are the prevailing criteria for the classification of the elements of the cities or for the classifications of sets of ci-ties (PERTSEMLIDIS, 1974, p. 37).

The Model of Structure and Function “…Without time-dimensions, interaction and function do not exist in any living system. Thus, Figure 7b illustrates the in-teractions between the five elements and the human settle-ment in terms of time...The most important structural cha-racteristic is the division of land in the four basic areas (Na-turarea, Cultivarea, Anthroparea and Industrarea). Classifi-cations in terms of their interrelationships, dimensions, and location, result in the Genera, like compact, dispersed, etc. The Sections are formed according to the eleven morpho-

genetic forces acting on the five ekistic elements, in time. The main Taxa are the static or dynamic settlements. Their basic form: radial, orthogonal, etc. is the basic characteristic subdividing the sections into Series…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 28-30; 1974c, pp. 7-8). In biology, the term morphogenesis refers to the pro-cesses that determine the shape of cells and their spatial distribution which defines the form of the body. Doxiadis (1970, pp. 9-10) used the same term to refer to the processes that determine the spatial distribution of Shells and Net-works which define the physical structure of human settle-ments. He reached the conclusion that the morphogenesis is due to several forces (fig. 6a, Morphogenetic Forces) de-rived from man and nature. Doxiadis’ way of thinking about morphogenesis is biological; he calls the furniture we use, the room which serves our basic purposes, and the house we live in, successful biological extensions of man. “From Darwin’s time on there can be no excuse whatsoever for underestimating the great understanding of phenomena and situations that a correct theory of evolution can offer, al-though the development of human settlements is not neces-sarily limited to their ‘genes’ ” (DOXIADIS, 1968, p. 200). The only thing that genes control directly is the synthesis of proteins. Proteins, under a given environment shape the characteristics of organisms, the phenotypes. Phenotypes are structural (e.g. skin color, shape, body covering), beha-vioral, or physiological adaptations of an organism that help it to survive in its natural habitat. Richard Dawkins (1978) included all effects that genes of an organism may have on the environment through that organism's behavior, and called these effects extended phenotypes. According to this definition, human settlements fall into the class of human extended phenotypes (fig. 6b), and ekistic morphogenesis falls into the class of the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm as defined by Daniel Dennett (1955, pp. 52-60). This defini-tion does not cancel the validity of the eleven forces (fig. 6a), but redefines their role as adaptive criteria of the mor-phology of human settlements to their environment, part of which are the human settlements as well.

9

Fig. 6: Morphogenesis of Extended Phenotypes.

The Model of Human Satisfaction “…To deal with this very difficult question of happiness or satisfaction, we turn to five principles which have guided Anthropos throughout history (Fig. 7c). These can help us to evaluate many dimensional and nondimensional prob-lems in relation to satisfaction. For example, the density in-side the Anthroparea in relation to Shells can provide an an-swer to the satisfaction of the third principle of protective space. The Species range from the ideal settlement that satisfies all principles, to the worst one which does not satis-fy any. This model enables us to clear up some of the con-fusion concerning the meaning of satisfaction. Through this type of approach we can also learn whether another ‘ideal’ town which is beginning to be abandoned (because of no satisfaction of the first and second principles) could solve

this problem by becoming properly connected through high-speed routes and also whether such action is feasible or not. However this answer is not complete, unless we clarify the aspect from which we evaluate the situation: economic, social, political, administrative, technological or cultural. For a human settlement to satisfy a principle, it is necessary that all aspects related to this principle are satisfied. Finally, Va-rieties are defined by how many aspects the human settle-ments satisfy. Our judgment here also depends on whether we are considering desirability or feasibility…” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 31-33; 1974c, pp. 8-9). Doxiadis, against the postulates of mainstream sociology of his time, expressed the biological foundations of social behavior in his theory about the ekistic behavior of man (1970, pp. 2-3), which he called the five principles: “In shaping his settlements, man has always acted in obedience to five

Fig. 7: Combinations of the Three Models into the Total One.

10

principles. As far as I know, this has always been true, and I myself have not found any cases which prove the oppo-site… Man tries to maximize his potential contacts with nat-ural elements and other people (principle 1) by expending the minimum possible energy (principle 2), to optimize his protective space (principle 3), the quality of his relationship with human and physical environment (principle 4), and. fi-nally, man organizes his settlements in an attempt to achieve an optimum synthesis of the other four principles (principle 5). When all these are happening, we speak of successful settlements. Each one of us can understand that he is guided by the same five principles; but we are not aware of their great importance, and we make great mis-takes in our theories about human settlements.” After 40 years, the following two quotes support and up-date Doxiadis’ stance: “Biological factors do greatly influ-ence human behavior. Efforts to minimize this fact only jeo-pardize the credibility of social sciences. What is required is simply a specification of the more basic elements of the hu-man condition to which every human society has had to adapt. They should be explicit in every theory of human so-ciety, open to scrutiny and critical examination” (LENSKI, 2005, pp. 45-50). “It is in biology and psychology that econo-mists and other social scientists will find the premises needed to fashion more predictive models, just as it was in physics and chemistry that researchers found premises that upgraded biology” (WILSON, 1998, p. 228).

Section 2: Synthesis The Total Anthropocosmos Model “…Through continuous classification we have reached the point where the total model of the Anthropocosmos (which incorporates dimensions, parts, elements, structures, func-tions and criteria and the taxonomy we have followed) can help us to conceive the ideal yet feasible human settlements that we need. In completing this total model we can under-

stand how the structure and function model represents a very small part of the basic dimensions model, and the sa-tisfaction model a very small part of the structure and func-tion model (Fig. 7)…The total image, which incorporates everything in the same grid (Fig. 8), provides a framework which can explain all the dimensional relationships, although it is quite clear that, in the simplified way in which it is pre-sented here, it does not incorporate every detail. The model can be used as the frame of every activity, of the notions used during a conversation, for the taxonomy, for the build-ing of mathematical models and algorithms, operations re-search, data analysis...” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 33-36; 1974c, pp. 9-11). Figure 8 depicts three applications of the model. “The success of the previous steps will be the base for the creation of prerequisites for the so much needed action that will take us, from the present phase of human attack against Nature, to a really successful Human Settlement.” “Not a single science covers yet the total Anthropocosmos model. We have to interconnect all relevant sciences to help Anthropos decide on what he wants and how to achieve it” (DOXIADIS, 1974b, p. 37).

The Evolutionary Model of Anthropocosmos Darwin offered a scheme for creating Design out of Chaos

without the aid of Mind. Daniel Dennett (1995, p. 50)

The total model of Anthropocosmos is a space of six dimen-sions. This means that a human settlement is represented by a vector of six coordinates: population, area, time, ele-ments, aspects, principles. The text that follows is an at-tempt to update two of these dimensions:

• First, the vertical axis of the five ekistic elements (see, stromatography of Anthropocosmos);

• Second, the horizontal axis of ekistics units (see, evolu-tionary ekistics),

that dominate in the two-dimensional projection of the total model (fig. 8), and in all older versions of this model.

Fig. 8: The Total Anthropocosmos Model in Practice.

11

Stromatography of Anthropocosmos Information systems are the ultimate mechanisms of adaptation.

Gerhard Lenski (2005, p. 43)

The first conception of Ekistics scientific territory has been a piece in a puzzle of overlapping knowledge fields (DOXIADIS 1968, p. 55), that are used until now in various attempts to delineate humanities (fig. 9a). This approach to classify knowledge has been criticized by Rosnay (1975, p. 273): “Our education remains hopelessly analytical, centered on a few disciplines, like a puzzle whose pieces overlap rather than fit together. It is an education that prepares us neither for the global approach to complex problems nor for the interplay between them”. However, Doxiadis had already taken a step towards the solution of the puzzle: “To achieve the needed knowledge and develop the science of human set-tlements we must move from an interdisciplinary to a con-disciplinary science; making links between disciplines is not enough. If we have one subject we need one science” (DOXIADIS, 1970 p. 2). Thus Doxiadis (1974a) used an orga-nizational web with three dimensions (fig. 9b), on which is based the two-dimensional projection of the Anthropocos-mos model:

• a horizontal system of complementary (without overlap-ping) layers of knowledge, that each one represents a simple science (e.g. biology, geology, and astronomy),

• a vertical system that connects sets of simple sciences in complex ones (e.g. ecology, and ekistics), and

• a third system that represents methods and values.

This is a step before the final solution of the puzzle. What fi-nally was missing from the Doxiadis model was the logic for ordering vertically the horizontal layers. The year that Dox-iadis left us, Rosnay (1975, p. 273) proposed to order them according to the complexity of the earth systems, that is the chronological line of their evolution: “The two most influential ideas bequeathed to us by the nineteenth century: the idea of evolution in biology and the idea of entropy in thermody-namics, made it possible to integrate ‘vertically’ the different

levels of complexity in nature” (ROSNAY, 1975, p. 273). The results of the famous experiment of COBE (Cosmic Back-ground Explorer: a satellite for the study of cosmic radiation) in 1992 about cosmic origins confirmed the chronological ordering of the pieces of the puzzle. In fact, there is a very large number of very thin layers (fig. 9c) that evolution has created. Thus, we can speak of a stromatography of Anthropo-cosmos in the sense of an ordering of the ontological levels according to the stages of their evolution. This ontological stratification can be coupled by an epistemological stratifica-tion of knowledge to which we can refer with the term “transdisciplinarity”. Hence, we do not have overlapping sciences, but one science, the chapters of which are built the one on top of the other. In the text that follows and in figure 10, the layers are grouped into four according to the class of information system that each one uses. The text and the figure are a compilation of concepts and ideas found in the following documents:

- The Emergence of Darwinism (HUXLEY, 1964, pp. 9-34), - L’histoire des communications: de la molecule au village

planetaire (ROSNAY, 1975, pp. 195-199), - Mind and Nature, a Necessary Unity (BATESON, 1979), - Spacetime and Cosmology (GREEN, 2005, pp. 215-323), - Evolution as The Cumulation of Information (LENSKI, 2005,

pp. 42-45), - Metasystem Transition (TURCHIN, 1977, pp. 55-57), - Cities and Nations (DELANDA, 2006, pp. 94-119); - Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science (VEBLEN,

1898), - Unified Theory of Information (HOFKIRCHNER, 1999, 2003); - Contemporary Local Area Networks (PERTSEMLIDIS,

1995). Physical (and Chemical) Layer: Every entity on the planet keeps its structure thanks to physical information, known as the fundamental forces or interactions of nature. It is stored

Fig. 9: Solution to the Puzzle of Overlapping Fields of Knowledge in two Steps.

12

in the structure of matter in three forms of potential energy. According to the standard model these are: the strong inte-ractions, which keep the atoms of our body intact, the elec-troweak interactions, which hold our bones and skin togeth-er, and the gravitational ones which hold our bodies on earth, the earth and other planets and stars being intact and bound together in galaxies. Thanks to the fact that the evo-lution of these interactions is practically over, the hierarchy of matter is maintained: particles (quarks and electrons), atoms, molecules, and bodies (live or not).

Genetic Layer: The fact that the evolution of the physical system is active in the sun supplying earth with energy, caused in the past the appearance on earth of a form of or-ganization of matter called life. Life is perpetuated thanks to that solar energy and to the genetic information system. Genetic information is preserved in coded form in the chem-ical DNA molecule of all cells of all living organisms and is transmitted through reproduction, which is the true driving force of the evolution of living beings. Genetic information evolves through genetic variation and natural selection over very long periods of time; that is the reason why the evolu-tionary effects are practically unobservable. Thanks to this information system, the hierarchy of the living matter is maintained: molecules, cells, organs, organisms.

Neurological Layer: Key elements in the evolution of this information system were advances in sensory organs and the nervous system of many animals including humans. Neurological information is stored in the nervous system and the brains of many animals in the form of neuronal cir-cuits and is transmitted by genetically determined electro-chemical signals. During ontogenesis, some circuits of them are genetically programmed (biological determinism) like the neuronal circuits of logic, language and probably so-ciality; other circuits are culturally programmed (scripts) and reprogrammed through trial and error, imitation, observation and reasoning. Such information is especially valuable in social species, since it facilitates the communication and coordination of the actions of the members and thus greatly enhances the value of group organization. For example, Al-lan Fiske (1991) proposes that just four elementary relational structures are sufficient to describe an enormous spectrum of the forms of human social relations, as well as social mo-tives and emotions, intuitive social thought and moral judg-ment. They are the neurological foundations (probably adaptations) of human societies: Communal Sharing, a rela-tionship of equivalence in which people are merged so that the boundaries are indistinct and have a sense of common identity. Authority Ranking is a transitive asymmetrical rela-tionship (linear hierarchy) in which persons construe each other as differing in social importance, or status. Equality Matching is an egalitarian relationship among peers. Market Pricing is a relationship mediated by values determined by a market system, or more generally, the criterion is proportio-nality.

Cultural Layer: Finally the evolution of hominids added a fourth information system, capable of manipulating systems of signs or symbols. So this system is specific to humans. This type of information is stored in brains, books, electronic data bases. It is acquired by instruction, reasoning, and re-search. With the emergence of cultural systems, a radically new mode of adaptation was established. The emergence of cultural systems did not free human societies from their

Fig. 10: Ordered layers and the concilience of knowledge. dependence on neurological, those of genetic, and those of physical systems. The vertical ordering of the fields of knowledge is the epistemological implication of the ontology of the universe. For this reason, the reduction of conflicting redundancies becomes impressive. The knowledge of a layer defines the axioms of the next layer. Such axioms from the genetic and neurological layers are the five principles of the ekistic be-havior of humans. The eleven forces are second order com-putations based on physical, genetic, and neurological axioms, in order to be formulated as axioms of ekistic syn-thesis. The first two layers constitute the technology of nature, and its study is called Sciences. The next two layers consti-tute the technology of man, and its study is called Humani-ties. “The greatest enterprise of the mind has always been and always will be the attempted linkage of the sciences and humanities” (WILSON, 1998, p. 6). The most advanced proposal for building this linkage comes from evolutionary psychology, “an attempt to assemble a single, logically inte-grated research framework for the psychological, social and behavioral sciences” (TOOBY, 2005, p. 5).

13

Evolutionary Ekistics A Mason thinks at night and builds during the day.

C.A. Doxiadis (1966b, p. 84)

We saw that each layer of fig. 10 consists of kinds of “atoms” that are organized as “systems” by kinds of “rela-tionships” characteristic of the next layer. This is the mean-ing of the hierarchy of systems. Doxiadis (1975, p. 242), based on evidence from biological and social experience, insisted on building hierarchical systems of human settle-ments as part of building orderly organized systems of life. So he articulated a general hierarchical scale with fifteen le-vels (DOXIADIS, 1970, p. 5) in this way: “The first spatial unit (EU 1) is well defined: it includes the individual, his clothing, and certain furniture. The second unit, the room (EU 2) is also very well defined; it is the space which belongs to him alone, or is shared under certain circumstances with a few others. The third unit, the family home (EU 3), is well de-fined also, as long as we have families. The fourth unit (EU 4) is a group of homes which corresponds to the patriarchal home of earlier days and probably to the unit of the ex-tended family of our day. These units are clearly defined, physically and socially. Beyond this point we do not have a clear-cut definition of any unit until we reach the largest one possible on this earth – that is, the systems of human set-tlements of the whole planet (EU 15).” Not finding social groups to assign to higher units, Doxiadis completed the scale of EU 5-14, using Christaller’s theory of central places. The hierarchy of ekistic units co-emerged with labor division in the public sphere, because various goods and services have various ranges and thresholds, and because human activities are being distributed in space according to the

laws of energy transformation: hierarchical systems are the most economical. Table 3 relates the hierarchy of ekistic units with “mental systems” that coordinate inferior units and are coordinated by superior units. For example, a market in a city plays the role of an “acentric mind” that coordinates the demand for goods and services of the inferior units with the supply at its own level. The council of a city plays the role of a “central mind” that organizes the collection and deposition of, say, litter from all neighborhoods of the city. During the last three centuries, the “mental systems” of human settlements un-dergo transformations as the boundaries of family and politi-cal spheres continue dissolving, giving their place to new social spheres with unstable personal, private and public boundaries. These spheres function as platforms for the or-ganization of a hierarchy of social institutions, especially to-day, because “the communication society is becoming a re-ality. Systems and social nets of communication, linked to personalities, organizations and communities, active and in-teractive, operate in new structures that mold the human ac-tivities in the personal, public and work sphere” (HOFKIR-CHNER, 2003, p. 1). These spheres are in the process of self-organization by incorporating the new physical and social technologies into Institutions, Shells and Networks. Especially, a real-time so-ciety is on the way, based on personal area networks (PAN, e.g. Bluetooth), local area networks (LAN, e.g. Ethernet), and wide area networks (WAN, e.g. Internet). “For the first time in the history of human societies, the co-operation of the users’ mass can have, in very short time, economic re-percussions” (ROSNAY, 2006, p. 193).

Table 3 The Hierarchy of the “Minds” of Ekistic Units

14

Table 4 Evolutionary model of Anthropocosmos

The interconnection of personal, private and public spheres with personal, local and wide area communication networks has triggered a new revolutionary evolutionary process, which has already organized services and commu-nication protocols, and among them real time acentric minds, at the various levels of Ekistic Units. Table 4 summa-rizes all these thoughts. The approach we adopted to address the theoretical work of Doxiadis, permits us to see that, in contrast to ongoing confusion, the “mind” of settlements that was lost during the industrial revolution is coming back: “We know now from experts who talked with primitive hunters and farmers about their territories that they answered as good ecologists. The science was there but when industrialization stepped in and the conditions changed, the age-old wisdom was lost. This will be done gradually by ecology and ekistics over a few generations.” (DOXIADIS, 1974e, p. 9). Doxiadis had started

such an endeavor: he studied the personal realms at each stage of the individual’s life in relation to Polis, and exposed his conclusions in his book Anthropopolis (DOXIADIS, 1974e). His studies on Ecumenopolis (DOXIADIS, 1974f), the shelter of the world’s citizens, are a connection of EU 15 with the global public sphere. Thus, a world-wide hierarchical network of human settle-ments is emerging. Before the use of the term globalization (Theodor Levitt, The Globalization of Markets, 1983), Dox-iadis coined to this global network the name “Ecumenopo-lis”, and to the process of its generation the term “ecumeni-zation”: “The inevitable next phase of human civilization” (DOXIADIS, 1974f, p. 393). This “project” does not have a discernible project manag-er. Thinking during the night and acting during the day, we, all, transform Anthropocosmos into Ecumenopolis. As fig. 11 depicts, Ecumenopolis is not a poetic vision.

Fig. 11: Ecumenopolis: the emerging structure of Antropocosmos.

15

References ARENDT, Hannah (1958), The Human Condition, 2nd Edition,1999

( University of Chicago Press). BAGGOT, Jim (2005), A Beginner’s Guide to Reality (London, Pen-

guin Books). BATESON, Gregory (1979), Mind and Nature, a Necessary Unity

(Hampton Press, 2002). BERNE, Eric (1971), A Layman’s Guide to Psychiatry and Psy-

choanalysis (London, Penguin Books), (The Mind in Action, 1947).

BERTANLANFFY, Ludwig (1968). General System Theory. Revised Edition. George Braziller, New York

BOYD, J. and S. BANZHAF (2006). What Are Ecosystem Services? Resources for the Future (Washington, DC).

CENTER LEO APOSTEL (1994). World Views, from Fragmentation to Integration (Brussels, VUB Press). (Authors: D. Aerts, L. Apostel, B. De Moor, S. Hellemans, E. Maex, H. Von Belle and J. Van der Veken).

COSMIDES, Leda and John TOOBY (1997), Evolutionary Psychol-ogy, a Primer. http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html.

DAWKINS, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype, the Long Reach of the Gene (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999).

DeLANDA, Manuel (2006), A New Philosophy of Society. Assem-blage Theory and Social Complexity (New York, Conti-nuum).

DENNETT, Daniel (1995), Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Evolution and the Meanings of Life (Penguin Books, 1996).

DICK, Philip (1978), How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later. A never delivered speech.

DOXIADIS, C.A. (1966), Anthropocosmos, the World of Man. Ad-dress delivered at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Stu-dies on July 29, 1966 upon the occasion of the Receipt of the Aspen Award. Posted at http://www.doxiadis.org/

(1966b). Between Dystopia and Utopia (Trinity College Press).

(1968). Ekistics, an Introduction to the Science of Human Settlements (New York, Oxford University Press).

(1970). “Ekistics, the Science of Human Settlements,” Science, vol. 170, no. 3956 (October), pp. 393-404.

(1972). “The Formation of the Human Room,” Ekistics, vol. 33, no. 196 (March), pp. 218-229.

(1974a). ”Ekistics and Mathematics.” Paper presented in seminar “Taxonomy and Ekistics” on 16/01/1974, R-ACE-126, Athens Center of Ekistics.

(1974b). “The Foundations of Ekistics,” Paper presented in seminar “Taxonomy and Ekistics” on 13/04/1974, R-ACE-146, Athens Center of Ekistics.

(1974c), ”Action for a better scientific approach to the sub-ject of human settlements: the Anthropocosmos model,” Compilation of three papers presented to Delos Eleven Studies and one presented to IFIAS, Ekistics, vols. 30-38, July 1970–December 1974.

(1974d). “Global Ecological Balance,” Contribution in Tyler Ecology Award.

(1974e). Anthropopolis, City for Human Development (Athens, Athens Publishing Center).

and John PAPAIOANNOU (1974f), Ecumenopolis, the In-evitable City of the Future (Athens, Athens Publishing Cen-ter).

(1975). Building Entopia (Athens, Athens Publishing Cen-ter).

(1976). Action for Human Settlements (Athens, Athens Pub-lishing Center).

EUROSTAT (2001), Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and Derived Indicators, a Methodological Guide (Luxembourg, European Commission).

FISCHER-KOWALSKI, Marina (2003), “On the History of Industrial Metabolism” in D. Bourg & S. Erkman (eds.), Perspectives on Industrial Ecology, (UK, Greenleaf Publishing), pp. 35-61.

FISKE, Alan (1993), Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations (New York, The Free Press).

FORRESTER, Jay (1971), Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Sys-tems. Technology Review. http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf

FORRESTER, Jay (1998), “Designing the Future,” Speech at Un-iversidad de Sevilla, Spain (December 15), http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/Designjf.pdf

GREEN, Brian (2005), The Fabric of the Cosmos (Penguin Books). HALAL, William (2005), “What is Institutional Change?” On The Ho-

rizon, vol. 13, Issue 1. HOFKIRCHNER, Wolfgang (1999), Cognitive Sciences in the Pers-

pective of a Unified Theory of Information. http://cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/zope/igw/menschen/hofkirchner/papers/new_concept_is.

HOFKIRCHNER, Wolfgang (2003), Towards a Unified Theory of In-formation. http://cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/zope/igw/menschen/hofkirchner/papers/new_concept_is.

HUDSON, Ray (2005), Economic Geographies, Circuits, Flows and Spaces (London, Sage Publications).

HUXLEY, Sir Julian (1964), Evolutionary Humanism (New York, Prometheus Books, 1992).

JACOBS, Jane (1970), The Economy of Cities (London, Jonathan Cape).

LENSKI, Gerhard (2005), Ecological-Evolutionary Theory. Prin-ciples and Applications (London, Paradigm Publishers).

MITCHAM, Carl (1994), Thinking through Technology. The Path between Engineering and Philosophy (University of Chicago Press).

NELSON, Richard (2005),Technology, Institutions, and Economic Growth (Harvard University Press).

ODUM, Howard (1996), Environmental Accounting, Emergy and Environmental Decision Making (John Wiley).

PERTSEMLIDIS, K.R. (1974), “A Review of Taxonomic Studies of Human Settlements,” Paper presented at the seminar “Tax-onomy and Ekistics”, 19/04/1974, R-ACE-138, Athens Cen-ter of Ekistics.

(1995), Contemporary Local Area Networks. Textbook for Computer Programmers, Edition 2.1 (Athens, Cegos).

PORTUGALI, Juval (1999), Self-Organization and the City (Berlin, Springer).

ROSNAY, Joël de (1975), Le macroscope, Vers une vision globale (Paris, Editions du Seuil).

ROSNAY, Joël de (2006), La révolte du pronétariat, des mass me-dia aux media des masses (Paris, Fayar).

SAHLINS, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics (London and New York, Routledge, 2004).

SEARLE, John (1995), The Construction of Social Reality (Penguin Books).

TOOBY, John and Leda COSMIDES (2005), “Conceptual Founda-tions of Evolutionary Psychology” in D.M. Buss (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 5-67 (John Wi-ley).

TURCHIN, Valentin (1977), The Phenomenon of Science, a Cyber-netic Approach to Human Evolution (Columbia University Press). http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POSBOOK.html.

VEBLEN, Thorstein (1898), “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 12. http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/%7Eecon/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/econevol.txt.

WILSON, Edward (1998), Consilience, the Unity of Knowledge (Ab-acus, 2003).

Acknowledgement Thanks are due to friends of mine Dimitris Katsinis, Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis, Panayis Psomopoulos, Kostas Rokos and Antonis Tortopidis for their critical comments on earlier versions of this pa-per.