Freedom is a fundamental physical regularity in the ecological structure
When hearing or reading the term “freedom,” most people probably do not think of concrete physical laws of nature and mathematically calculable quantities. Rather, the word is associated with abstract categories such as philosophy. However, the mathematical treatment of degrees of freedom is commonplace in many fields of physics. This applies to classical mechanics and extends to molecular physics and quantum physics. There are specific mathematical symbols, such as f and df (degree of freedom), and common formulas. A simple example for calculating the variance of a sample is f = n1 + n2 – 2. Freedom can therefore be defined as a mechanical parameter. However, when it comes to living matter in ecosystems, this is rarely done. There are a few applications in ecology, for example, in calculations of population dynamics. But a determination of degrees of freedom in relation to individual living organisms in the ecological structure, is hardly ever undertaken. This is despite the fact that this area offers a practically inexhaustible field of application in both qualitative and quantitative terms. In living matter, so many different degrees of freedom can be defined and quantified that the number of possible applications in all other areas of physics combined amounts to only a tiny fraction of this.
In animals in particular, the qualitative and quantitative parameters are very high in terms of both their number and their variability. However, calculations in this regard are not simply avoided. Rather, in the context of suppressing the unnaturalness of agricultural methods, in which these parameters are drastically reduced compared to natural processes, strong psychological defense mechanisms kick in, so to speak. Often, the mere mention of the term ‘freedom’ in relation to organisms in the ecosystem leads to attempts to classify this term as vaguely as possible using various methods. These are not only the philosophical categories mentioned above. Especially when the objects are vertebrates, the defense mechanisms can be very diverse and accompanied by strong emotional reactions. Blockages are used, for example, by employing derogatory counter-terms such as “nature romanticism”. Or evasive diversionary tactics are conducted by interpreting the ecological structure as ‘cruelly’ as possible by focusing on processes of dying. A number of examples are listed in the section: Repression.
The ZEIS Institute for Ecological Education is currently working on a comprehensive theory of the physical regularity of freedom in ecological structures. But for now, let us assume that freedom is accepted as a physical parameter. And now it will be about the discovery in practice. Every reader is encouraged to try this for themselves. It is not complicated and does not require any in-depth knowledge of biology. Any layperson can discover freedom as a physical regularity of the ecosystem.
The easiest way to begin recognising freedom as a central physical regularity of the animate levels of nature is to look at the most complex organisms, namely vertebrates. These are birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and fish. It is best to set aside at least a few hours, or better a whole day, for this examination and go out into nature. The objects observed there are, without exception, all (non-human) vertebrates, regardless of the species to which they belong. To emphasise once again: the focus on vertebrates is only an auxiliary restriction, as the regularity in question is most easily recognisable in them.
Ideally, the vertebrates observed should not be influenced by humans, for example they should not be supported by feeding. It is now important to pay close attention to all individuals encountered to see if there is anything that speaks against their complete self-determination. It should therefore be obvious that any reaction or movement is not the result of a decision made by the animal in question for its own benefit or for the benefit of its offspring or its own population, but is forced upon it by another life form, another species.
In addition, the criterion of restriction would also be met if the animal’s free and thus self-determined development is clearly reduced by illness or injury. The background to this approach also lies in the roots and meaning of the term ‘freedom’ itself. The word comes from the Old Germanic ‘fri halsa’, which expressed that an individual ‘determines over his own neck’. In other language families, too, concepts of freedom emerged with the same meaning: self-determination.
The result of a systematic observation is always the same
The result of this study will always be the same – in real nature – no matter where on the planet it is carried out. It therefore makes no difference whether the systematic observation takes place while hiking in forests and along rivers in any climatic zone or while snorkelling in tropical coral reefs or other bodies of water – the regularity is generally the same. It consists in the fact that the actions of the observed individuals of all species (on average) are based on their own decisions and the development of their innate characteristics for their own benefit. With regard to this own benefit, it is possible to extend it to that of one’s own offspring, one’s own population or the respective social structure.
The more often such practical and systematic studies are carried out, the clearer it becomes that this cannot be a matter of chance, but that freedom is in fact always the common denominator of the existence of the different animals and thus a central regularity in their natural existence. It can also be concluded that this must always have been the case since vertebrates first appeared on the planet, which is for around half a billion years.
Before systematic investigation in real nature, one might still have doubts, perhaps because of a vague assumption that the life of the blackbird in the forest is somehow determined by its predatory enemies and that these predators therefore determine the actions of the blackbird as potential prey. However, if we consider a scene in which a real blackbird flies up from a meadow and flees because it spots an approaching hawk, there is nothing to contradict the absolute and self-interested self-determination of this reaction. The hawk would, of course, prefer a completely different reaction from the blackbird, but it cannot bring this about because the blackbird is in a state of freedom. With this flight reaction, the blackbird has therefore determined itself 100 per cent and thus absolutely in its own interest.
Restrictions on freedom are only tiny marginal phenomena in nature
Only if one were to observe that the hawk is successful and manages to catch the blackbird would one actually discover a restriction of its freedom. For now it is in the power of its predator and can no longer determine its own fate. However, it is precisely this aspect that reveals the extreme importance of practical and systematic observation in the reality of nature: after a while, it automatically becomes clear that the periods of these actual restrictions until death occur are, on average, vanishingly small in relation to the state of freedom.
This realisation comes when you have perhaps spent almost an entire day wandering through nature, observing thousands of birds and other vertebrates, but still have not been able to find a scene in which one of them was in the clutches of a predator. In a healthy ecosystem, death occurs so quickly on average that it represents only a tiny fraction of reality.
The tiny size of this fraction can also be understood mathematically, and then it becomes clear why, during systematic observation, one has probably spent an entire day hiking through nature and discovered thousands of freely flying birds without seeing a single bird die. Using the blackbird as an example, it could be captured by a hawk after a year of freedom.
If this process takes two minutes from the first physical contact to the onset of death, then the ratio is 262,800 to 1. The blackbird had thus unfolded its entire physical organisation in a self-determined manner for 525,600 minutes, and there were only two minutes of restriction of this unfolding during the final death struggle. One would therefore have to keep one’s eyes on the blackbird day and night for a whole year in order to finally see two minutes of restriction of its freedom by another living being.
Humans focus on dying in order to block out freedom
The reason why these tiny restrictions on freedom, and thus their almost absolute dominance in the ecological structure, are not perceived as such by the system of civilisation lies in psychological mechanisms, which are discussed in the section ‘Repression’. In practice, they manifest themselves, for example, in a photo taken by chance in the last two minutes of the blackbird’s life being presented in a mass medium. Now, the scene is torn out of real time, suitable to generate a subconscious perspective in which the existence of blackbirds is not determined almost entirely by freedom, but by being captured and killed by predators.
A typical example of these artificial shifts in reality concerns film scenes, often watched by older television viewers, in which a gazelle is hunted and killed by lions. For decades, this alone has probably given most television consumers the vague impression that the existence of gazelles in Africa must mainly consist of being hunted and killed by lions. In reality, however, the situation is no different from the example with the blackbird in the forest or the fish in the coral reef. Gazelles also have true freedom, which on average can only be disrupted for a tiny fraction of their lifetime.
Illness, infirmity and misery are rare in the wild
Anyone who has carried out extensive systematic and targeted research into the reality of nature will have become aware of the second very important feature of the central regularity of freedom there: even restrictions on free development caused by illness or injury, are on average so tiny in relation to free and healthy development in an intact ecosystem that they too can only rarely be found.
In concrete terms, this means that during a full day’s hike through nature, among thousands of vertebrates observed, one might find at most one or two specimens that appeared to be truly restricted in this respects. Here, too, this result is not a coincidence, but one based on fixed physical regularities that order life everywhere on the planet. One would also have to snorkel for hours in a coral reef to find, if at all, perhaps one or two such fish whose free development is restricted. And so it is with the gazelles in Africa, the frogs in the pond and all other vertebrates on the entire planet.
The fact that restrictions on free development due to illness and injury account for only a very small proportion of ecological events, as can be clearly seen in vertebrates, is due to physical mechanisms that can be classified under the term ‘tautness’. They are based on the high complexity of the structure and ensure that corresponding restrictions on free development are, on average, ended so quickly by death that states of misery and suffering in nature are only minor side effects.
The tautness of ecosystems does not stand in the way of freedom, but rather protects it
At first glance, one might assume that this enormous tautness must mean that, for example, the fish or birds observed during the walk exist under constant pressure, which further restricts their freedom as individuals. However, this is not the case. For as long as a living being is healthy and in full possession of its destiny, its characteristics, developed over millions of years of evolution, are almost fully unfolded, and the existence of the supposed pressure is even a very important part of this unfolding.
To make it easier to understand, you can think of it as similar to a very skilled and passionate motorcyclist. He rides at high speed, but also with the utmost precision through the curves. The danger zone is always only a few centimetres away from him, and even the smallest mistake could lead to his immediate death. But if asked, he will always say that it is precisely these moments in which he feels completely free and that there is no state in which he could enjoy his existence more.
And so, through the development of its evolutionary characteristics, a free and healthy vertebrate in the natural system also masters, through constant self-determination, the everyday dangers posed by predators. The immune system and other mechanisms of its body successfully defend it against the countless parasites that exist in the environment or even on and in it. The organism is adapted to the temperatures, humidity and all other climatic factors of its habitat.
When this self-determined and thus free life is no longer possible, it usually ends quickly before prolonged infirmity, suffering and misery can arise. However, it is extremely important for a proper understanding not to imagine that there is a system that is superior to the individual and determines this end in any way. Rather, in order to correctly classify the context, the view must be reversed. To understand this, it can be imagined that freedom as a state of self-determined development is, in a sense, life itself. And when it, i.e. physical freedom, ceases, then physical life also ends.
Recognising regular freedom based on insects
Anyone who has carried out the recommended investigation in reality will now have gained a good sense of the central regularity of freedom in their existence based on vertebrates. Building on this to extend the insight to the overall context of an ecosystem requires a little more effort, because things become much more complicated in the realms of insects and molluscs. And this is even more true for plants, fungi and microorganisms.
However, this does not mean that freedom is not a central regularity in these forms of life. It is also a central regularity for them, regardless of the species. To take this a little further, insects, which are by far the largest group within the animal kingdom, are particularly suitable for this purpose.
The fact that recognising the regularity of freedom in insects is not quite as easy as in vertebrates is mainly due to the fact that there are so many of them that the proportion of restrictions, which is also close to zero, can be discovered much more often. Only in mathematical reflection does it become apparent that there is basically no significant difference in terms of the almost absolute dominance of physical freedom.
An observer sitting by a pond, for example, might look at the spider webs on the bank. He might then see many mayflies caught in them. And now he thinks that this species must regularly experience a relatively poor balance between self-determined free development and the process of death caused by a predator. But he would be deceiving himself.
Even the average mayfly is almost completely free
The life cycle of mayflies includes a larval stage that lasts from one to four years, depending on the species. These larvae have legs and lead a self-determined and, incidentally, very active life in the water. They hunt and gather, evade predators and do whatever else is necessary for the free development of their evolutionary and innate characteristics. Even if such an animal, after metamorphosis, lives for half an hour entangled in a spider’s web before the spider kills it or the effort causes the organism to collapse, the ratio for an individual with a total lifespan of two years would still be 35,040 to 1 in favour of free development.
This is a fairly low value, but the average is increased by the much more numerous specimens that are killed in a matter of seconds by birds or bats, for example. The situation is very similar with other flying insects, whose obvious and relatively long process of dying in a spider’s web is particularly noticeable to an observer who is not systematically observing them, while the vast majority of their conspecifics – in the case of mayflies, sometimes several million per hectare – are free to develop in large numbers in the surrounding area and whose death, if they are caught by swallows, for example, comes almost instantly.
For flies, bees, wasps and beetles, too, the effect of predatory enemies on their free development is therefore very close to zero. And for the incorruptible observer, who only considers reality, this observation can be applied to all animals.
Misrepresentations and errors concerning social ants, example 1: Aphids are not like ‘dairy cows’
Certain misinformation about some circumstances involving social ants can cause confusion in understanding freedom as a central regularity of the ecological structure, which is why they will be briefly examined here. The misconception that some ant species ‘keep’ and ‘milk’ root lice and aphids, and that the lice are therefore not in a state of freedom, is quite easy to dispel.
In fact, the aphid species in question often specialised many millions of years ago in attracting certain ant species by means of faeces that were useless to them, in order to secure advantages in the form of aggressive bodyguards, carriers or even winter hosts. In the professional world of insect researchers, one does not speak of ants ‘keeping’ aphids, but rather of ‘visiting’ them.
So this is by no means a matter of “milk” and actual ‘milking’. But this misrepresentation quickly makes it clear why, at least among laypeople, there is still so much enthusiastic writing and talking about aphids being milked and kept: it is an attempt to legitimise the unnaturalness of the permanent control of ‘dairy cows’ that began a few millennia ago. Their milk is not a useless faecal matter with which they attract humans, but was developed in the early history of mammals over 200 million years ago for the sole purpose of feeding their own young. And in the case of the ‘milk cows’, their natural freedom was also greatly reduced.
Misrepresentations and misconceptions about state-forming ants, example 2: ‘Slave ants’ are not really slaves
Another example of misrepresentation concerning state-forming ants concerns the relationship between so-called ‘slave-making ants’ and ‘slave ants’. These are defined as a form of social parasitism, although experts now tend to believe that this is a very complex, obligatory symbiosis between the same species that is also millions of years old. The soldiers of certain ant species attack the colonies of other specific ant species in order to steal their pupae. These are then integrated into their own colony, where they care for the queen’s offspring. The fact that this does not really restrict their freedom is primarily due to the fact that the affected workers would have developed in practically the same way in their own colony, caring for the offspring in accordance with their innate characteristics and needs.
There are several reasons why this topic has not gained as much public attention as the famous misconception surrounding the ant-aphid relationship. One of these lies in the explanations provided by evolutionary biologist Edward O. Wilson, widely regarded as one of the most competent experts on the phenomenon of so-called slave-making ants. Back in 1975, after many years of observing various species on several continents, he documented something that renders the assumption of slavery in the literal sense meaningless: The supposed slave ants are not only fully integrated into the social structure of the slave-making ant colony, where they develop their evolutionary characteristics. They also have a status in the social hierarchy that is at least equal to, but often even higher than, that of the soldiers they once stole as pupae.
This is therefore, at most, a form of forced adoption. And compared to the existence of the workers in the original colony, the suppression of the development of evolutionary characteristics and self-determination is either non-existent or, if it does exist, only to an extent that is close to zero.
The study of plants and microorganisms also leads to the same result
The connections shown so far are sufficient for a concise outline of the topic of regular freedom. A more in-depth treatment extending into the areas of plants or microorganisms, for example, would go beyond the scope of this magazine, because things become even more complicated there and their reflection correspondingly more complex. However, it can be assured here that the same physical regularity does not change in any single species. The average individual of the respective species is therefore always in a state of almost absolute freedom. The fact that self-determination in other life forms is not based on cognitive decisions as is the case with animals, but on other forms of reaction formation, is irrelevant.
Conclusion:
Particularly in vertebrates, even the layman can easily observe that freedom in the literal sense, i.e. the self-determined unfolding of the individual, is a central natural regularity in all species. In the reality of nature (apart from the effects of today’s human civilisation), there is no evidence of any form of permanent subjugation between different species. Furthermore, the proportion of individuals whose self-determined unfoldment is restricted, for example by illness or injury, is always a relatively minor phenomenon in all vertebrate species, since even slight deviations from the state of freedom – also regular – lead on average to rapid death. A look at the insect kingdom shows that these laws of freedom do not apply only to vertebrates. And a more detailed examination reveals that freedom is the central law of existence for all life forms, even if this requires the inclusion of the deeper evolutionary mechanisms that are examined in the section ‘Evolution’.