Self-Organization and The Origins of Life: The Managed-

Metabolism Hypothesis
John E. Stewart

Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Group,

Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel,
Krijgskundestraat 33, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium.
Ph: +61422540984
[email protected]

Abstract: The ‘managed-metabolism’ hypothesis suggests that a ‘cooperation

barrier’ must be overcome if self-producing chemical organizations are to undergo the
transition from non-life to life. This dynamical barrier prevents un-managed, self-
organizing, autocatalytic networks of molecular species from individuating into
complex, cooperative organizations. The barrier arises because molecular species that
could otherwise make significant cooperative contributions to the success of an
organization will often not be supported within the organization, and because side
reactions and other ‘free-riding’ processes will undermine cooperation. As a result,
the barrier seriously limits the possibility space that can be explored by un-
managed organizations, impeding individuation supported by complex functionality
and the transition to life. The barrier can be overcome comprehensively by appropriate
‘management’. Management implements a system of evolvable constraints that can
overcome the cooperation barrier by ensuring that beneficial co-operators are
supported within the organization and by suppressing free riders. In this way
management can control and manipulate the chemical processes of a collectively
autocatalytic organization, producing novel processes that serve the interests of the
organization as a whole and that could not arise and persist spontaneously in an un-
managed chemical organization. Management self-organizes because it is able to
capture some of the benefits that are produced when its management of an
autocatalytic organization enhances productivity by promoting cooperation. Selection
will therefore favour the emergence of managers that take over and manage chemical
organizations so as to overcome the cooperation barrier. The managed-metabolism
hypothesis demonstrates that if management is to overcome the cooperation barrier
comprehensively, its interventions must be digitally coded. In this way, the hypothesis
accounts for the two-tiered structure of all living cells in which a digitally-coded
genetic apparatus manages an analogically-informed metabolism.

Keywords: managed-metabolism; origins of life; cooperation barrier; chemical

evolution; autocatalytic organization; evolutionary transitions
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

Graphical Abstract:

1. Introduction

The ‘gene-first’ hypothesis about the origins of life appears to continue to have significant
support amongst many researchers [1-6]. Broadly, this hypothesis suggests that life began
with the emergence of RNA molecules that had a capacity for both template-based self-
replication and the ability to catalyse other reactions. As such, these molecules were capable
of undergoing the standard evolutionary process: errors arising during copying of the
molecules produced variant molecules; and variants that went on to reproduce more
successfully (e.g. by catalysing reactions that enhanced their self-replication) tended to
increase their representation in the population of molecules. According to this hypothesis,
nothing more was needed: life as we know it was up and running.

On the surface, this hypothesis does not seem to demand anything more of the first genes and
natural selection than what is achieved now by familiar gene-based evolutionary processes. It
seems reasonable to assume that evolving RNA self-replicators would progressively discover
and accumulate beneficial adaptations, just as organisms do now as they evolve. Under this
hypothesis, the RNA replicators would progressively build around themselves increasingly
complex metabolisms that would enhance their capacity to reproduce and survive. This
model also seems to be consistent with the metaphor that self-replicating genes specify the
‘blueprint’ for the cell that contains them. If this metaphor accurately reflects the role of

2
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

genes in a cell, it is easy to see how natural selection operating on variation in genes could
gradually adapt and improve the blueprint to specify arrangements that are more adaptive.

However, on closer examination it is highly implausible that this proposed process could
somehow clothe ‘naked’ self-replicating RNA molecules in a complex metabolism, starting
with nothing. As we shall see, showing how this could happen is arguably a more difficult
challenge than showing how such a self-replicating RNA molecule could arise from some
organic soup in the first place (and this is proving to be a major challenge: so far, RNA
replicators have not been shown to emerge even in organic soups that are designed,
structured, manipulated and carefully constrained by teams of highly-qualified human
chemists [e.g. see 7]).

The key implausibility of this aspect of the gene-first hypothesis is the proposition that naked
RNA could progressively create around itself a highly complex, dynamical metabolism,
starting from scratch and using an evolutionary mechanism that operates ‘top down’ through
variation in RNA and generally makes only one small change at a time. No one has yet
demonstrated in theory or practice that this is possible for a replicator that starts out ‘naked’
[8]. It is true that existing organisms including simple cells that contain genetic replicators are
able to respond to selection with long sequences of adaptive change. But they begin with a
supporting metabolism that potentially enables mutations to have significant effects. They
don’t start with nothing and build this complex enabling machinery from scratch. In this
respect, the gene-first hypothesis seems even less plausible than an analogous ‘government
first’ hypothesis of the origins of hierarchical human societies i.e. the proposition that these
societies began with the emergence of ‘naked’ governments that then proceeded to somehow
create around themselves all the rest of society (including economic and agricultural
systems), starting from scratch. Such a hypothesis about human societies would be even more
difficult to accept if governments were only able to establish and adapt governance through
blind trial and error, as do genes.

Furthermore, a strong case can be mounted that that at least some of the metabolic and related
constituents of cells have not been created by RNA in this way. There is evidence that the
genetic apparatus of modern cells does not contain all the information embedded in the cell as
a whole. As we shall see, the genetic apparatus does not include a blueprint for the building
of a cell from scratch [9]. Even the simplest known cells contain information that is embodied
in the cytoplasm and is not contained in the genetic apparatus [10]. As a consequence, the
genetic apparatus could not reconstruct from scratch the processes and structures of the cell
that embodies this information. This is highly suggestive that this information was not
produced by RNA in the first place.

The evidence for this rests upon the fact that the processes and structures that are produced by
a protein encoded by the genetic apparatus is not determined by the nature of the protein
alone. Instead, it is determined by the interactions between the protein and the existing
contents, processes and spatial structures of the cytoplasm. Cytoplasmic context is critically
important in co-determining the effects of any protein coded by the genetic apparatus [10].
Information in the cell is therefore contained in both the genetic apparatus and cytoplasm.
3
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

This would not be such a problem for the ‘gene-first’ hypothesis if the genetic apparatus
produces the cytoplasm from scratch. But it does not. Nor is it capable of doing so. In
particular, there are many examples of super-molecular structures within cells that are never
recreated from scratch within the cell. Instead they are replicated only by processes in which
existing structures serve as scaffolding and templates for the production of new structures. In
the absence of this scaffolding, the genetic apparatus cannot recreate the structures. Examples
where this has been established include organelles within the cells such as the endoplasmic
reticulum, cilia, mitochondria and the membranes that are part of many other structures [11-
14]. It is clear that the genetic material in the cell is not at all like a blueprint for a building
that specifies the location and structure of walls, windows, roof and floor and the spatial
relations between them. It is now widely accepted in relation to eukaryote cells that some
cellular organelles such as mitochondria had an evolutionary origin and history independent
of the cells that now contain them [15]. It seems likely that other super-molecular structures
now found in the simplest of know cells also had an evolutionary origin and history
independent of the genetic apparatus.

What about other components of the metabolisms now embodied in the cytoplasm of cells,
such as metabolic cycles and processes? Could they have also emerged and evolved to some
extent independent of any self-replicating RNA? Whether they could is an issue of critical
importance for understanding the origins of life. This is not just because it points to a viable
alternative to the implausibility that metabolisms were progressively created from scratch by
RNA. It is also because even if naked genes were somehow capable of building metabolisms,
they would have been highly unlikely to do so if they could instead simply take over and
manage metabolisms that had already emerged and evolved.

‘Metabolism-first’ hypotheses of the origins of life postulate that metabolisms in the form of
organizations of molecular species indeed emerged first before self-replicating RNA. These
organizations are envisaged as being self-producing because their constituent molecular
species cooperate together to catalyse each other’s formation and have access to sources of
free energy and other necessary resources [16-23].

However, to what extent could the evolution of these metabolic organizations have eventually
produced organizations that would qualify as living? Section 2 of this paper demonstrates that
metabolic organizations would have encountered a ‘cooperation barrier’ that would prevent
them from developing the complex individuality that I will argue is essential to the transition
from non-life to life. This is analogous to the ‘cooperation barrier’ that is faced by
cooperative organizations when they emerge at any level of organization of living processes.
Section 3 examines the nature of the cooperation barrier that arises at these other levels, and
Section 4 identifies how it has typically been overcome through the emergence of systems of
evolvable constraints that are termed ‘management’ in this paper. Section 5 of the paper
applies this understanding of management to the evolution of chemical organizations. It
identifies how evolution is likely to have overcome the cooperation barrier facing proto-
metabolisms by favouring the emergence of management in the form of RNA, thereby
enabling the transition from non-life to life (the ‘managed-metabolism hypothesis’). Section 6

4
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

examines the relationship between the managed-metabolism hypothesis and other hypotheses
about the origin of life. It also considers how the managed-metabolism hypothesis could be
developed further and tested.

It is worth emphasising at the outset that the managed-metabolism hypothesis is founded on a

relational perspective about the nature of living processes: it considers that the dynamical
relationships between the constituents of living processes are of paramount importance for
understanding life (e.g. see [45]). In the main, the specific nature of the entities that constitute
living organizations is significant only insofar as it influences the dynamical relationships
that the entities can enter into, and the forms of organization in which they can participate.
This relational perspective recognizes that there are a huge number of ways of organizing and
combining the constituents of living processes that will not qualify as life. And there is only a
comparatively infinitesimal number of ways of organizing them that will constitute life. A
key goal of this paper is to identify the particular forms of organization that were able to
transition from non-life to life.

2. The Cooperation Barrier and the Evolution of Metabolic Organizations

Reaction networks of molecular species that are self-producing because of their cooperative
catalytic activity have been shown theoretically to exhibit some evolvability [21-23].
Simulations have shown that alternative autocatalytic reaction networks of organic polymers
that coexist in the same environment can compete and undergo a form of natural selection.
The heritable component of these reaction networks comprise viable cores which are self-
sustaining collections of molecular species that catalyse each other’s formation [21].
Competition and selection can occur between viable cores within a network as well as
between networks that contain various combinations of different viable cores. Novel
variation can arise between reaction networks in relation to viable cores through a number of
processes, including by the acquisition of new cores through rare chemical events [21-22].
Compartmentalisation of reaction networks can enhance selection between networks and the
accumulation of adaptations. Self-sustaining cooperative networks of organic polymers
together with food sources and small-molecule autocatalytic cycles (e.g. pre-cursors of the
reductive citric acid cycle with polymers catalysing steps in the autocatalytic cycle [22])
could conceivably evolve by these processes as proto-metabolisms.

However, the evolvability of these cooperative reaction networks is seriously limited by what
I will refer to as a ‘cooperation barrier’. As I will show in more detail in the next section, this
dynamical barrier is analogous to the cooperation barrier that impedes the evolution of
cooperative organization at all levels or organization, including amongst human and other
multicellular organisms [24-26]. It turns out that the cooperation barrier facing self-producing
organizations of molecular species must be overcome if the organizations are to make the
transition from non-living chemical processes to life.

The nature of this barrier can be understood by considering an organization of molecular

species that is self-producing because it is collectively autocatalytic—i.e. the formation of
every species in the organization is catalysed by at least one other species, and the
5
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

organization has access to appropriate sources of free energy and ‘food’ molecules. The
organization contains a number of viable cores in which the formation of all molecular
species is catalysed by all other members of the core. The cooperation barrier arises because
molecular species that could contribute cooperatively to the survivability of a core and the
organization as a whole may not be produced and sustained at an optimal level within the
organization [24-26]. This can be the case irrespective of the significance of the contribution
that these species could make to the success of the organization. How does such a barrier
arise out of the dynamics of autocatalytic organizations? First, the formation of a beneficial
molecular species might not happen to be catalysed by any other member of the organization
(or it may not be catalysed at a level that is optimal for the organization). This is not likely to
be uncommon—there is nothing at all in the nature of autocatalytic organization that
guarantees that any particular molecular species that contributes positively to the organization
will be catalysed in return. Second, it might occur where ‘free-rider’ molecular species and
associated ‘side reactions’ take resources from the organization but do not contribute
anything (or sufficient) in return (e.g. they do not catalyse the formation of other members of
the organization). Free-riders can reduce the catalytic support, energy and material resources
that might otherwise be available to members of the organization, undermining their ability to
persist and contribute to the organization. Because free-riders do not use their resources to
contribute to the organization, they may also out-compete those that do. The susceptibility of
an organization to be undermined by free-riders is likely to increase as its complexity
increases [27].

It is worth indicating here in more detail what is meant by the terms ‘co-operator’,
‘unsupported co-operator’ and ‘free rider’ at the level of chemical organisation, and relating
these terms to the use of similar terms at the level of biological organisation. At the biological
level, a co-operator organism is one which interacts with other organisms in ways which
provide the others with fitness benefits e.g. by increasing the capacity of the others to
reproduce successfully. Analogously, a co-operator molecular species is one which increases
the rate at which other molecular species are produced in a chemical system by, for example,
catalysing the formation of those molecular species. At the biological level, a supported (or
non-altruistic) co-operator is one which can reproduce successfully in the population because
it benefits sufficiently from its cooperative interactions with others to outweigh the fitness
costs of its own cooperative actions. And an unsupported (or altruistic) co-operator is one
which does not obtain sufficient benefits to reproduce successfully. Analogously, a molecular
species which is a supported (non-altruistic) co-operator is one whose formation
(reproduction) is supported sufficiently within the organisation (e.g. by catalysis from other
molecular species) for it to be sustainable within the organisation. An unsupported (altruistic)
molecular species is one which does not receive sufficient support within the organisation to
be sustainable. At the biological level, a free-rider organism is one which receives fitness
benefits from co-operator organisms, but does not provide fitness benefits in return.
Analogously, a free-riding molecular species has its formation enhanced by co-operator
molecular species (e.g. the co-operators might catalyse the formation of the free rider), but
does not provide benefits to the co-operators in return (e.g. it does not catalyse the formation
of other co-operators).
6
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

Figure 1 is a schematic depiction of the architecture of a simple catalytic reaction network of

molecular species which includes un-supported co-operators and free riders:

In Figure 1, each molecular species is represented by a circle containing a letter. The

organizational architecture (excluding free-riders) is enclosed by a dotted line. The arrows
between molecular species represent catalysis. The architecture shows that the formation of
each member of the autocatalytic organization is catalysed by at least one other member.
Molecular species J and X are unsupported (altruistic) co-operators: they contribute to the
organization by catalysing the formation of members of the organization, but their own
formation is not catalysed by any member of the organization. Molecular species K and R are
free-riders: their formation is catalysed by members of the organization, but they don’t
contribute anything in return to the organization.

The cooperation barrier significantly limits the evolvability of autocatalytic organizations of

chemical species. Organizations that are self-producing cannot include molecular species that
could contribute significantly to the survivability of the organization but are not supported
adequately within the organization. Such altruistically cooperative molecular species would
not be produced within the organization and cannot persist as part of it (they are not
dynamical attractors). Organizations that contain such species cannot be sustained or called
into existence by selection, no matter how powerful the selection is, or how much the species
would increase the competitiveness of the organization as a whole. Complex cooperative
arrangements amongst molecular species that would produce highly advantageous supra-
molecular structures, processes, sub-systems and systems could not evolve if any of the
molecular species or processes that constitute them were unable to persist and be reproduced
7
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

within the organization. Because of the unlikelihood that advantageous molecular species
would coincidently be supported at an optimal level in the organization, molecular
organizations that are subject to the cooperation barrier will be able to explore only a tiny
proportion of the possibility space of logically conceivable organizations. As a consequence,
the barrier seriously limits the extent of the possibility space that could be explored by
catalytic reaction networks of molecular species, impeding their ability to evolve into
complex, cooperative organizations. Organizations that were restricted by the cooperation
barrier would not have been able to evolve the complex adaptive functionality that
characterises all know living cells and constitutes their individuality (this paper takes the
position that self-producing organizations do not qualify as living unless they exhibit
individuality supported by complex functionality. For detailed discussion of the basis of this
position, see 25, 28).

In order for an organization to have a comprehensive capacity to evolve beneficial

cooperative functionality, any chemical species that would benefit the organization would
have to be capable of being produced within the organization at a level that is optimal as
circumstances change, and free riders would have to be able to be suppressed systematically.
But chemical organizations that face the cooperation barrier fall far short of this capability.
The overwhelming majority of molecular species that could contribute to the success of such
organizations would not be produced at an optimal level. The chemistry that operates within
the kinds of autocatalytic reaction networks that have been conceived to date cannot produce
the complex cooperative organization that characterises life. For the transition to life, a new
kind of chemistry was needed.

3. The Cooperation Barrier and Other Major Evolutionary Transitions

It is not only molecular organizations whose ability to explore the space of organizational
possibilities is limited by a cooperation barrier. Cooperation barriers also impede the
emergence of complex cooperative organization at each and every level of living organization
[24-26]. It is therefore a barrier to the emergence of new levels of organization. For example,
the cooperation barrier impeded the emergence of the cooperative organizations of eukaryote
cells that became multicellular organisms, the organizations of organisms that became animal
societies, the organizations of humans that became tribal societies, the organizations of
human groups that became nation states, and is currently impeding the emergence of a
complex, cooperative planetary entity. It should be noted that these emergences include many
but not all of the major evolutionary transitions identified by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry
[28] (e.g. it does not include sexual reproduction), and includes emergences that they do not
(e.g. the emergence of a cooperative global organization [26]).

In order to work out how the cooperation barrier could have been overcome in the transition
from non-life to life, it is useful to draw on the large body of research that has contributed to
understanding why a cooperation barrier arises at other levels of organization and how it has
been overcome at those levels.

8
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

A generalized agent-based approach can be used to understand how the cooperation barrier
arises out of the dynamics of cooperative organizations at all levels [29]. Using this approach,
agents represent the entities at each particular level (e.g. prokaryote cells, eukaryotes,
multicellular organisms [including humans], tribes, nations etc.). Agents are capable of
adaptation. Adaptation tends to maximize a function such as fitness or psychological utility.
Agents may adapt by any process (e.g. including by processes as disparate as gene-based
natural selection or psychological mechanisms). Agents are able to interact with each other in
ways that may be adaptively advantageous. Cooperative organizations of agents will emerge
where adaptations that constitute cooperative relationships between agents are also
sufficiently beneficial to the individual agents themselves (e.g. where the adaptations provide
net fitness or utility benefits to the individual agents that exhibit them). Where this condition
is met, the relationships and the organization they constitute will persist and be reproduced
through time. However, if agents fail to benefit sufficiently from cooperative interactions, the
adaptations that underpin the cooperation will not be reproduced and persist, no matter how
much the cooperation benefits the organization as a whole.

In many circumstances, individual agents will not benefit sufficiently from advantageous
cooperative interactions, despite the potential of many forms of cooperation to significantly
increase the net benefits available to the organization. This will be the case if co-operators
fail to capture enough of the benefits they produce to outweigh the costs of their cooperation.
As the huge body of research on cooperation referred to below has demonstrated, this failure
can be expected to be commonplace. There is nothing in simple, unstructured forms of
organization which guarantees that co-operator agents will always capture sufficient of the
benefits they create. To the contrary, agents that support co-operators will tend to be
outcompeted by agents that use resources only for their own benefit, without providing
sufficient benefits to the organization in return (e.g. free-rider agents, including parasites,
cheats and thieves). Free-riders will also tend to out-compete the co-operator agents
themselves, and take resources that might otherwise support co-operators. Furthermore, there
is nothing that guarantees that free-rider agents will always capture the ‘harms’ that they visit
on the organization. For all these reasons, free-rider agents will tend to undermine complex
cooperative organization.

As a consequence, the cooperation barrier will seriously restrict the possibility space of
complex cooperative organization that can be explored at any level of organization. All forms
of organization that include agents that provide significant net benefits to the organization but
fail to capture sufficient of those benefits will not be able to persist (the sustained existence of
their organizations will not be dynamical attractors).

4. Mechanisms that can Overcome the Cooperation Barrier

A huge literature attempts to identify particular mechanisms which enable co-operator agents
to capture sufficient of the benefits they create to enable the emergence of some form of
cooperative organization (e.g. see [26] for a brief overview). These mechanisms generally
rely on co-operators capturing a disproportionate share of the benefits of cooperation because
of the existence of circumstances which ensure they are disproportionately likely to interact
9
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

with other co-operators. These biased patterns of interaction are typically produced by
constraints that manifest as, for example: particular dispersal patterns; kin selection; group
formation; compartmentalization; stochastic correction; other forms of population structure;
pre-dispositions to cooperate preferentially with other co-operators; and pre-dispositions to
punish and exclude free-riders. However, in general this body of research confirms the reality
of the cooperation barrier. It has demonstrated that complex cooperative organization does
not evolve readily. It has shown that simple cooperative relationships can emerge, but only in
limited circumstances. Most researchers in this field would accept that the research has so far
been unable to identify a general mechanism that could operate at all levels of organization
and that would enable complex cooperative organization to emerge readily (e.g. see [28, 30]).

But the cooperation barrier has been overcome repeatedly and comprehensively during the
evolution of life on this planet, enabling the emergence of complex cooperative organization
at various levels. What mechanism(s) have enabled this? It is clear from the agent-based
perspective sketched above that agents who provide significant net benefits to an organization
would be able to persist if ‘consequence-capture’ applies—i.e. if agents capture sufficient of
the benefits (and harms) they produce to sustain them at an optimal level in the organization.
Comprehensive consequence-capture would massively expand the possibility space that can
be explored by organizations at any level [29].

But what can enable consequence-capture? The emergence of what have been termed
‘managers’ can enable comprehensive consequence-capture within the organizations they
manage [24-26, 29, 31]. Managers are powerful, evolvable agents (or coalitions of agents)
that can control an organization to support co-operators and to suppress free riders. Managers
control an organization by applying constraints. Constraints can influence the dynamical
behaviour within the organization without being influenced in return (this is the essence of
control). Constraints can operate to direct resources preferentially to co-operator agents, and
can punish or suppress free-riders. In order to apply constraints, managers must function
independently of the dynamical interactions within the organization proper. They must be
able to stand outside and be able to act across the dynamic. The dynamical separation of a
manager from an organization often results from the fact that the processes that constitute
managers are larger in scale, involve slower rate processes and/or are relatively more stable
than the processes that constitute the organization proper [32]. In order to survive and persist,
managers do not depend on participation in exchange relations and other dynamical
interactions within the organization (for a more detailed discussion of constraints and how
they arise at any level of organization, see [32]). Instead, managers can use their constraining
power to appropriate whatever resources they need from the organization. Without the
capacity to constrain (to influence without being influenced in return), any attempt by
managers to appropriate resources for themselves or to distribute resources to particular
agents could be undermined by other agents, and free riders could escape control. Just as
powerless members of a human organization are unable to control or manage the
organization, powerless agents within an organization cannot apply constraints to it or begin
to manage it—they cannot influence without being influenced in return. Because Ryan et al
[46] fail to take into account this relationship between power and constraints, they fail in their
10
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of how the major evolutionary transitions in

individuality were enabled. In particular, they fail to justify the feasibility of their key
assumption: they assume that a single allele could somehow empower otherwise ordinary
members of a population to apply pro-social constraints that suppress free-riders (including
by punishing them), and then maintain cooperation in the face of thieving and other forms of
free-riding. Furthermore, they fail to explain why selection would favour individuals who use
power pro-socially, rather than individuals who use their power to increase their fitness in
more direct ways e.g. by simply appropriating benefits produced by others.

Figure 2 is a schematic representation of the architecture of an externally-managed

organization of agents:

In Figure 2, each agent is represented by a circle containing a letter. The organizational

architecture is enclosed by a dotted line. M represents the powerful, evolvable manager. The
part of the organization that does not include the manager is comparable to the autocatalytic
architecture depicted in figure 1. The two agents marked ‘F’ are free-riders on that
organization, and the two agents marked ‘C’ are co-operators that contribute to the
organization but are not supported in return. The normal arrows represent the flow of benefits
within the organization. The bolded arrows originating from the manager represent support
by the manager for the two co-operators (C) that are not otherwise supported within the
organization. The two dashed and bolded arrows originating from the manager represent the
11
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

suppression by the manager of free-riders (F). Finally, the heavily bolded arrows that point
towards the manager represent the unilateral appropriation by the manager of benefits from
the organization.

Management and the constraints it applies can be more or less enabling or more or less
prescriptive. Furthermore, where management itself is comprised of a coalition of agents, it
will encounter its own cooperation barrier. This barrier can be overcome by constraints that
suppress competition within management. Management can be external to the agents that are
being managed, or can be internal to the agents and distributed across them [24, 31, 25].
Examples of ‘external management’ include: RNA/DNA management of the metabolism of a
cell; management of a human society by its government; and management of the employees
of a corporation by the board of directors (in these three examples, the managers may seem to
be integrated parts of the organization. However, on closer examination the power
relationships between the manager and other members of the organization are
unmistakeable). Examples of ‘distributed internal management’ include: a multi-cellular
organism in which the behaviour of cells is controlled across the organization by genetic
constraints that are reproduced in each cell; and a human tribal society in which the
behaviour of each member is constrained by internalized norms as well as genetic constraints
that are reproduced in each member. In the case of internal distributed management, the
behaviour of every agent in the organization is controlled and coordinated by a system of
constraints that is reproduced within each and every agent. As such, the constraints reach
across the entire organization, and also capture the benefits (and harms) produced by their
impacts on the organization as a whole. Distributed internal management can be as effective
at controlling an organization as external control. But where it operates, it is often mistaken
for an absence of control [34].

Stewart [31, 25-26] examines in some detail how the coincidence of interests between
management and the organization as a whole drives the self-organization and emergence of
management (management can appropriate greater resources from an organization that is
managed in ways that overcome the cooperation barrier).

From the broader perspective developed here, the huge literature on the emergence of
cooperation can be seen as a search for particular circumstances in which constraints that
allow some degree of consequence-capture just happen to exist. But ‘nature’ has not limited
itself to producing advantageous cooperative organization only in those special circumstances
where suitable constraints exist as ‘happy accidents’. Instead, in the transition to life and in
all subsequent major transitions, ‘nature’ has incorporated within organizations a mechanism
that has the capacity to search for and implement whatever systems of constraints will enable
consequence-capture and the emergence of complex cooperative organizations. Evolvable
management enables the discovery and implementation of whatever sets of constraints will
maximize appropriate consequence-capture in any organization in any situation.

12
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

5. The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis and the Origins of Life

5.1 The Emergence of Management

As is the case at other levels of organization, appropriate management had the potential to
overcome the cooperation barrier which was faced by self-producing organizations of
molecular species. But what would have driven the emergence of management in the
transition from non-life to life? And what characteristics would management need to have in
order to manage molecular organizations effectively?
The prime candidates for early managers are evolvable coalitions of polymers such as RNA
that had the power to intervene catalytically in organizations of molecular species [24, 31, 25-
26]. Initially, RNA or other coalitions might simply have plundered the contents of
collectively autocatalytic organizations, using them to assist their own reproduction and then
moving on to plunder other organizations (e.g. by using as ‘food’ contents of an autocatalytic
organization that are constituents of the RNA molecules). Importantly, these coalitions would
not have participated in the internal catalytic interactions and relationships that occurred
within the organizations they exploited. The coalitions would have stood outside the
organizations dynamically and appropriated the resources they needed (for more detail on the
nature of this relationship, see [32]. The capacity to do this, together with their evolvability
and their potential to catalytically intervene in organizations unilaterally, would have given
them the potential to control and manage an organization as a proto-metabolism.

What would cause these RNA or other coalitions to realize this potential to become
managers? Why would they use their power to overcome the cooperation barrier? What
would drive the transition from plunderers to managers? Coalitions could achieve an
advantage if they discovered ways to use their evolvable catalytic capacities to enhance the
productivity of an organization and manage it as a proto-metabolism. This is because
coalitions that could increase the productivity of organizations could be able to harvest
greater benefits from them for their own use. The existence of the cooperation barrier
provided an enormous potential for coalitions to increase their fitness by doing just this [24,
25-26, 47]. The coalitions could discover ways to intervene in organizations to support
molecular species that contribute to the productivity of the organization, but would not be
supported otherwise. Furthermore, they could suppress side-reactions and other free-riders
that impede productivity (e.g. by degrading the first catalyst in a chain of side reactions, or by
preferentially supporting alternative processes within the organization that do not produce
side reactions).

Selection would favour coalitions of RNA that managed chemical organizations in ways that
increased the benefits they could harvest from them. As a result, coalitions would
increasingly move away from plundering and destroying organizations. Coalitions would
more and more become effective managers, with each coalition managing a particular
organization as a proto-metabolism, enhancing the productivity of the organization and
increasing the resources that the coalition could harvest on an on-going basis. A coincidence
of interests would arise between the coalition and the proto-metabolism it managed. This
13
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

evolutionary sequence is broadly analogous to the historical transition which was undergone
by Mongol tribes: they began as plunderers that destroyed other societies and then moved on
to new conquests and pillaging. But eventually the Mongols became rulers of the societies
they conquered, introducing systems of governance (management) that enhanced the
productivity of the societies. Rather than plunder a society once, they could harvest an
enhanced stream of benefits from it on an on-going basis.
The development of management capabilities gave RNA ‘the power of life and death’ over
proteins that were supported or inhibited by its catalytic capacities. RNA had the power to
determine whether or not these proteins could exist as members of the organization. The
seminal book on evolutionary transitions by Maynard Smith and Szathmáry [28] did not
recognise the critical importance of the use of power by managers to enable the transition
from non-life to life and the transitions at most other levels of organization. Maynard Smith
and Szathmáry instead argued that the use of power in this way is largely restricted to the
human level of organization in the form of armed force and/or a consensus imposed by a
majority. Although it is true that RNA was not armed, it could develop considerable power
over an organization and it was this power that enabled it to overcome the cooperation
barrier.
5.2 The Transition from Chemistry to Life.
Effective, evolvable management (whether RNA or otherwise) would have enabled self-
producing organizations to transition from non-living chemistry to life. As we have seen, un-
managed, self-producing chemical organizations were only able to explore a possibility space
that is seriously limited. But effective, evolvable management would have changed
everything. It opened up enormous new areas of possibility space to self-producing
organizations, enabling them to go far beyond what is possible through un-managed chemical
interactions and processes. Management opened the door to entirely novel and hitherto
unknown arrangements of matter that were self-producing. It did so by controlling and
manipulating chemical processes so that they served the organization’s functions and
purposes. The nature and functioning of the constituents of the organization were no longer
determined by chemistry alone. It was now dictated by the evolutionary needs of the
organization as a whole. With comprehensive consequence-capture, the constituents of self-
producing organizations would tend to adapt in ways that served the interests of the
organization. As a consequence, managed organizations would tend to evolve and adapt as
coherent wholes that could develop all the characteristics of individuality. In contrast, un-
managed autocatalytic organizations were like ecosystems—they could contain autocatalytic
cycles and processes but would not evolve as individuals (comprehensive management and
consequence-capture are prerequisites for the full emergence of individuality). In the service
of their individuality, managed organizations would explore an extensive new space of
possible organizational forms, relationships, processes and subsystems. These could not arise
through normal chemical processes in the absence of management. With the transition to life,
a new kind of chemistry emerged on the planet: managed chemistry. From a
thermodynamical perspective, management enabled the emergence of entirely new kinds of
material processes that could dissipate energy gradients more effectively. Management was
the key to the transition from non-life to life.
14
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

From this perspective, the central function of the DNA apparatus (and RNA before it) was
not the storage of information. Its primary significance in the evolution of life was to serve as
management that enabled the cooperation barrier that separates chemistry from life to be
overcome. The storage of information is incidental to the primary function of the DNA/RNA
apparatus which is to manage. Effective management requires memory.

5.3 What kind of management would be favoured by selection?

As we have seen, individual selection operating on managers would tend to have favoured
management that overcame the cooperation barrier facing proto-metabolisms. But what were
the particular characteristics that management would need to enable it to overcome the barrier
fully as possible and be favoured by selection? What were the forms of management that
would have had the potential to manage most effectively?

5.3.1 The limitations of managers comprised only of autocatalytic networks

The primary function of management is to overcome the cooperation barrier by supporting

molecular species and processes that are beneficial to the organization and by suppressing
side reactions and other free riding processes that are not. Ideally, effective managers would
need to be able to catalyse the formation of any metabolic polymer that could benefit the
organization. Managers that were limited in their capacity to catalyse useful reactions in a
metabolism would tend to be less effective than those that were not so limited. Would this
requirement be able to be met by managers that were themselves comprised only of
autocatalytic networks of polymers in which the polymers did not self-replicate individually
through a template-based process (i.e. by networks of polymers that are replicated/reproduced
only collectively)? It is conceivable that suitable autocatalytic networks of such ‘managerial
polymers’ might have some capacity to manage a proto-metabolism that included networks of
other polymers (metabolic polymers) and small-molecule autocatalytic loops and processes.
This might be the case where some of the members of the managerial autocatalytic network
were able to catalyse at least some beneficial reactions in the proto-metabolism. However,
such autocatalytic networks would be very limited in their management capabilities. This is
because their evolvability would be severely restricted for two reasons: first, they would not
be able to evolve and explore possibility space through a ‘copying-with-errors’ process.
Second, like all un-managed autocatalytic networks, they would encounter a cooperation
barrier in full. This cooperation barrier would limit them to exploring only a small proportion
of the space of catalytic possibilities and therefore of the space of beneficial management
interventions. There would be many conceivable managerial polymers that could catalyse
beneficial reactions in the proto-metabolism that would not be sustainable in the autocatalytic
network due to the cooperation barrier. Because such managerial networks would not be able
to catalyse the formation of many potentially useful metabolic polymers, they would be
incapable of implementing many management controls that would be beneficial to any proto-
metabolism they might manage.

15
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

For example, consider a manager constituted by an autocatalytic network (coalition) of RNA

molecules that do not self-replicate individually by a template-based process. The RNA
manages a protein-catalysed proto-metabolism. Because of the cooperation barrier faced by
this managerial network, there would be many RNA molecular species that would not be
sustainable in the network—their formation would not be catalysed by other members of the
network. This would be likely to include many RNA molecules that could catalyse the
formation of particular proteins that would be useful in the proto-metabolism, but that are not
sustainable within the proto-metabolism because of the cooperation barrier it faces. These
metabolic proteins might, for example, catalyse beneficial reactions or help constitute useful
structures, if they were able to persist in the proto-metabolism due to support by appropriate
managerial RNA. For these reasons, managers constituted only by autocatalytic networks of
RNA or other polymers are unable to overcome comprehensively the cooperation barrier
faced by proto-metabolisms.

5.3.2 The superiority of digitally-coded management

Given the seriously restricted management capabilities of managers comprised only of

autocatalytic networks of polymers that are incapable of self-replication through a template-
based process, is there a different kind of molecular system that does not share these
limitations? We will see that if a molecular system is to manage proto-metabolisms
comprehensively, it must have at least two characteristics:

(a) In principle, it must have the potential to generate a relatively unlimited range of
interventions in the organization it manages.

(b) The success of any given variant intervention must depend only on its contribution to the
organization as a whole and not, for example, on its ability to compete internally with
other variants.

As we have seen, the first of these requirements cannot be met by managers comprised only
of autocatalytic networks of managerial polymers that are replicated only collectively and are
incapable of template-based self-replication. However, it could be satisfied by a managerial
polymer that self-replicates individually through a copying process that produces occasional
errors. In principle, the replication and mutation of such a managerial polymer would be able
to explore fully the space of all possible combinations of monomers that could be included in
that kind of managerial polymer (this assumes that the managerial polymer is associated with
catalytic arrangements that enable all variant polymers to also self-replicate individually.
However, although the relaxation of this assumption changes the details of the argument
advanced below, it does not change its conclusions about the advantages of digitally-coded
management). Because such a managerial polymer could (in principle) give rise to any
possible polymer of its kind, it would have the potential to discover and exploit all possible
catalytic effects that could be produced by that kind of polymer. For example, such a manager
comprising RNA polymers would (in principle) be able to discover and utilize any RNA
polymer that had a beneficial catalytic effect on some aspect of the proto-metabolism it
16
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

manages e.g. by catalysing the formation of a useful protein enzyme. Of course, in practice,
many polymers would not be discovered in any particular population of managed proto-
metabolisms. This is because, for example, relevant mutations might never arise, or because a
particular managerial polymer may only be able to be reached through a sequence of
mutations that are not each viable. Again, however, this does not disturb the central thrust of
the argument being advanced in this section.

However, would the ability to produce any kind of managerial polymer enable
comprehensive management, at least in principle? Consider a metabolism that includes an
autocatalytic network of metabolic polymers such as proteins. Would a manager comprising
self-replicating RNA polymers be able to comprehensively overcome the cooperation barrier
for the network of those metabolic polymers? To do so, ideally the manager would have to be
able to catalyse at an optimal level the formation of any possible metabolic polymer. But it
would be unable to do this. Although the manager could (in principle) produce any possible
molecule of the managerial polymers that constitute it, there might be useful metabolic
polymers whose formation was not catalysed by any of these.

How might a manager be constituted so that it could catalyse the production of any possible
metabolic polymer, in principle? The manager could do so if managerial polymers served as
templates for the production of metabolic polymers such that the sequence of monomers was
determined by the sequence of monomers in the managerial polymers. Since the mode of
reproduction of managerial polymers (copying-with-errors) could, in principle, produce any
variant of managerial polymer with any sequence and length of monomers, such a translation
process could (in principle) produce any possible metabolic polymer. Consider again the
example of a manager comprised of RNA polymers that self-replicate and serve as templates
for the production of protein metabolic polymers. In this arrangement, the sequence of
monomers in the RNA polymer would act as a digital code for the sequence of monomers in
the proteins [34, 10]. In principle, it could provide the basis for a system that is able to
produce any feasible protein at an optimal level through time.

The second requirement for comprehensive management is that the success of any variant
intervention must depend only on its contribution to the organization. This condition would
be violated if the managerial polymers could self-replicate independently and therefore
compete with each other. If this occurred, a variant that produced a metabolic polymer that
was highly beneficial to the organization might be out-competed and unable to persist within
the manager or unable to produce the metabolic polymer at an optimal level. This is a much
more limited version of the cooperation barrier that is faced by autocatalytic networks, and it
could be overcome far more simply. In particular, competition between managerial polymers
could be prevented if all the polymers were constrained so that they were only able to
replicate together, as a unity. For example, all managerial polymers could be bound together
to form a single entity (e.g. a single chromosome) that replicates as a unit [35] (this is
analogous at the level of human organization to a single king who rules a society and is
bound by strict succession arrangements [25]). As a further example which encompasses
standard mitosis and meiosis, managerial polymers might be bound together to form a small
17
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

number of entities (again, for example, chromosomes) that are then constrained by additional
arrangements which ensure that they replicate together only when the cell reproduces, and
then only as a unit [36] (this is analogous at the level of human societies to the constitution
and associated arrangements that constrain a parliament [25]).

In summary, managers constituted only by autocatalytic networks of non-self-replicating

polymers would be unable to overcome the cooperation barrier faced by proto-metabolisms
that they manage. This is because the cooperation barrier encountered by the managerial
network itself would prevent it supporting many processes that would be highly beneficial to
the proto-metabolism. However, this limitation would not apply to a manager constituted by
self-replicating polymers which were themselves able to catalyse metabolic polymers such as
proteins. In principle, such a manager would be able to explore the space of all possible
managerial self-replicators. But there is no guarantee that the managerial self-replicators
would have the potential to catalyse all possible metabolic polymers (e.g. RNA falls far short
of having the potential to catalyse the formation of all possible proteins). Only a manager
constituted by self-replicating polymers whose sequence of monomers serves to specify the
sequence of monomers in metabolic polymers could achieve this (in principle). Hence
managers must utilize a digital code if they are to overcome comprehensively the cooperation
barrier faced by ‘analogical’ proto-metabolisms of molecular species. ‘Analogical’ managers
are unable to do so. In addition, further arrangements are necessary to constrain managerial
self-replicators to prevent competition between them on the basis of criteria other than the
success of the interventions they initiate.

For these reasons, the transition from non-life to life had to await the emergence of
management that embodied such a digital code. Before digitally-coded management emerged,
layers of less effective and less evolvable forms of ‘analogically-informed’ management was
likely to have emerged, forming hierarchies of management (this may have included layers of
management constituted by autocatalytic networks of non-self-replicating RNA as well as
networks of peptides/proteins or other polymers). The eventual takeover of analogically-
informed metabolisms by digitally-informed management is analogous at the human level to
the procedural redescription that occurs during human development in which procedural
knowledge is re-described and extended by declarative knowledge [37].

The digitally-informed arrangements embodied in the genetic apparatus were subsequently

co-opted by evolution to overcome the cooperation barrier at other levels of organization e.g.
to provide the distributed internal management that underpinned the emergence of multi-
cellular organizations and that also underpinned the emergence of organizations of multi-
cellular organisms such as insect societies. It was not until the emergence of complex human
societies that a new kind of digital code evolved in the form of language [10].

18
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

6. Relationship Between the Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis and Other

Hypotheses About the Origins of Life

6.1 Other Hypotheses

The managed-metabolism hypothesis incorporates a number of the key elements of other

major hypotheses about the origins of life and combines these with new features which
overcome the deficiencies of these other hypotheses.

In particular, like gene-first hypotheses, the managed-metabolism hypothesis relies upon the
emergence of self-replicating RNA molecules. But unlike gene-first hypotheses, it does so far
more plausibly. Many versions of the gene-first hypothesis postulate that RNA arose
spontaneously from an unstructured organic-rich soup. In contrast, the managed-metabolism
hypothesis proposes that the emergence of RNA molecules (or other potential managers) was
scaffolded by the prior emergence of an ‘ecosystem’ of autocatalytic networks and cycles of
molecular species (for a discussion about the likely emergence of a community of proto-
organizations, see [38]). As these networks and cycles self-organized and evolved, they are
likely to have built up chemical processes and species that significantly increased the
likelihood that RNA could emerge. Dyson [17] outlines one specific process by which this
might have occurred. Of course, even though the first RNA molecules might have emerged
from self-producing chemical organizations of other molecular species, this does not mean
that RNA would have always thereafter been dependent upon those organizations for its
survival and reproduction. Rather, as discussed above, its evolvable catalytic capacity gave it
the potential to unilaterally appropriate resources from other organizations and eventually to
develop the capacity to manage them.

In another major difference from most gene-first hypotheses, the managed-metabolism

hypothesis does not propose that ‘naked’ self-replicating RNA molecules proceeded to
progressively create around themselves a complex, supporting metabolism, starting from
scratch. Instead, it argues that potential managers are much more likely to have taken over
and managed pre-existing organizations that emerged in the chemical ‘ecosystem’, rather
than to have created them afresh (particularly given the difficulties of building highly
complex, dynamical organizations from scratch using an evolutionary mechanism that
operates ‘top down’ and generally makes only one small change at a time).

Like metabolism-first hypotheses about the origin of life, the managed-metabolism

hypothesis also relies on the emergence of autocatalytic networks of molecular species. But
current metabolism-first hypotheses do not include any mechanism that would overcome the
cooperation barrier sufficiently to enable the emergence and persistence of highly complex
metabolisms (it has been shown that compartmentalization and selection operating at the
level of compartments can enable the emergence of some cooperation, particularly by the
suppression of free-riders [e.g. see 39, 28]. But it has not been demonstrated that this
mechanism can account for the emergence within self-producing molecular organizations of
the complex cooperative organization that characterizes life). The managed-metabolism
19
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

hypothesis proposes that the emergence of the complex, cooperative metabolisms found in
modern cells required the emergence of comprehensive management that was able to support
co-operators at optimal levels and to suppress free-riders.

A widely considered hypothesis that has some surface similarities to the managed-
metabolism hypothesis is Dyson’s parasite/symbiosis hypothesis of the origins of life [17].
Dyson suggests that RNA emerged first within self-producing chemical organizations and
developed a parasitic relationship with them. He goes on to argue that this relationship
eventually co-evolved into a mutually-beneficial symbiotic relationship (he suggests that this
parallels the later symbiotic origin of the eukaryote cell identified by Margulis [15]).
However, Dyson’s hypothesis misses both the fundamental reason why evolution favours the
role played by RNA in the transition to life as well as the very nature of that role. More
specifically, he does not recognise the existence of a cooperation barrier which (a) seriously
limits the ability of self-producing proto-metabolisms to develop advantageous cooperative
arrangements and (b) creates the potential for RNA to provide significant advantages to itself
and to the organization it manages by overcoming the barrier (these are absences that are
shared by all other hypotheses that postulate an RNA or DNA takeover of metabolisms).

Dyson did raise the possibility that autocatalytic metabolisms may encounter some of the
‘catastrophes’ that have been shown by simulations to beset RNA quasi-species and
hypercycles [40]. These catastrophes include elements of the cooperation barrier that I have
described. However, Dyson left to future simulations an assessment of whether any of these
catastrophes would indeed apply to proto-metabolisms. His hypothesis therefore did not come
close to recognising the role that RNA had in overcoming these and other instances of the
cooperation barrier, or how the significant benefits that flow from this could drive the
comprehensive take-over of proto-metabolisms by RNA.

Because Dyson’s hypothesis misses the role of RNA in overcoming the cooperation barrier, it
also misses: (a) the critically important power relationship between the RNA and the proto-
metabolism that enables the RNA to emerge as an evolvable manager; (b) that the power of
RNA management to apply constraints across the proto-metabolism enables it to
progressively overcome the cooperation barrier (the RNA apparatus becomes ‘the Leviathan’
of the proto-cell [for more about how ‘the Leviathan’ overcomes the cooperation barrier in
human societies, see [41]); and (c) that the integration of simple cells into emerging
eukaryote cells is, in fact, an example of the capacity of powerful management to overcome
the cooperation barrier (as are all other relevant major evolutionary transitions). It is not an
example of mutually-beneficial symbiosis between equals (the genetic apparatus of the
emerging eukaryote cell manages/enslaves the simple cells that are incorporated into it [e.g.
see 28, 25]). So it is the managed-metabolism hypothesis that is consistent with the other
relevant major evolutionary transitions, not the parasite/symbiosis hypothesis.

Ganti’s ‘Chemoton Model’ of a simple cell also has some superficial similarities to elements
of the managed-metabolism hypothesis. Like the managed metabolism hypothesis, the
Chemoton Model includes a ‘genetic subsystem’ that controls and regulates the dynamics of
20
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

the system as a whole (e.g. see [42]). However, like Dyson, Ganti does not recognize
anything like the cooperation barrier which, according to the managed-metabolism
hypothesis, is the key driver of the emergence and evolution of management. Also unlike the
managed-metabolism hypothesis, Ganti’s approach does not suggest that the Chemoton’s
genetic subsystem emerges to support co-operators and suppress side reactions and other
free-riders. In their extensive discussion of the Chemoton Model, Griesemer and Szathmary
acknowledge that it does not provide a solution to the side-reaction problem [43].

6.2 Testing the Hypothesis

Because the managed-metabolism hypothesis includes elements that are also part of other
hypotheses about the origins of life, theoretical and empirical work on those elements of
other hypotheses will also assist in testing and developing parts of the managed-metabolism
hypothesis. For example, simulations and laboratory studies that demonstrate the plausibility
of the self-organization of self-producing organizations of molecular species will be highly
relevant to the plausibility of comparable aspects of the managed-metabolism hypothesis, as
will demonstrations that their evolvability is impeded by a cooperation barrier. Any
laboratory demonstration that adds to the plausibility of the view that RNA could emerge
‘spontaneously’ in particular circumstances will also significantly strengthen the managed-
metabolism hypothesis. But unlike many ‘gene-first’ scenarios, the plausibility of the
managed-metabolism hypothesis would be even more significantly enhanced by any
demonstration that the emergence of RNA is far more likely if it could be scaffolded by the
kinds of chemical processes that are likely to have arisen only in self-producing proto-
metabolisms.

However, any testing of the hypothesised emergence of management and its potential to
overcome the cooperation barrier is likely to require theoretical and experimental work that is
specifically focused on the managed-metabolism hypothesis. It seems likely that this work
would need to begin with attempts to simulate the emergence of management and its take-
over of proto-metabolisms, rather than through laboratory work. Until un-managed proto-
metabolisms can be produced in the laboratory, attempts to produce actual managed proto-
metabolisms is likely to be premature. Theoretical and laboratory work on the emergence of
management at the level of chemical organizations can also be informed and enhanced by
work on the emergence of management at other levels of organization, including at the level
of human organizations (e.g. see [25], [44]).

7. Conclusions
Un-managed organizations of autocatalytic networks of molecular species can be self-
producing and can also evolve by natural selection to a limited extent. But un-managed
organizations encounter a cooperation barrier. The barrier limits their capacity to develop
complex cooperative arrangements within the organization. This in turn seriously limits the
emergence within organizations of complex functionality that serves the interests of the
organization as a whole and enables it to function and adapt as a coherent entity. Complex
21
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

individuality therefore cannot emerge. All known living cells exhibit individuality supported
by complex functionality. If we take this to be an essential criterion for life, un-managed self-
producing organizations are unable to make the transition from non-life to life.
For complex individuality to evolve, digitally-coded management is necessary to overcome
the cooperation barrier. If the cooperation barrier did not exist and if un-managed self-
producing autocatalytic organizations of molecular species were somehow able to evolve
complex functionality, living processes would be organized entirely differently to the way
they are: organizations of molecular species would be able to individuate fully and transition
from non-life to life without the emergence of management. If this were the case, living cells
would not have their distinctive two-tiered structure comprising an analogically-informed
metabolism governed by a digitally-coded management.
However, the cooperation barrier does exist. Management was essential for the transition
from non-life to life. Effective management unleashed the cooperative creativity that
produced ‘endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful’. Without management, natural
selection would have been incapable of producing or shaping life of any form.
The relational perspective that underpins the managed-metabolism hypothesis recognises that
there may be many chemical species and processes other than those found in life on earth that
can constitute life. This is because these alternatives are capable of engaging in the
cooperative relationships and forms of organization that qualify as life—i.e. they can
constitute organizations that are self-producing, digitally-managed and capable of developing
individuality supported by complex functionality (provided, of course, they have access to
suitable sources of free energy and other resources).
On this planet, proteins, RNA and DNA play key roles in living processes. Metabolisms in
cellular forms of life are constituted by particular chemical cycles and processes that are
catalysed primarily by proteins, and digitally-coded management is constituted by particular
forms of RNA and DNA. At higher levels of organization on this planet, self-producing
organizations and digitally-coded management are constituted by larger-scale entities (e.g. by
humans that use language and by organizations of humans at the level of societies). On other
planets and in other circumstances, the actual constituents of the simplest living processes
may be quite different to those on Earth. But they are likely to be organized into the two-
tiered structure we find here: a cooperative metabolism organized by digitally-coded
management.

8. Acknowledgements
The author acknowledges the benefit of useful discussions with David Richards, Mark
Roddam and Wilson Kennel.

9. References
1. Woese, C.R. The evolution of the genetic code. In: The Genetic Code, Harper and Row: New York, NY,
USA, 1967; pp. 179–195.
2. Orgel, L.E. Evolution of the genetic apparatus. J. Mol. Biol. 1968, 38, 381-93.
3. Gilbert, W. Origin of Life: The RNA World. Nature 1986, 319, 618.
22
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

4. Pross, A. Causation and the origin of life. Metabolism or replication first? Orig. Life Evol. Biosph. 2004,
34, 307–321.
5. Robertson, M.P.; Joyce, G.F. The origins of the RNA world. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2012, 4,
a003608.
6. Higgs, P.G.; Lehman, N. The RNA World: molecular cooperation at the origins of life. Nature Reviews
Genetics 2015, 16, 7-17.
7. Bernhardt, H.S. The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all
the others). Biol. Direct 2012, 7, 23.
8. Baum, D.A. Selection and the Origin of Cells. BioScience 2015, 65, 678-684.
9. Feitelson, D.; Treinin, M. The Blueprint for Life? Computer 2002, 35, 34-40.
10. Hoffmeyer, J.; Emmeche, C. Code-duality and the semiotics of nature. In: On Semiotic Modeling,
Anderson, M.; Merrell, F., Eds.; Grutyer, New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 117-166.
11. Nanney, D.L. Cortical Patterns in Cellular Morphogenesis. Science 1986, 160, 469-502.
12. Yaffe, M.P. The Machinery of Mitochondrial Inheritance and Behavior. Science 1999, 283, 1493-1497.
13. Roth, M.G. Inheriting the Golgi. Cell 1999, 99, 559-562.
14. Cavalier-Smith, T. The membranome and membrane heredity in development and evolution. In:
Organelles, genomes and eukaryote phylogeny: an evolutionary synthesis in the age of genomics, Horner,
D.S.; Hirt, R.P. Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida, FL, USA, 2004; pp. 335-351.
15. Margulis, L. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, W.H. Freeman and Company: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1981.
16. Oparin, A.I. The Origin of Life on Earth, 3rd ed.; Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, UK, 1957.
17. Dyson, F.J. Origins of Life, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985.
18. Bagley, R.J.; Farmer, J.D. Spontaneous Emergence of a Metabolism. In: Artificial Life II, Langton, C.;
Taylor, J.; Rasmussen, S. Eds.; Addison and Wesley: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 93-141.
19. Kauffman, S.A. The Origins of Order: self-organization and selection in evolution, Oxford University
Press: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
20. Trefil, J.; Morowitz, H.J.; Smith, E. The Origin of Life: A case is made for the descent of electrons.
American Scientist 2009, 97, 206–213.
21. Vasas, V.; Fernando, C.; Santos, M.; Kauffman, S.A.; Szathmáry, E. Evolution before genes. Biology
Direct 2012, 7, 1.
22. Virgo, N.; Ikegami, T. Autocatalysis before enzymes: the emergence of prebiotic chain reactions. Advances
in Artificial Life, ECAL 2013, 12, 240–247.
23. Nighe, P.; Hordijk, W.; Kauffman, S.A.; Walker, S.I.; Schmidt, F.J.; Kemble, H.A.; Yeates, J.A.; Lehman,
N. Prebiotic network evolution: six key parameters. Mol. Biosyst. 2015, 11, 3206-17.
24. Stewart, J.E. Metaevolution. J. Soc. Evol. Syst. 1995, 18, 113-114.
25. Stewart, J.E. Evolution’s Arrow: the direction of evolution and the future of humanity, Chapman Press:
Canberra, AU, 2000.
26. Stewart, J.E. The direction of evolution: the rise of cooperative organization. BioSystems 2014, 123, 27-36.
27. Szathmáry, E.; Santos, M.; Fernando, C. Evolutionary potential and requirements for minimal protocells.
Top Curr. Chem. 2005, 259, 167–211.
28. Maynard Smith, J.; Szathmáry, E. The Major Transitions in Evolution, Freeman: Oxford, UK, 1995.
29. Stewart, J.E. The self-organizing society: the role of institutions. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2840637 (accessed 1
November 2016).
30. Calcott, B.; Sterelny, K. Eds. The Major Transitions in Evolution Revisited, The MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2001.
31. Stewart, J.E. Evolutionary transitions and artificial life. Artificial Life 1997, 3, 101-120.
32. Salthe, S. Evolving Hierarchical Systems, Columbia University Press, Columbia, SC, USA, 1985.
33. Ostrom, E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1990.
34. Wilden, A. System and Structure, Tavistock: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
35. Maynard Smith, J.; Szathmáry, E. The origin of chromosomes I. Selection for linkage. Journal of
Theoretical Biology 1993, 164, 437-446.
36. Ettinger, L. Meiosis: a selection stage preserving the genome's pattern of organisation. Evolutionary Theory
1986, 8, 17-26.
37. Karmiloff-Smith, A. Beyond Modularity: A Developmental Perspective on Cognitive Science, MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992.
38. Woese, C.R. A new biology for a new century. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2004, 68, 173–186.
39. Szathmáry, E.; Demeter, L. Group selection of early replicators and the origin of life. J. Theor. Biol. 1987,
128, 463–486.
40. Niesert, U.; Harnasch, D.; Bresch, C. Origin of life between Scylla and Charybdis. J. Mol. Evol. 1981, 17,
348-53.
23
 The Managed-Metabolism Hypothesis

41. Hobbes, T. Leviathan, Hackett Classics: Indianapolis, IN, USA, 1651.

42. Ganti, T. The Principles of Life, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002.
43. Griesemer, J.; Szathmáry, E. Ganti’s Chemoton model and life criteria. In: Protocells: Bridging Nonliving
and Living Matter, Rasmussen, S.; Bedau, M.; Chen, L.; Deamer, D.; Krakauer, D.C.; Packard, N.H.;
Stadler, P.F., Eds.; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2009; pp. 481-513
44. Turchin, P. Ultrasociety: how 10,000 years of war made humans the greatest cooperators on Earth, Beresta
Books: LCC, Connecticut, CT, USA, 2015.
45. Razeto-Barry, P. Autopoiesis 40 years Later. A Review and a Reformulation. Orig. Life Evol. Biosph.
2012, 42, 6543-567.
46. Ryan, P.A.; Powers, S.T.; Watson, R.A. Social niche construction and evolutionary transitions in individuality.
Biol. Philos. 2016, 31, 59-79.
47. Stewart, J. E., The Evolution of Cooperative Organization and the Origins of Life. Presented at the Workshop
on Open-Ended Evolution held at the 15th International Conference on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living
Systems, Cancun, Mexico. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2811492 (accessed 1 November 2016).

24