497
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_53
Chapter 53
Non-linear Reciprocity
53.1 The Crisis of Connectivity
Reciprocity has been fundamental to the study of electromagnetism, optics, electrostatics, electrical fields, and the realization antennas both transmit and receive
signal—the cumulative work of researchers like Michael Faraday (1791–1867),
1
Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853–1928),
2
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894), and
John R. Carson (1886–1940).
3
In social and ecological arenas, reciprocity has
proved not just key to life—the single essential quotient—but that quality of life
that gives it a rationale, energy, substance, identity. In another form, it is kinship,
as Indian biologist Madhav Gadgil has elucidated. The foundation of community;
the source of protection, of future confidence in reciprocal stability, shared sacred
spaces, ancestral feelings, and fair transactions,
4
all the qualities of the human
experience that militate against the notion of “the selfish gene.”
Just because genes are involved in the coding for life, they don’t (arguably)
necessarily determine everything. Hence, Holmes Rolston III declares, “We are
having trouble seeing how any one gene is in any position to act selfishly”.
5
And
1 On the Various Forces in Nature, by Michael Faraday, Ed. By W. Crookes, Chatto and Windus,
London, 1873.
2 H. A. Lorentz, “The theorem of Poynting concerning the energy in the electromagnetic field and
two general propositions concerning the propagation of light,” Amsterdammer Akademie der
Wetenschappen 4 p. 176 1896.
3 J. R. Carson, “A generalization of reciprocal theorem,” Bell System Technical Journal 3 (3),
393–399, 1924. Also J. R. Carson, “The reciprocal energy theorem,” ibid. 9 (4), 325–331 1930.
4 See “Of Life and Artifacts,” by Madhav Gadgil, in The Biophilia Hypothesis, Edited by Stephen
R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson, Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, D.C. 1993,
pp. 365–377.
5 See “Biophilia, Selfish Genes, Shared Values,” by Holmes Rolston III, in The Biophilia
Hypothesis, Edited by Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson, Island Press/Shearwater Books,
Washington, D.C. 1993, p. 385.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
M. C. Tobias, J. G. Morrison, On the Nature of Ecological Paradox,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64526-7_53
Chapter 53
Non-linear Reciprocity
53.1 The Crisis of Connectivity
Reciprocity has been fundamental to the study of electromagnetism, optics, electrostatics, electrical fields, and the realization antennas both transmit and receive
signal—the cumulative work of researchers like Michael Faraday (1791–1867),
1
Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853–1928),
2
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894), and
John R. Carson (1886–1940).
3
In social and ecological arenas, reciprocity has
proved not just key to life—the single essential quotient—but that quality of life
that gives it a rationale, energy, substance, identity. In another form, it is kinship,
as Indian biologist Madhav Gadgil has elucidated. The foundation of community;
the source of protection, of future confidence in reciprocal stability, shared sacred
spaces, ancestral feelings, and fair transactions,
4
all the qualities of the human
experience that militate against the notion of “the selfish gene.”
Just because genes are involved in the coding for life, they don’t (arguably)
necessarily determine everything. Hence, Holmes Rolston III declares, “We are
having trouble seeing how any one gene is in any position to act selfishly”.
5
And
1 On the Various Forces in Nature, by Michael Faraday, Ed. By W. Crookes, Chatto and Windus,
London, 1873.
2 H. A. Lorentz, “The theorem of Poynting concerning the energy in the electromagnetic field and
two general propositions concerning the propagation of light,” Amsterdammer Akademie der
Wetenschappen 4 p. 176 1896.
3 J. R. Carson, “A generalization of reciprocal theorem,” Bell System Technical Journal 3 (3),
393–399, 1924. Also J. R. Carson, “The reciprocal energy theorem,” ibid. 9 (4), 325–331 1930.
4 See “Of Life and Artifacts,” by Madhav Gadgil, in The Biophilia Hypothesis, Edited by Stephen
R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson, Island Press/Shearwater Books, Washington, D.C. 1993,
pp. 365–377.
5 See “Biophilia, Selfish Genes, Shared Values,” by Holmes Rolston III, in The Biophilia
Hypothesis, Edited by Stephen R. Kellert and Edward O. Wilson, Island Press/Shearwater Books,
Washington, D.C. 1993, p. 385.