370
个编辑
更改
→工作
Advocates for higher levels of selection (such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson, and Elliott Sober) suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain. The philosopher Mary Midgley, with whom Dawkins clashed in print concerning The Selfish Gene, has criticised gene selection, memetics, and sociobiology as being excessively reductionist; she has suggested that the popularity of Dawkins's work is due to factors in the Zeitgeist such as the increased individualism of the Thatcher/Reagan decades. Besides, other, more recent views and analysis on his popular science works also exist.
Advocates for higher levels of selection (such as Richard Lewontin, David Sloan Wilson, and Elliott Sober) suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain. The philosopher Mary Midgley, with whom Dawkins clashed in print concerning The Selfish Gene, has criticised gene selection, memetics, and sociobiology as being excessively reductionist; she has suggested that the popularity of Dawkins's work is due to factors in the Zeitgeist such as the increased individualism of the Thatcher/Reagan decades. Besides, other, more recent views and analysis on his popular science works also exist.
支持更高水平选择的人(如理查德 · 莱翁廷、大卫 · 斯隆 · 威尔逊和艾略特 · 索伯)认为，有许多现象(包括利他主义)是基因选择无法令人满意地解释的。哲学家玛丽•米吉利(Mary Midgley)曾批评道金斯的基因选择、模因论和社会生物学过于简化; 她指出，道金斯作品之所以受欢迎，是因为时代精神中的因素，比如撒切尔/里根时代日益增强的个人主义。道金斯在《自私的基因》(The Selfish Gene)一书中与道金斯发生了冲突。此外，对他的科普作品也有其他较新的观点和分析。
支持更高水平选择的人(如理查德·莱翁廷、大卫·斯隆·威尔逊和艾略特·索伯)认为，有许多现象(包括利他主义)是基因层面的选择无法令人满意地解释的。哲学家玛丽•米吉利(Mary Midgley)曾批评道金斯的基因选择、模因论和社会生物学过于简化<ref>{{Cite news |last=Midgley |first=Mary |year=1979 |title=Gene-Juggling |periodical=Philosophy |volume=54 |issue=210 |pages=439–58 |url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3520652 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100063488 |access-date=18 March 2008 |archive-date=31 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731184320/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3520652 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |year=1981 |title=In Defence of Selfish Genes |periodical=Philosophy |volume=56 |pages=556–73 |url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3512724 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100050580 |access-date=17 March 2008 |archive-date=31 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731181424/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3512724 |url-status=live }}</ref> 。她指出，道金斯作品之所以受欢迎，是因为时代精神中的因素，比如撒切尔/里根时代日益增强的个人主义<ref>{{cite book |first=Mary |last=Midgley |title=The solitary self: Darwin and the selfish gene |year=2010 |publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press |isbn=978-1-84465-253-2}}</ref>。
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'),<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref> one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]], reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas.<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}} Also {{ISBN|978-1-84046-780-2}}</ref> In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over [[sociobiology]] and [[evolutionary psychology]], with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical.<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref> A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of ''[[Not in Our Genes]]'' by [[Steven Rose]], [[Leon J. Kamin]], and Richard C. Lewontin.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are [[Steven Pinker]] and [[Daniel Dennett]]; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended [[reductionism]] in biology.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 32–36] |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 }}</ref> Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]'' posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'),<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref> one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]], reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas.<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}} Also {{ISBN|978-1-84046-780-2}}</ref> In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over [[sociobiology]] and [[evolutionary psychology]], with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical.<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref> A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of ''[[Not in Our Genes]]'' by [[Steven Rose]], [[Leon J. Kamin]], and Richard C. Lewontin.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are [[Steven Pinker]] and [[Daniel Dennett]]; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended [[reductionism]] in biology.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 32–36] |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 }}</ref> Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]'' posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'), one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas. Also In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical. A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin, and Richard C. Lewontin. Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology. Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'), one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas. Also In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical. A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin, and Richard C. Lewontin. Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology. Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
在一系列关于进化机制和解释的争论中<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref>，一个派别经常以道金斯的名字命名，而另一个派别则以美国古生物学家史蒂芬·古尔德的名字命名<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}} Also {{ISBN|978-1-84046-780-2}}</ref>。同样值得一提的是，道金斯和古尔德在社会生物学和进化心理学的争论中是杰出的评论家，道金斯通常时赞同和欣赏，而古尔德普遍持批判态度<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref> A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of ''[[Not in Our Genes]]'' by [[Steven Rose]], [[Leon J. Kamin]], and Richard C. Lewontin.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>。道金斯立场的一个典型例子是他对史蒂文·罗斯、里昂·J·卡明和理查·C·莱翁廷的《不再我们的基因里（Not In
Our Gene）》的严厉评论<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>。在这个问题上，另外两位经常被认为与道金斯意见一致的思想家是史蒂文•平克(Steven Pinker)和丹尼尔•丹尼特(Daniel Dennett)。丹尼特提倡以基因为中心的进化论观点，并为生物学中的还原论辩护<ref>{{cite book |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 32–36] |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 }}</ref> 。道金斯和古尔德尽管在学术上存在分歧，但他们之间并没有敌对的个人关系，道金斯在他2003年出版的《一个魔鬼的牧师（A Devil's Chaplain）》一书中，将很大一部分献给了去年去世的古尔德。
When asked if [[Neo-Darwinism|Darwinism]] informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "In one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life," implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the [[consciousness]] of self.<ref name="strident" />
When asked if [[Neo-Darwinism|Darwinism]] informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "In one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life," implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the [[consciousness]] of self.<ref name="strident" />
When asked if Darwinism informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "In one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life," implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the consciousness of self.
When asked if Darwinism informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "In one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life," implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the consciousness of self.
当被问及达尔文主义是否影响了他对生活的日常理解时，道金斯说：“在某种程度上是这样的。我的眼睛一直睁得大大的，看着存在的非凡事实。不仅仅是人类的存在，还有生命的存在，以及这个惊人的强大过程——自然选择——是如何将物理学和化学的简单事实应用到红杉树和人类身上的。那种惊奇的感觉从未离开过我的脑海。另一方面，我当然不允许达尔文主义影响我对人类社会生活的感受,”这意味着他认为个体人类可以选择退出达尔文主义的生存机器，因为他们被自我意识解放了。<ref name="strident" />
=== 提出“模因”概念 ===
In his book ''The Selfish Gene'', Dawkins [[neologism|coined]] the word ''meme'' (the behavioural equivalent of a gene) as a way to encourage readers to think about how Darwinian principles might be extended beyond the realm of genes.{{sfn|Dawkins|1989|p=11}} It was intended as an extension of his "replicators" argument, but it took on a life of its own in the hands of other authors, such as [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Susan Blackmore]]. These popularisations then led to the emergence of [[memetics]], a field from which Dawkins has distanced himself.<ref name="misunderstanding">{{cite journal |last1=Burman |first1=J. T. |year=2012 |title=The misunderstanding of memes: Biography of an unscientific object, 1976–1999 |journal=[[Perspectives on Science]] |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=75–104 |doi=10.1162/POSC_a_00057|s2cid=57569644 }}{{open access}}</ref>
In his book ''The Selfish Gene'', Dawkins [[neologism|coined]] the word ''meme'' (the behavioural equivalent of a gene) as a way to encourage readers to think about how Darwinian principles might be extended beyond the realm of genes.{{sfn|Dawkins|1989|p=11}} It was intended as an extension of his "replicators" argument, but it took on a life of its own in the hands of other authors, such as [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Susan Blackmore]]. These popularisations then led to the emergence of [[memetics]], a field from which Dawkins has distanced himself.<ref name="misunderstanding">{{cite journal |last1=Burman |first1=J. T. |year=2012 |title=The misunderstanding of memes: Biography of an unscientific object, 1976–1999 |journal=[[Perspectives on Science]] |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=75–104 |doi=10.1162/POSC_a_00057|s2cid=57569644 }}{{open access}}</ref>
In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins coined the word meme (the behavioural equivalent of a gene) as a way to encourage readers to think about how Darwinian principles might be extended beyond the realm of genes. It was intended as an extension of his "replicators" argument, but it took on a life of its own in the hands of other authors, such as Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore. These popularisations then led to the emergence of memetics, a field from which Dawkins has distanced himself.
In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins coined the word meme (the behavioural equivalent of a gene) as a way to encourage readers to think about how Darwinian principles might be extended beyond the realm of genes. It was intended as an extension of his "replicators" argument, but it took on a life of its own in the hands of other authors, such as Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore. These popularisations then led to the emergence of memetics, a field from which Dawkins has distanced himself.
道金斯在《自私的基因》一书中创造了“模因”(meme)这个词(相当于行为学上基因) ，以此鼓励读者思考达尔文的原则如何能够超越基因的范畴。这本来是他的“复制因子”论点的延伸，但是在其他作家的手中，如丹尼尔•丹尼特(Daniel Dennett)和苏珊•布莱克莫尔(Susan Blackmore) ，这个概念呈现出了自己的生命力。这些流行后来导致了模因论的出现，道金斯已经远离了这个领域。<ref name="misunderstanding">{{cite journal |last1=Burman |first1=J. T. |year=2012 |title=The misunderstanding of memes: Biography of an unscientific object, 1976–1999 |journal=[[Perspectives on Science]] |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=75–104 |doi=10.1162/POSC_a_00057|s2cid=57569644 }}{{open access}}</ref>
Dawkins's ''meme'' refers to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator of a certain idea or set of ideas. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as capable of such replication, generally through communication and contact with humans, who have evolved as efficient (although not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Because memes are not always copied perfectly, they might become refined, combined, or otherwise modified with other ideas; this results in new memes, which may themselves prove more or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of [[cultural evolution]] based on memes, a notion that is analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kelly |first=Kevin |title=Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World |year=1994 |publisher=Addison-Wesley |location=United States |isbn=978-0-201-48340-6 |page=[https://archive.org/details/outofcontrolnewb00kell/page/360 360]| title-link = Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World}}</ref>
Dawkins's ''meme'' refers to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator of a certain idea or set of ideas. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as capable of such replication, generally through communication and contact with humans, who have evolved as efficient (although not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Because memes are not always copied perfectly, they might become refined, combined, or otherwise modified with other ideas; this results in new memes, which may themselves prove more or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of [[cultural evolution]] based on memes, a notion that is analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kelly |first=Kevin |title=Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World |year=1994 |publisher=Addison-Wesley |location=United States |isbn=978-0-201-48340-6 |page=[https://archive.org/details/outofcontrolnewb00kell/page/360 360]| title-link = Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World}}</ref>