The foundations of ekistics

An attempt to test the validity of Anthropocosmos model in

the context of modern evolutionary theory

Constantinos R. Pertsemlidis
The author is an Architect, Regional Planner and Systems Consultant. From 1971 to 1979 he worked with Doxiadis Associates, Consultants on Development and Ekistics, as town, city and regional
planner. From 1980 to 2004 he worked with the business consultants CEGOS GROUP as Deputy General Manager of its affiliate in
Greece. Since 2005 he provides consultancy on implementing social and information technology. The document that follows is an
edited version of the text on which a presentation by the author on
the same theme was based at a symposion organized by the Association of Colleagues and Friends of Constantinos A. Doxiadis on
Constantinos Doxiadis and his work, 19-21 January, 2007, in
Athens, Greece.

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

Introduction
Scope: Anthropocosmos

Foreword

Saturday, April 13th, 1974: I have been trying to learn

Ekistics for the last 44 years, and to formulate it as a
science for 33. Now, after all these years I am ready to
speak about the final articulation of the science. So, I start
today speaking about the foundations of Ekistics. (DOXIA-

DIS, 1974b, p. 1)

During the last 12 years of his life, C.A. Doxiadis started a

project to unify the basic concepts of Ekistics, by developing
a formalization scheme of ekistics theory and knowledge, a
meta-ekistics for which he coined the term Anthropocosmos
Model. The roadmap to its final articulation was presented
on April 13th, 1974 entitled The Foundations of Ekistics.
The text was read by George Perpinias, because Doxiadis could no longer speak, but as he said: Probably, if I
could speak, this presentation would be ready after 5 or
more years. When one doesnt speak, one thinks more.
(DOXIADIS, 1974b, p. 1)

Saturday, January 20th, 2007: The Foundations of Ekistics still serves as a plan for the formalization of the ekistics
theory and knowledge, in so far as no other general theory
for Human Settlements has yet emerged, at least as extended as Ekistics.
In the course of the last 30 years, the sense of fragmentation of knowledge has perceptibly decreased thanks to the
unification theories in Sciences and the Humanities. By using the current state of the unification knowledge, we can try

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

Fig. 1: Views of Anthropocosmos; (a) Ecological View, (b) Cultural View, (Ekistic View).

The boundary of Anthropocosmos is continuously extending to include new marks, like the ozone layer depletion,
independently of their spatial and temporal distance from
human lifes activities (fig. 1a, Ecological View).
The accumulation of human artifacts transformed many
parts of the natural system into artificial socio-physical
systems, which we call civilizations. Today, as Carl Mitcham (1994, p. 175) states the planet clearly influenced
not just in part but as a whole by human activity, studied
by earth system science and on the verge of being managed by a planetary technology, has become a kind of
artifact (fig. 1b, Cultural View).
The knowledge about Anthropocosmos, that Doxiadis
(1970b, p. 35) used to classify into five chapters which he
called the five ekistic elements, is subject to revision.
This need is reflected in his personal thinking when he
writes: The systematic subdivision of knowledge related
to the five elements is now being used by the documentation center of the Athens Center of Ekistics and has
proved very useful even though it may still need further
development on the basis of continued experience (fig.
1c, Ekistic View).

Purpose: The Anthropocosmos

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

many steps we have to take; the second step is the synthesis of the five tasks to form the total Anthropocosmos mode
(DOXIADIS 1974b, pp. 3-4, 37; 1974c, p. 1).

By the term Anthropocosmos model, Doxiadis refers to a

mental representation, assuming that Anthropocosmos exists independently of the human mind; this is basically the
philosophical stance of realism. He also assumes that the
Anthropocosmos follows physical, genetic, neurological and
cultural laws which can be gradually discovered thanks to
the ability of the human mind to classify entities and relationships; this is the position of scientific realism. Where is
the justification for this position? There is none. At least,
there is no justification that will satisfy a scientist demanding
a body of hard evidence, though there may be arguments
that might be convincing to a philosopher. (BAGGOT, 2005,
p. 239). Eric Berne (1971, p. 54) vividly described this philosophical position: No one has ever seen an atom or electricity, but we must not for this reason doubt the existence of
the forces of nature or we shall be quite unable to understand the physical world. Nature proceeds as if what we
speak of as atoms and electricity existed, and so we suppose that they exist. Scientific realism supported Doxiadis
conviction that the construction of a model for Anthropocosmos, although a laborious one, is a realistic project
scientifically justifiable.
The text of C.A. Doxiadis on the Foundations of Ekistics is
organized in two sections:
Section 1: The Five Tasks
Task 1: Global conception
Task 2: Notion of Human Settlements
Task 3: Nomenclature of elements
Task 4: Taxonomic Frame
Task 5: Fundamental classification scheme
Section 2: Synthesis
We follow the same structure in our paper.

Section 1: The five tasks

1st Task: The Overall Concept of
Anthropocosmos
The solution of the problem of our confusion about the
overall concept of Anthropocosmos is to create a frame
model which can help us understand how to conceive and to
build the whole Anthropocosmos properly. We can begin to
do this in the following way:
1. Define our total system of life Anthropocosmos by
creating a systematic frame so that any part of it can be
clearly located within it.
2. Define all relationships (causal and non-causal) that may
exist between any parts of the system so that we can
understand its functions and changes.
3. Define a method for the measurement or evaluation of all
parts of the system and their interrelationships (including
those that cannot now be scientifically measured), so
that we can recognize the relative importance of each
situation and each problem.
Into this comprehensive model we can insert the input from
all the disciplines concerned. The model can also help to
work out a strategy for breaking down mental barriers and
connecting disciplines together. Thus, we may hope to avoid
interdisciplinary anarchy and build up a team which, having
grasped the concept of a total system can bring all the necessary hard-headed expertise together (DOXIADIS,
1974b, pp. 4-7; 1974c, p. 1).

A spatial world view

Knowing ones house thoroughly makes one feel at home.
Center Leo Apostel (1994, p. 5)

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

scientific and technological fields, and represents a novel

paradigm in scientific thinking (to use Thomas Kuhns expression).
The General Systems Theory, incorporating day after day
the Darwinian evolutionary perspectives, and other scientific
advancements, is taking progressively the place of a paradigm for scientific thinking (positive stance) and engineering
practice (normative stance) regarding the structure, function
and evolution of complex entities; this paradigm holds today
the place of a universal language at the syntactic level of
human cognition, permitting the effective organization of data. Furthermore, the evolutionary perspectives of systems
theory have already formed a communication protocol which
helps many philosophers and scientists to develop unification theories at the semantic level of human cognition, permitting non redundant classification of data into knowledge,
as E.O. Wilson (1998, p. 297) states: It is the custom of
scholars when addressing behavior and culture to speak variously of anthropological explanations, psychological explanations, biological explanations, and other explanations. I
have argued that there is intrinsically only one class of explanation. It traverses the scales of space, time, and complexity to unite the disparate facts of the disciplines by consilience, the perception of a seamless web of cause and effect. The application of these intellectual advancements of
the last 30 years (1975-2005), automatically cause more
accurate descriptions for Doxiadis definitions of structure,
function and evolution of Anthropocosmos.

Structure of Anthropocosmos
To the Greeks, the laws, like the wall around the city, were products
of making; legislator and architect belonged in the same category
Hanna Arendt (1958, pp. 194-195)

Doxiadis (1970, p. 1) described Anthropocosmos as a very

complex system of five elements, a system of natural (Nature and Anthropos), social (Society) and man-made (Shells
and Networks) elements which can be seen in many ways:
economic, social, political, technological and cultural. Although he adopted (1975, pp. 264) the hard conception of
Society as a system, in which the individual is merely a focus in a network of relationships, the Society as an element
of Anthropocosmos remained an unclearly cut notion in his
theoretical work.
A more cohesive description of the structure of Anthropocosmos could probably be: a system of two (NATURE and
ANTHROPOS) naturally constructed and three (INSTITUTIONS, SHELLS and NETWORKS) culturally constructed
elements, interconnected through natural (ecological) and
cultural (economic, political and social) functions (fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Ekistic Elements revisited

Nature and Anthropos are arrangements of matter informed

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

Function of Anthropocosmos
The things that depreciate are the real wealth of our lives.
They require continual repair and replacement.
Howard Odum (1996, p. 6)

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

continuous economic growth is nourished by the false notion

that the economy is an isolated cyclical process that escapes the energy laws of the physical world. The opposite
directions of the circular flows of money and energy, and the
possibility for creating money, have probably helped to reinforce this illusion. In the end one must pay. The bill for
growth has just been given us, and it is enormous. In fact
there is nothing cyclical in the economic process (ROSNAY,
1975, pp. 164-165).

At this point it is worth remembering the famous postulates of Jane Jacobs (1969, p. 6) that cities are not only
primary organs of cultural development but are also primary
economic organs.

Evolution of Anthropocosmos
The recent history of the evolution of Anthropocosmos
started 10,000 years ago with the adoption of the most important social technology: labor division. The evolution of
physical systems has been extensively studied and today is
well understood as fig. 3a (Physical Structure) illustrates.
But trying to understand the structure, function and evolution
of social systems is still a very difficult task expressed vividly
by the following statement: Our modern skulls house a
stone age mind, better at solving the kinds of problems our
ancestors faced on the African savannahs than they are at
solving the more familiar tasks we face in a college classroom or a modern city (COSMIDES, 1997). Fig. 3b (Social
Structures) depicts the emergence of the three realms of
social existence: personal, private, and public, and fig. 3c
(Ekistic Elements) depicts this evolution in terms of ekistic
elements, as if each period had its own DOXIADIS:
{MAN, NATURE, TRIBE}
{MAN, NATURE, FAMILIES, POLIS}
{MAN, NATURE, INSTITUTIONS, SHELLS, NETWORKS}
The evolution of private realms and public spheres has been
analyzed by Arendt (1958) in relation to human activities in
the course of the last 2,500 years.

2nd Task: The Notion of Human

Settlements
Human settlements are the territorial arrangements made
by Anthropos for his own benefit and welfare. They are the
results of human action and their goal is human survival, an
easier and better life; happiness and safety (as Aristotle
demanded); and opportunities for human development
The term human settlements is not yet clearly defined. What exactly are human settlements? Are they cities, villages, housing, people, society, buildings, or something else? In 1964 I proposed using the term human settlements instead of housing, building and planning to the
United Nations Committee on Housing, Building and Planning. My proposition was rejected then, but a few years later human settlements was accepted as the correct term, although even within the United Nations itself there is no
agreed-upon definition. This is because human settlements are the most complex systems of life on our globe.
They are two orders higher than cells and one order higher
than bodies (if we follow Sir Julian Huxley's classification of
individuals). However, human settlements not only have a
complexity many times higher than their component bodies
(or individuals), they are further confusing because they are
much younger and more primitive than bodies, and very
much more so than cellsHowever, the actual cause of the

Fig. 3: Main Evolutionary Stages of Anthropocosmos

current confusion is that we have not studied them in a systematic and scientific way. The conclusion is clear: we have
to proceed to a science for human settlements, Ekistics
(DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 12; 1974c, pp. 2-3).

A General Theory of the Nature of Human Settlements

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

Doxiadis (1970, p. 2) expressed Lewins quote with these

words: This field is a science, even if in our times it is
usually considered a technology and an art, without the
foundations of a science. This is a mistake for which we pay
very heavily. Having recorded very successfully the destructions of the ekistic wealth during WWII he became convinced that human settlements are susceptible to systematic
investigation. In 1942, during his lectures at the National
Technical University of Athens, he coined the term Ekistics
for this field of knowledge.
Doxiadis, being aware of the unifying power of systems
thinking and particularly of the biological and evolutionary

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

chaotic, far-from-equilibrium, unpredictable self-organizing

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

3rd Task: The Language of Ekistics

...To make communication between professionals possible,
we must feel the need for a common language and terminology, which must have the following properties:
1. It must be clear and exact
2. It must combine and shorten long terms so that it can express all meanings
3. It must serve man by transmitting the proper messages...
For example we can regard the total human settlement
as consisting of four types of areas: the Naturareas (where
Anthropos is only a visitor and hunter), Cultivareas (where
Anthropos cultivates Nature), Anthropareas (where Anthropos lives and uses Nature's territories for all expressions of
life, from houses to work, entertainment, sports, etc.), and
Industrareas (where Anthropos transforms natural resources
as in mining and industry) (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 13-18;
1974c, p. 3).

Doxiadis had the ambition that Ekistics should acquire the

characteristics of a formal system. But being aware of the
difficulties of reaching such a goal, he restricted himself to
saying: ...the moment when we shall feel the need for such
a language and start creating it, we will have made the first
step to the taxonomy of settlements... (DOXIADIS, 1974b, p.
18). Table 1 is an illustration of his mental picture of an ekistic language.

at judgments of affinity based on multiple and unweighted

characters without the time and controversy which seem
necessary at present for the maturation of taxonomy judgments. (R. Sokal and P. Sneath, Principles of Numerical
Taxonomy, 1963, p. 3)
The first question is how we can proceed to classify human settlements. At present we have only very general
categories, such as villages, towns, cities, etc. Among several efforts for more specific classification there is a tendency (especially since photography is the main method of visual presentation of human settlements) to attempt a classification on the basis of their appearance and to speak of a
morphogenesis. But a purely morphological definition must
be subordinated to the concept that the species is composed of populations in which variability is inherent. (Taxonomy, in Encyclopedia Britannica)
It is necessary to bring in the notion of developmental
phases (like an applied science of medicine for human settlements), as a classification which only refers to a static situation may confuse the situation instead of clarifying it
The effort will be a long lasting one, but we hope that we
can reach conclusions for the kinship of species independently of time...
..The basic taxonomic frame (Fig. 4) consists of two dimensions: the population size (first in importance) and the
territorial extend (second in importance). It is expressed by
the combination of the 15 levels of the Ekistic Population
Scale (EPS) and the 20 levels of the Ekistic Territorial Scale
(ETS), which produces 300 theoretic sets of human settlements (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 18-25; 1974c, p. 4)

Table 1
Example of Ekistic Language

Source: DOXIADIS, 1974b, p. 17

4th Task: The Logical and

Taxonomic Frame
The next task is the creation of a logical and taxonomic
frame for a systematic understanding and classification of
Anthropocosmos and human settlements. Taxonomy is the
basis of the theoretical study of classification, including its
bases, principles, procedures and rules (G.G. Simpson,
Principles of Animal Taxonomy, 1941) and numerical taxonomy uses taxonomy as the proper term. The following
classification system uses both Aristotelian logic, as Linnaeus did, and taxonomy which provides a means to arrive

Fig. 4: The Taxonomic Frame (Source: DOXIADIS, 1974b, p25,

1974c, p. 6)

Strategies for Organizing Ekistic Knowledge

After centuries of thought, we still can only portray space and time
as the most familiar of strangers.
Brian Green (2005, p. 492)

For the systematic understanding of Anthropocosmos and

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

The evolutionary (phylogenetic) aspects (fig. 5c) concern

the transformation phenomenon of the structural and functional aspects of a system, described as meta-system transitions by Turchin (1977). The completeness of an evolutionary taxonomy depends on the degree of understanding the
information system (type of information, protocols, communication network, etc.) used by the systems under scrutiny,
which ultimately defines the ways by which the elements are
organized into ontological levels of increasing complexity:
atoms, molecules, cells, organs, organisms, biosocieties. In
the case of human settlements, the information systems directing their exchange networks are not well understood.
However, according to Ekistics Theory human settlements
undergo an evolutionary process which tends to incorporate
all human settlements in a universal net, the Ecumenopolis.
This theory might be articulated in terms of intensities of
flows of goods and services
in relation to communication, transportation and institutional technologies of a region, and
according to the potential barriers imposed by national or
international trade laws, and mainly by political premises.
Attempts towards this perspective are developing in the field
of economic geography; e.g. Ray Hudson (2005).

5th Task: The Fundamental Classification

A proper classification requires the consideration of a
very great number of characteristics, but here, following the
analytic route, I am only using a few, just to demonstrate the
process that we need to achieve the goal. I propose a tax-

Fig. 5: Strategies for Organizing Knowledge

Table 2
The Fundamental Classification

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

onomy of human settlements which is similar in structure

and terminology to that of animals and plants (table 2)
(DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp. 25-33; 1974c, pp. 5-8).

The Model of Basic Dimensions

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

The Model of Structure and Function

Without time-dimensions, interaction and function do not
exist in any living system. Thus, Figure 7b illustrates the interactions between the five elements and the human settlement in terms of time...The most important structural characteristic is the division of land in the four basic areas (Naturarea, Cultivarea, Anthroparea and Industrarea). Classifications in terms of their interrelationships, dimensions, and
location, result in the Genera, like compact, dispersed, etc.
The Sections are formed according to the eleven morpho-

genetic forces acting on the five ekistic elements, in time.

The main Taxa are the static or dynamic settlements. Their
basic form: radial, orthogonal, etc. is the basic characteristic
subdividing the sections into Series (DOXIADIS, 1974b, pp.
28-30; 1974c, pp. 7-8).

In biology, the term morphogenesis refers to the processes that determine the shape of cells and their spatial
distribution which defines the form of the body. Doxiadis
(1970, pp. 9-10) used the same term to refer to the processes
that determine the spatial distribution of Shells and Networks which define the physical structure of human settlements. He reached the conclusion that the morphogenesis
is due to several forces (fig. 6a, Morphogenetic Forces) derived from man and nature. Doxiadis way of thinking about
morphogenesis is biological; he calls the furniture we use,
the room which serves our basic purposes, and the house
we live in, successful biological extensions of man. From
Darwins time on there can be no excuse whatsoever for
underestimating the great understanding of phenomena and
situations that a correct theory of evolution can offer, although the development of human settlements is not necessarily limited to their genes (DOXIADIS, 1968, p. 200).
The only thing that genes control directly is the synthesis
of proteins. Proteins, under a given environment shape the
characteristics of organisms, the phenotypes. Phenotypes
are structural (e.g. skin color, shape, body covering), behavioral, or physiological adaptations of an organism that help
it to survive in its natural habitat. Richard Dawkins (1978)
included all effects that genes of an organism may have on
the environment through that organism's behavior, and
called these effects extended phenotypes. According to this
definition, human settlements fall into the class of human
extended phenotypes (fig. 6b), and ekistic morphogenesis
falls into the class of the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm
as defined by Daniel Dennett (1955, pp. 52-60). This definition does not cancel the validity of the eleven forces (fig.
6a), but redefines their role as adaptive criteria of the morphology of human settlements to their environment, part of
which are the human settlements as well.

Fig. 6: Morphogenesis of Extended Phenotypes.

The Model of Human Satisfaction

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

this problem by becoming properly connected through highspeed routes and also whether such action is feasible or
not. However this answer is not complete, unless we clarify
the aspect from which we evaluate the situation: economic,
social, political, administrative, technological or cultural. For
a human settlement to satisfy a principle, it is necessary that
all aspects related to this principle are satisfied. Finally, Varieties are defined by how many aspects the human settlements satisfy. Our judgment here also depends on whether
we are considering desirability or feasibility (DOXIADIS,
1974b, pp. 31-33; 1974c, pp. 8-9).

Doxiadis, against the postulates of mainstream sociology

of his time, expressed the biological foundations of social
behavior in his theory about the ekistic behavior of man
(1970, pp. 2-3), which he called the five principles: In shaping
his settlements, man has always acted in obedience to five

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

principles. As far as I know, this has always been true, and

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

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

stand how the structure and function model represents a

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

The Evolutionary Model of Anthropocosmos

Darwin offered a scheme for creating Design out of Chaos
without the aid of Mind.
Daniel Dennett (1995, p. 50)

The total model of Anthropocosmos is a space of six dimensions. This means that a human settlement is represented
by a vector of six coordinates: population, area, time, elements, aspects, principles. The text that follows is an attempt to update two of these dimensions:
First, the vertical axis of the five ekistic elements (see,
stromatography of Anthropocosmos);
Second, the horizontal axis of ekistics units (see, evolutionary ekistics),
that dominate in the two-dimensional projection of the total
model (fig. 8), and in all older versions of this model.

Fig. 8: The Total Anthropocosmos Model in Practice.

10

Stromatography of Anthropocosmos
Information systems are the ultimate mechanisms of adaptation.
Gerhard Lenski (2005, p. 43)

The first conception of Ekistics scientific territory has been a

piece in a puzzle of overlapping knowledge fields (DOXIADIS
1968, p. 55), that are used until now in various attempts to
delineate humanities (fig. 9a). This approach to classify
knowledge has been criticized by Rosnay (1975, p. 273): Our
education remains hopelessly analytical, centered on a few
disciplines, like a puzzle whose pieces overlap rather than fit
together. It is an education that prepares us neither for the
global approach to complex problems nor for the interplay
between them. However, Doxiadis had already taken a
step towards the solution of the puzzle: To achieve the
needed knowledge and develop the science of human settlements we must move from an interdisciplinary to a condisciplinary science; making links between disciplines is not
enough. If we have one subject we need one science
(DOXIADIS, 1970 p. 2). Thus Doxiadis (1974a) used an organizational web with three dimensions (fig. 9b), on which is
based the two-dimensional projection of the Anthropocosmos model:
a horizontal system of complementary (without overlapping) layers of knowledge, that each one represents a
simple science (e.g. biology, geology, and astronomy),
a vertical system that connects sets of simple sciences in
complex ones (e.g. ecology, and ekistics), and
a third system that represents methods and values.
This is a step before the final solution of the puzzle. What finally was missing from the Doxiadis model was the logic for
ordering vertically the horizontal layers. The year that Doxiadis left us, Rosnay (1975, p. 273) proposed to order them
according to the complexity of the earth systems, that is the
chronological line of their evolution: The two most influential
ideas bequeathed to us by the nineteenth century: the idea
of evolution in biology and the idea of entropy in thermodynamics, made it possible to integrate vertically the different

levels of complexity in nature (ROSNAY, 1975, p. 273). The

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

- The Emergence of Darwinism (HUXLEY, 1964, pp. 9-34),

- Lhistoire des communications: de la molecule au village
planetaire (ROSNAY, 1975, pp. 195-199),

- Mind and Nature, a Necessary Unity (BATESON, 1979),

- Spacetime and Cosmology (GREEN, 2005, pp. 215-323),
- Evolution as The Cumulation of Information (LENSKI, 2005,
pp. 42-45),

- Metasystem Transition (TURCHIN, 1977, pp. 55-57),

- Cities and Nations (DELANDA, 2006, pp. 94-119);
- Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science (VEBLEN,
1898),

- Unified Theory of Information (HOFKIRCHNER, 1999, 2003);

- Contemporary Local Area Networks (PERTSEMLIDIS,
1995).

Physical (and Chemical) Layer: Every entity on the planet

keeps its structure thanks to physical information, known as
the fundamental forces or interactions of nature. It is stored

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

11

in the structure of matter in three forms of potential energy.

According to the standard model these are: the strong interactions, which keep the atoms of our body intact, the electroweak interactions, which hold our bones and skin together, and the gravitational ones which hold our bodies on
earth, the earth and other planets and stars being intact and
bound together in galaxies. Thanks to the fact that the evolution of these interactions is practically over, the hierarchy
of matter is maintained: particles (quarks and electrons),
atoms, molecules, and bodies (live or not).
Genetic Layer: The fact that the evolution of the physical
system is active in the sun supplying earth with energy,
caused in the past the appearance on earth of a form of organization of matter called life. Life is perpetuated thanks to
that solar energy and to the genetic information system.
Genetic information is preserved in coded form in the chemical DNA molecule of all cells of all living organisms and is
transmitted through reproduction, which is the true driving
force of the evolution of living beings. Genetic information
evolves through genetic variation and natural selection over
very long periods of time; that is the reason why the evolutionary effects are practically unobservable. Thanks to this
information system, the hierarchy of the living matter is
maintained: molecules, cells, organs, organisms.
Neurological Layer: Key elements in the evolution of this
information system were advances in sensory organs and
the nervous system of many animals including humans.
Neurological information is stored in the nervous system
and the brains of many animals in the form of neuronal circuits and is transmitted by genetically determined electrochemical signals. During ontogenesis, some circuits of
them are genetically programmed (biological determinism)
like the neuronal circuits of logic, language and probably sociality; other circuits are culturally programmed (scripts) and
reprogrammed through trial and error, imitation, observation
and reasoning. Such information is especially valuable in
social species, since it facilitates the communication and
coordination of the actions of the members and thus greatly
enhances the value of group organization. For example, Allan Fiske (1991) proposes that just four elementary relational
structures are sufficient to describe an enormous spectrum
of the forms of human social relations, as well as social motives and emotions, intuitive social thought and moral judgment. They are the neurological foundations (probably
adaptations) of human societies: Communal Sharing, a relationship of equivalence in which people are merged so that
the boundaries are indistinct and have a sense of common
identity. Authority Ranking is a transitive asymmetrical relationship (linear hierarchy) in which persons construe each
other as differing in social importance, or status. Equality
Matching is an egalitarian relationship among peers. Market
Pricing is a relationship mediated by values determined by a
market system, or more generally, the criterion is proportionality.
Cultural Layer: Finally the evolution of hominids added a
fourth information system, capable of manipulating systems
of signs or symbols. So this system is specific to humans.
This type of information is stored in brains, books, electronic
data bases. It is acquired by instruction, reasoning, and research. With the emergence of cultural systems, a radically
new mode of adaptation was established. The emergence
of cultural systems did not free human societies from their

Fig. 10: Ordered layers and the concilience of knowledge.

dependence on neurological, those of genetic, and those of

physical systems.
The vertical ordering of the fields of knowledge is the
epistemological implication of the ontology of the universe.
For this reason, the reduction of conflicting redundancies
becomes impressive. The knowledge of a layer defines the
axioms of the next layer. Such axioms from the genetic and
neurological layers are the five principles of the ekistic behavior of humans. The eleven forces are second order computations based on physical, genetic, and neurological
axioms, in order to be formulated as axioms of ekistic synthesis.
The first two layers constitute the technology of nature,
and its study is called Sciences. The next two layers constitute the technology of man, and its study is called Humanities. The greatest enterprise of the mind has always been
and always will be the attempted linkage of the sciences
and humanities (WILSON, 1998, p. 6). The most advanced
proposal for building this linkage comes from evolutionary
psychology, an attempt to assemble a single, logically integrated research framework for the psychological, social and
behavioral sciences (TOOBY, 2005, p. 5).

12

Evolutionary Ekistics
A Mason thinks at night and builds during the day.
C.A. Doxiadis (1966b, p. 84)

We saw that each layer of fig. 10 consists of kinds of

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

laws of energy transformation: hierarchical systems are the

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

Table 3
The Hierarchy of the Minds of Ekistic Units

13

Table 4
Evolutionary model of Anthropocosmos

The interconnection of personal, private and public

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

such an endeavor: he studied the personal realms at each

stage of the individuals life in relation to Polis, and exposed
his conclusions in his book Anthropopolis (DOXIADIS, 1974e).
His studies on Ecumenopolis (DOXIADIS, 1974f), the shelter
of the worlds citizens, are a connection of EU 15 with the
global public sphere.
Thus, a world-wide hierarchical network of human settlements is emerging. Before the use of the term globalization
(Theodor Levitt, The Globalization of Markets, 1983), Doxiadis coined to this global network the name Ecumenopolis, and to the process of its generation the term ecumenization: The inevitable next phase of human civilization
(DOXIADIS, 1974f, p. 393).
This project does not have a discernible project manager. Thinking during the night and acting during the day, we,
all, transform Anthropocosmos into Ecumenopolis. As fig.
11 depicts, Ecumenopolis is not a poetic vision.

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

14

References
ARENDT, Hannah (1958), The Human Condition, 2nd Edition,1999
( University of Chicago Press).
BAGGOT, Jim (2005), A Beginners Guide to Reality (London, Penguin Books).
BATESON, Gregory (1979), Mind and Nature, a Necessary Unity
(Hampton Press, 2002).
BERNE, Eric (1971), A Laymans Guide to Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis (London, Penguin Books), (The Mind in Action,
1947).
BERTANLANFFY, Ludwig (1968). General System Theory. Revised
Edition. George Braziller, New York
BOYD, J. and S. BANZHAF (2006). What Are Ecosystem Services?
Resources for the Future (Washington, DC).
CENTER LEO APOSTEL (1994). World Views, from Fragmentation
to Integration (Brussels, VUB Press). (Authors: D. Aerts, L.
Apostel, B. De Moor, S. Hellemans, E. Maex, H. Von Belle
and J. Van der Veken).
COSMIDES, Leda and John TOOBY (1997), Evolutionary Psychology, a Primer.
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html.
DAWKINS, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype, the Long
Reach of the Gene (New York, Oxford University Press,
1999).
DeLANDA, Manuel (2006), A New Philosophy of Society. Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity (New York, Continuum).
DENNETT, Daniel (1995), Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Evolution and
the Meanings of Life (Penguin Books, 1996).
DICK, Philip (1978), How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall
Apart Two Days Later. A never delivered speech.
DOXIADIS, C.A. (1966), Anthropocosmos, the World of Man. Address delivered at the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies on July 29, 1966 upon the occasion of the Receipt of
the Aspen Award. Posted at http://www.doxiadis.org/
(1966b). Between Dystopia and Utopia (Trinity College
Press).
(1968). Ekistics, an Introduction to the Science of Human
Settlements (New York, Oxford University Press).
(1970). Ekistics, the Science of Human Settlements,
Science, vol. 170, no. 3956 (October), pp. 393-404.
(1972). The Formation of the Human Room, Ekistics, vol.
33, no. 196 (March), pp. 218-229.
(1974a). Ekistics and Mathematics. Paper presented in
seminar Taxonomy and Ekistics on 16/01/1974, R-ACE126, Athens Center of Ekistics.
(1974b). The Foundations of Ekistics, Paper presented in
seminar Taxonomy and Ekistics on 13/04/1974, R-ACE146, Athens Center of Ekistics.
(1974c), Action for a better scientific approach to the subject of human settlements: the Anthropocosmos model,
Compilation of three papers presented to Delos Eleven
Studies and one presented to IFIAS, Ekistics, vols. 30-38,
July 1970December 1974.
(1974d). Global Ecological Balance, Contribution in Tyler
Ecology Award.
(1974e). Anthropopolis, City for Human Development
(Athens, Athens Publishing Center).
and John PAPAIOANNOU (1974f), Ecumenopolis, the Inevitable City of the Future (Athens, Athens Publishing Center).
(1975). Building Entopia (Athens, Athens Publishing Center).
(1976). Action for Human Settlements (Athens, Athens Publishing Center).
EUROSTAT (2001), Economy-wide Material Flow Accounts and
Derived Indicators, a Methodological Guide (Luxembourg,
European Commission).
FISCHER-KOWALSKI, Marina (2003), On the History of Industrial
Metabolism in D. Bourg & S. Erkman (eds.), Perspectives
on Industrial Ecology, (UK, Greenleaf Publishing), pp. 3561.

FISKE, Alan (1993), Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary

Forms of Human Relations (New York, The Free Press).
FORRESTER, Jay (1971), Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems. Technology Review.
http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-44682.pdf
FORRESTER, Jay (1998), Designing the Future, Speech at Universidad de Sevilla, Spain (December 15),
http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/Designjf.pdf
GREEN, Brian (2005), The Fabric of the Cosmos (Penguin Books).
HALAL, William (2005), What is Institutional Change? On The Horizon, vol. 13, Issue 1.
HOFKIRCHNER, Wolfgang (1999), Cognitive Sciences in the Perspective of a Unified Theory of Information.
http://cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/zope/igw/menschen/hofkirc
hner/papers/new_concept_is.
HOFKIRCHNER, Wolfgang (2003), Towards a Unified Theory of Information.
http://cartoon.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/zope/igw/menschen/hofkirc
hner/papers/new_concept_is.
HUDSON, Ray (2005), Economic Geographies, Circuits, Flows and
Spaces (London, Sage Publications).
HUXLEY, Sir Julian (1964), Evolutionary Humanism (New York,
Prometheus Books, 1992).
JACOBS, Jane (1970), The Economy of Cities (London, Jonathan
Cape).
LENSKI, Gerhard (2005), Ecological-Evolutionary Theory. Principles and Applications (London, Paradigm Publishers).
MITCHAM, Carl (1994), Thinking through Technology. The Path
between Engineering and Philosophy (University of Chicago
Press).
NELSON, Richard (2005),Technology, Institutions, and Economic
Growth (Harvard University Press).
ODUM, Howard (1996), Environmental Accounting, Emergy and
Environmental Decision Making (John Wiley).
PERTSEMLIDIS, K.R. (1974), A Review of Taxonomic Studies of
Human Settlements, Paper presented at the seminar Taxonomy and Ekistics, 19/04/1974, R-ACE-138, Athens Center of Ekistics.
(1995), Contemporary Local Area Networks. Textbook for
Computer Programmers, Edition 2.1 (Athens, Cegos).
PORTUGALI, Juval (1999), Self-Organization and the City (Berlin,
Springer).
ROSNAY, Jol de (1975), Le macroscope, Vers une vision globale
(Paris, Editions du Seuil).
ROSNAY, Jol de (2006), La rvolte du prontariat, des mass media aux media des masses (Paris, Fayar).
SAHLINS, Marshall (1972), Stone Age Economics (London and
New York, Routledge, 2004).
SEARLE, John (1995), The Construction of Social Reality (Penguin
Books).
TOOBY, John and Leda COSMIDES (2005), Conceptual Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology in D.M. Buss (ed.), The
Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, pp. 5-67 (John Wiley).
TURCHIN, Valentin (1977), The Phenomenon of Science, a Cybernetic Approach to Human Evolution (Columbia University
Press). http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POSBOOK.html.
VEBLEN, Thorstein (1898), Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary
Science, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 12.
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/%7Eecon/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/ec
onevol.txt.
WILSON, Edward (1998), Consilience, the Unity of Knowledge (Abacus, 2003).

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

15