Most governments (whether they be historic despotic regimes, the church or the current you-vote-but-it-doesn’t-matter style democracies) aim to maintain a current social and economic order. They aim to protect the few who have against the many have-nots. Laws, courts and police establish the stability of the system and its rules.

Theoretically, the government is supposed to aim for what is best for the organism in its competition with other organisms, but in practice the government spends much more time trying to abuse its citizens as much as possible while at the same time avoiding an uprising.

In particular I think this statement is misleading:
> During several thousands of years, much like
> the natural selection works, human society has
> sampled a substantial amount of governance systems.
> By trial and error excluding the unstable “phenotypes”,
> now society is slowly converging on a seemingly stable
> – democratic – architecture. In democratic arrangement …

I don’t think humanity has sampled anything. Different powers and interests have tried various orders from direct slavery to partial slavery through employment in order to harness the intellectual and economic power of the people they rule over. But we are very much in a parasitic kind of relationship than a protective integrative kind.

Perhaps the equivalent of the nervous system is still missing in human society?

Can the analogy with multi-cellular organisms suggest a way to build new forms of government that will not be corruptible by lobbies and special interest groups?

so i googled “open source evolution emergence” and here was your article…

one thought (rough thought!):
open=more “useful” emergent behavior via what we perceive as “randomness” or “shuffling”

Peer review does have a role in publishing traditional articles but it happens at a much higher level of analysis than the raw experimental results.