Because some of the language that follows is unconventional, it may be useful to clarify terms at the outset. The term biocracy as used here has two meanings, or more accurately, has two aspects to an inclusive meaning. The inclusive meaning is the influence of life forces on human social behavior, notably political behavior. The first, and basic, aspect of biocracy pertains to the actual influence of life forces on human society whether or not perceived or understood. The second aspect refers to the perceived effects on society of the findings and applications of the life sciences. Perceived effects mayor may not be consistent with actual influences; they may nonetheless shape popular attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors. To the extent that life forces are deterministic they shape the character of societies. The extent to which human social behavior is biologically determined is largely unknown. At the very least, life forces appear to set limits within which human culture may select various options.

The small group is a major cause in the formation of attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. The group forms the primary reference for the individual in terms of the socialization of norms and values and the establishment of loyalties. This led Golembiewski (1978:28) to write:

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang birn.

—Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu (1641)

The emergence of the state and similar forms of large-scale, stratified society from the matrix of primitive egalitarian social relations poses a problem sui generis for political anthropology. On the one hand, since the Neolithic, hierarchical stratification and political domination have evolved in a relatively short time from the patterns of kinship bonds and ephemeral leadership characteristic of primitive society (Service, 1975; Carneiro, 1978). On the other hand, the extent of the division of labor and of hierarchical stratification in even the most primitive corporate political groups is significantly greater than that found in egalitarian bands and tribes. This difference lends support to very specific explanations such as the theories of cataclysmic sociocultural change of political anthropology (Service, 1975:15).

The scientific community is divided over the question of who should govern science. Most scientists are comfortable with a governing scheme which leaves science in the hands of scientists. Dissident scientists, with support from active members of the lay public, believe that science is too important to be left to scientists (Policy Research Incorporated, 1977; Miller, Prewitt, and Pearson, 1980).