V. Life's Corporeal Evolution Develops, Encodes and Organizes Itself: An Earthtwinian Genesis Synthesis

5. Cooperative Member/Group Societies

Odling-Smee, John, et al. Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003. Much research now indicates that animals, rather than being passively impacted by selection, behave in ways that actively modify an environment to their advantage. The authors then argue that such agency ought to be recognized as a significant formative force in evolution.

Ohlson, Kristin. The Cooperative Instinct. Discover. December, 2012. A well written article on quantified realizations of how pervasive is cooperative reciprocity, rather than competition, from protein webs to creaturely and human communities. This is accomplished by an in depth look at the life and work of Martin Nowak, the Harvard University leader in finding mathematical patterns across life’s evolution, continuing the work of his mentor Karl Sigmund. It is noted that Nowak authored a 2010 paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” with Harvard colleagues Edward O. Wilson and Corina Tarnita, (Nature, 466/1057), which set aside kin selection and inclusive fitness theories used to explain animal groupings with an innate preference for salutary, reciprocal aid, which then sparked fierce attacks. A rush of similar research and popular reports seem to presage not only an expanded synthesis, but a 21st century revision to admit the ordained presence of such universal complementarity. (In regard, our national politics could not be more removed from this natural harmony, with Me and We locked in fatal opposition.)

Without kinship as a pivot point, cooperation could be seen in a broader context, impacting evolution as a whole. In Nowak’s new calculus, cooperation was not merely the product of evolution but an engine, driving the process along with mutation and natural selection. “Cooperation is a fundamental principle of evolution,” Nowak says today. “”Without it, you don’t get construction or complexity in life. Whenever you see something interesting, like the evolution of multicellular creatures or human language, cooperation is involved.” (36)

Okasha, Samir and Ken Binmore, eds. Evolution and Rationality: Decisions, Cooperation and Strategic Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. A Bristol University philosopher and a University College London economist edit select papers from workshops held at Bristol from 2008 to 2011 on this novel confluence. Life’s developmental course via iterations of populate and select is seen akin to decision making processes, Bayesian inference, economic game theory, and rational choice methods. Each involves a series of refinements to reach a good enough fitness. Some chapters are Towards a Darwinian Theory of Decision Making: Games and the Biological Roots of Behavior by Peter Hammerstein, and An Evolutionary Perspective on the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences by Herbert Gintis.

This volume explores from multiple perspectives the subtle and interesting relationship between the theory of rational choice and Darwinian evolution. In rational choice theory, agents are assumed to make choices that maximize their utility; in evolution, natural selection 'chooses' between phenotypes according to the criterion of fitness maximization. So there is a parallel between utility in rational choice theory and fitness in Darwinian theory. This conceptual link between fitness and utility is mirrored by the interesting parallels between formal models of evolution and rational choice. The essays in this volume, by leading philosophers, economists, biologists and psychologists, explore the connection between evolution and rational choice in a number of different contexts, including choice under uncertainty, strategic decision making and pro-social behaviour. (Publisher)

There exist deep and interesting connections, both thematic and formal, between evolutionary theory and the theory of rational choice, despite their apparently different subject matters. These connections arise because a notion of optimization or maximization is central to both areas. In rational choice theory, agents are assumed to make choices that maximize their utility, while in evolutionary theory, natural selection ‘chooses’ between alternative phenotypes, or genes, according to the criterion of fitness maximization. (1)

Ouellette, Nicholas. A Physics Perspective on Collective Animal Behavior. Physical Biology. 19/2, 2022. The Stanford University systems physicist (search) has become a leading authority for the study of dynamic group-wide activities, and the derivation of common features across all manner of species. His subject choice has been midge insects suitable for laboratory tests. (I heard Nicholas speak at UMass Amherst around 2010 when he was at Yale. A view even back then was that it didn’t matter which critter one chose, they all behave the same.) Into 2022, this timely review with 160 references can now cite a robust confirmation of this natural invariance. Premier research has investigated avian flocking, fish pods, wildebeest herds and all the way to invertebrate molds. (That is, except people because individual me yet opposes social We.) Akin to Self-Organization in Stellar Evolution (Georigiev, 2022), our EarthWise endeavors seem to be entering a new convergent stage of universal confirmations. Stars and starlings array and move to the same independent, genotype-like score and script. We may begin to glimpse an actual 2020s discovery that our participatory bioplanet is meant to achieve.

The dynamic patterns and coordinated motion displayed by groups of social animals are a beautiful example of self-organization in natural far-from-equilibrium systems. Recent advances in active-matter physics have enticed physicists to consider how their results can be extended from microscale physical systems to groups of real, macroscopic animals. At the same time, better measurement technologies have achieved high-quality empirical data for animal groups both in the laboratory and the wild. In this review, I describe how physicists have approached synthesizing, modeling, and interpreting this information, both at the level of individual animals and the group scale. I focus on the kinds of analogies that physicists have made between animal groups and more traditional areas of physics. (Abstract)

Ozogany, Katalin and Tamas Vicsek. Modeling Leadership Hierarchy in Multilevel Animal Societies. arXiv:1403.0260. Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest, biophysicists show how such groupings, whether equine, avian, or indeed any creature, express and are guided by a universal network phenomena that forms a dynamic coherence. If to compare, for example, with Mones, Pollner, and Vicsek (search), the same patterns and processes are again duplicated in our scientific studies as Universal Hierarchical Behavior of Citation Networks. Once more, the presence of an independent mathematical, implicate, source in generative effect everywhere is robustly proven.

A typical feature of many natural and social networks is the presence of communities giving rise to multiple levels of organization. We investigate the decision-making process of a group combining self organization and social dynamics, and reproduce the simultaneous emergence of a hierarchical and modular leadership network. All individuals in the model try, with varying degrees of ability, to find a direction of movement, with the result that leader-follower relationships evolve between them, since they tend to follow the more successful ones. The harem-forming ambitions of male individuals inspired by an observed Przewalski horse herd leads to modular structure. In this approach we find that the harem-leader to harem-member ratio observed in horses corresponds to an optimal network regarding common success, and that modularly structured hierarchy is more beneficial than a non-modular one, in the sense that common success is higher, and the underlying network is more hierarchical.

Papacopoulou, Marina, et al. Self-Organization of Collective Escape in Pigeon Flocks. PLOS Computational Biology. January, 2022. University of Groningen, Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Exeter and Royal Holloway University of London researchers including Charlotte Hemelrijk and Steven Portugal add further technical insights which report and confirm a universal presence of nature’s optimum, member me + We group = US orientation. See also Zebrafish Collective Behavior by Yushi Yang, et al in the same issue and Nicholas Ouellette 2022 review. As a record we note the 2005 volume Self-Organization and Evolution of Social and Biological Systems edited by C. Hemelrijk when animal behavior studies began not long ago. (I had to fetch the paper book at Yale,) By 2022 such work can evinces our Earthropo Sapiens scientific discovery.

Bird flocks show intricate patterns of collective motion, especially when escaping a predator. But little is known about their underlying mechanisms. Here we analyze GPS data of pigeon flocks under attack by a robotic-predator by a computer simulation. We show that pigeon activity increases the closer they get to a predator by a self-organiized coordination among individuals. A key aspect is an increasing consensus among flock members over the escape direction. (Summary)

Papageorgiou, Danai, et al. The Multilevel Society of a Small-Brained Bird. Current Biology. 29/21, 2019. Seven researchers mainly at MPI Animal Behavior including Iain Couzin, along with Brendah Nyaguthii at the University of Eldoret, Kenya, quantify how even ground-dwelling avians form typical complex viable groupings with many interactive members. The work merited a N, Y. Times science review Tiny Brains Don’t Stop These Birds from Having a Complex Society by Elizabeth Preston on Nov. 4, 2019. We also cite as an example of how all manner of creatures take to this similar communal form, as if due to and exemplifying an independent structural source.

Animal societies can be organized in multiple hierarchical tiers. Such multilevel societies, where stable groups move together through the landscape, associating with specific other groups, are thought to represent one of the most complex forms of social structure in vertebrates. Here, we provide detailed quantitative evidence for the presence of a multilevel society in a small-brained bird, the vulturine guineafowl (Acryllium vulturinum). We demonstrate that this species lives in large, multi-male, multi-female groups. (Abstract)

Pasquaretta, Cristian, et al. Social Networks in Primates: Smart and Tolerant Species have More Efficient Networks. Nature Scientific Reports. 4/7600, 2014. A team of 21 behavioral anthropologists, cognitive ethologists, and primatologists from across Europe, onto Japan and the US, provide a synoptic confirmation of the presence of beneficial cooperative groupings. The first paragraph, as the second quote, is a good example of how articles now begin by noting that just as every other phase of nature and society, we find in this certain instance still another verification.

Network optimality has been described in genes, proteins and human communicative networks. In the latter, optimality leads to the efficient transmission of information with a minimum number of connections. Whilst studies show that differences in centrality exist in animal networks with central individuals having higher fitness, network efficiency has never been studied in animal groups. Here we studied 78 groups of primates (24 species). We found that group size and neocortex ratio were correlated with network efficiency. Centralisation (whether several individuals are central in the group) and modularity (how a group is clustered) had opposing effects on network efficiency, showing that tolerant species have more efficient networks. Such network properties affecting individual fitness could be shaped by natural selection. Our results are in accordance with the social brain and cultural intelligence hypotheses, which suggest that the importance of network efficiency and information flow through social learning relates to cognitive abilities. (Abstract)

Networks are observed at every level of biological organisation, from molecular pathways to ecosystems. The way genes, proteins and other entities interact is selected by evolutionary processes leading to so-called optimal networks. For instance, gene networks have been selected to be dynamically robust to mutation, stochasticity, and changes in the environment. Protein networks increase the adaptability of bacteria, which have colonised every ecological niche on earth. Neural networks can approximate statistically optimal decisions. Finally, at a larger scale, human communicative networks are also described as efficient when they enhance cooperation between individuals or result in improved communication and decision making. (1)

Pauls, James, et al. Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass. Physical Review E. 87/062704, 2013. In a paper that also attests to a reconception and unity of physics and life, Purdue University and LANL physicists including Sabre Kais find deep similarities and explanations. The artificial quantum-classical barrier is being removed to reveal a creative reiteration in kind and turn from universe to human.

The radical-pair mechanism is one of two distinct mechanisms used to explain the navigation of birds in geomagnetic fields, however little research has been done to explore the role of quantum entanglement in this mechanism. In this paper we study the lifetime of radical-pair entanglement corresponding to the magnitude and direction of magnetic fields to show that the entanglement lasts long enough in birds to be used for navigation. We also find that the birds appear to not be able to orient themselves directly based on radical-pair entanglement due to a lack of orientation sensitivity of the entanglement in the geomagnetic field. To explore the entanglement mechanism further, we propose a model in which the hyperfine interactions are replaced by local magnetic fields of similar strength. The entanglement of the radical pair in this model lasts longer and displays an angular sensitivity in weak magnetic fields, both of which are not present in previous models. (Abstract)

Penny, David. Cooperation and Selfishness Both Occur During Molecular Evolution. Biology Direct. Online November, 2014. Just a few years ago, the presence of cooperative interactions between creatures was of minor notice and import. Today the Massey University, New Zealand, biologist makes a case that even at the level of biomolecules and bacteria, cooperative behavior is present and essential for such integrated systems to form, function, and prosper.

Just a few years ago, the presence of cooperative interactions between creatures was of minor notice and import. Today the Massey University, New Zealand, biologist makes a case that even at the level of biomolecules and bacteria, cooperative behavior is present and essential for such integrated systems to form, function, and prosper.

Peysakhovich, Alexander, et al. Humans Display a ‘Cooperative Phenotype’ that is Domain General and Temporally Stable. Nature Communications. 5/4939, 2014. Peysakhovich and David Rand, Yale, and Martin Nowak, Harvard, offer further theory and evidence for a common natural tendency and incentive across evolution and societies to behave in reciprocally beneficial ways regardless of the species or situation.

Understanding human cooperation is of major interest across the natural and social sciences. But it is unclear to what extent cooperation is actually a general concept. Most research on cooperation has implicitly assumed that a person’s behaviour in one cooperative context is related to their behaviour in other settings, and at later times. Here, we provide such evidence by collecting thousands of game decisions from over 1,400 individuals. A person’s decisions in different cooperation games are correlated, as are those decisions and both self-report and real-effort measures of cooperation in non-game contexts. We conclude that there is a domain-general and temporally stable inclination towards paying costs to benefit others, which we dub the ‘cooperative phenotype’. (Abstract)

Pfeiffer, Thomas, et al. Evolution of Cooperation by Generalized Reciprocity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272/1115, 2005. It has previously been thought that cooperative behaviors could only occur by direct reciprocity when individuals had the cognitive ability to remember with whom they interacted. In this simulation study, an inherent propensity to cooperate in groups exists even if members lack this capability.

[Prev Pages]   Previous   | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18  Next  [More Pages]