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

5. Cooperative Member/Group Societies

Wilson, David Sloan and Edward O. Wilson. Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology. Quarterly Review of Biology. 82/4, 2007. The possibility that as organisms assemble, interact, and evolve they could, at sufficient density, be considered a higher-order organism, aka group selection, has had a checkered 20th century past. In this article, two of the prime players achieve a cogent summary for a strong 21st century argument that indeed this is the case. With the growing acceptance of ‘multi-level selection’ via ‘major transitions,’ as a quote conveys, what is revealed is a nested, sequential procession of more complex, individual entities from microbes to civilization. As a result, a distributed, intelligent ‘group mind’ accrues.

An illustrated article by the authors in American Scientist for September-October 2008 makes a similarly cogent case. But here is an association and leap not taken. What W. & W. describe is an evolutionary structure and dynamics with the same characteristic form as a typical, repetitively emergent, self-organizing system. By such a correlation, life’s stratified ascent, as distinguished by the same pattern and process at each whole stage, could be seen to spring from and exemplify such a universal, independent source. In any event, this work is a major conceptual synthesis, with copious references, which much augurs for a natural genesis.

To summarize, four decades of research since the 1960s have provided ample empirical evidence for group selection, in addition to its theoretical plausibility as a significant evolutionary force. (334) An important advance in evolutionary biology began with (Lynn) Margulis’s theory of the eukaryotic cell. She proposed that eukaryotic (nucleated) cells did not evolve by small mutational steps from prokaryotic (bacterial) cells, but by symbiotic associations of bacteria becoming so integrated that the associations qualified as single organism in their own right. The concept of groups of organisms turning into groups as organisms was then extended to other major transitions during the history of life, including the origin of life itself as groups of cooperating molecular reactions, the first cells, and multicellular organisms. (337)

The psychological traits associated with human moral systems are comparable to the mechanisms that suppress selection within groups for other major transitions, such as chromosomes and the rules of meiosis within multicellular organisms and policing mechanisms within eusocial insect colonies. (339) When Rabbi Hillel was asked to explain the Torah in the time that he could stand on one foot, he famously replied: “Do not do unto others that which is repugnant to your. Everything else is commentary.” Darwin’s original insight and the developments review in this article enable us to offer the following one-foot summary of sociobiology’s new theoretical foundations: “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.” (341)

Wilson, Robert A. Group-Level Cognition. Philosophy of Science. 68/3 Supplement, 2001. A philosophical defense of the quantified reappearance and appreciation of social groups with their own minds.

Witzany, Guenther. RNA Sociology: Group Behavioral Motifs of RNA Consortia. Life. Online December, 2014. Along with James Shapiro, Eva Jablonka, Denis Noble, and an expanding chorus, the Austrian natural philosopher continues astute perceptions of a more proactive, relational genome. In this paper, even RiboNucleic Acid molecules are seen to have similar propensities to form and avail genome groupings similar to all other animal and human entities.

RNA sociology investigates the behavioral motifs of RNA consortia from the social science perspective. Besides the self-folding of RNAs into single stem loop structures, group building of such stem loops results in a variety of essential agents that are highly active in regulatory processes in cellular and non-cellular life. RNA stem loop self-folding and group building do not depend solely on sequence syntax; more important are their contextual (functional) needs. Also, evolutionary processes seem to occur through RNA stem loop consortia that may act as a complement. This means the whole entity functions only if all participating parts are coordinated, although the complementary building parts originally evolved for different functions. If complementary groups, such as rRNAs and tRNAs, are placed together in selective pressure contexts, new evolutionary features may emerge. Evolution initiated by competent agents in natural genome editing clearly contrasts with statistical error replication narratives. (Abstract)

Wright, Colin, et al. Collective Personalities: Present Knowledge and New Frontiers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 73/3, 2019. Penn State, UC Santa Barbara, McMaster University, and Francois-Rabelais University, Tours, France behavioral biologists including Jonathan Pruitt propose a new realization about animal groupings of all kinds. In addition to cognitive qualities, communal personality traits can be observed as they interact with other groups. See also Animal Personality Aligns Task Specialization and Task Proficiency in a Spider Society by Colin Wright, et al in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (111/9533, 2014).

Collective personalities refer to consistent, distinct behaviors between social groups. This phenomenon is a ubiquitous feature of social groups, as many lab and field studies to date have documented between-group differences in collective behavior, and reveal ongoing selection on these traits. Here, we summarize recent works conducted in the model systems of social spiders and eusocial insects. We used a trait-by-trait format to compare the results and trends obtained in these taxa on 10 aspects of collective personality: division of labor, foraging, exploration, boldness, defensive behavior, aggressiveness, decision-making, cognition, learning, and nest construction. We conclude that the recognition of actual communal personalities can improve understandings of all manner an animal groupings. (Abstract)

Wright, Robert. Nonzero. New York: Pantheon, 2000. A most innovative application of game theory concepts to evolution and history to reveal an inherent tendency toward emergent cooperation. A breakthrough work noted in several places.

Yong, Ed. The Power of Swarms can Help us Fight Cancer, Understand the Brain, and Predict the Future. Wired. March, 2013. An extensive, illustrated appreciation of the work of Princeton University behavioral ecologist Iain Couzin, who with international colleagues and students, are cleverly quantifying the ubiquitous network patterns and processes that viably self-organize every phase of bodies, brains, and societal phenomena. While we marvel over flocking birds and schooling fish, only recently has it been proven they are guided and impelled by a common mathematical dynamics. As we proceed into the second decade of the 21st century, as Thomas Grund also notes, an array of sophisticated studies converge upon nature’s universal principle of a mutual reciprocity of individual member and sustaining group. This original wisdom has been evoked from Taoist dialectics to Ubuntu complementarity as a salutary balance of me and we. Going forward, we would do well to intentionally avail from community ecovillages to bicameral governance.

Now, thanks to new observation technologies, powerful software, and statistical methods, the mechanics of collectives are being revealed. Indeed, enough physicists, biologists, and engineers have gotten involved that the science itself seems to be hitting a density-dependent shift. Without obvious leaders or an overarching plan, this collective of the collective-obsessed is finding that the rules that produce majestic cohesion out of local jostling turn up in everything from neurons to human beings. Behavior that seems impossibly complex can have disarmingly simple foundations. And the rules may explain everything from how cancer spreads to how the brain works and how armadas of robot-driven cars might someday navigate highways. The way individuals work together may actually be more important than the way they work alone.

All these similarities seem to point to a grand unified theory of the swarm—a fundamental ultra-calculus that unites the various strands of group behavior. In one paper, (Tamas) Vicsek and a colleague wondered whether there might be “some simple underlying laws of nature (such as, e.g., the principles of thermodynamics) that produce the whole variety of the observed phenomena.” Couzin has considered the same thing. “Why are we seeing this again and again?” he says. “There’s got to be something deeper and more fundamental.” Biologists are used to convergent evolution, like the streamlining of dolphins and sharks or echolocation in bats and whales—animals from separate lineages have similar adaptations. But convergent evolution of algorithms? Either all these collectives came up with different behaviors that produce the same outcomes—head-butting bees, neighbor-watching starlings, light-dodging golden shiners—or some basic rules underlie everything and the behaviors are the bridge from the rules to the collective.

Zhao, Li, et al. Herd Behavior in a Complex Adaptive System. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108/15058, 2011. An example of the worldwide frontiers of nonlinear science with authors from Fudan University, Shanghai, University of Toyko, and, of course, Boston University’s Eugene Stanley. And another instance of quantifying such ubiquitous dynamics at work in each and every natural, societal realm.

In order to survive, self-serving agents in various kinds of complex adaptive systems (CASs) must compete against others for sharing limited resources with biased or unbiased distribution by conducting strategic behaviors. This competition can globally result in the balance of resource allocation. As a result, most of the agents and species can survive well. However, it is a common belief that the formation of a herd in a CAS will cause excess volatility, which can ruin the balance of resource allocation in the CAS. (15058)

We report that, as long as the ratio of the two resources for allocation is biased enough, the formation of a typically sized herd can help the system to reach the balanced state. This resource ratio also serves as the critical point for a class of phase transition identified herein, which can be used to discover the role change of herd behavior, from a ruinous one to a helpful one. This work is also of value to some fields, ranging from management and social science, to ecology and evolution, and to physics. (Abstract, 15058)

Most of the social, ecological, and biological systems that involve a large number of interacting agents can be seen as complex adaptive systems (CASs), because they are characterized by a high degree of adaptive capacities to the changing environment. CAS dynamics and collective behaviors have attracted much attention among physical scientists. (15058)

Zhou, W.-X., et al. Discrete Hierarchical Organization of Social Group Sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 272/439, 2005. Noted more in Complex Human Societies, the unique detection of a fractal-like sequence and scale of primate, hominid, and human communal assembly.

Zimmer, Carl. From Ants to People, an Instinct to Swarm. New York Times. November 13, 2007. A lead Science Times article on the innovative work of Princeton University mathematical ecologist Iain Couzin who is busy quantifying a ubiquitous penchant of creatures to form salutary groups. Over the past few years, aided by advances such as scale-free network theory, scientists have found a similar pattern and process to grace a flock of starlings, tuna school, beehive, buffalo herd, or financial investors. By such fillings in across Metazoan animals unto human societies (see other like 2007 postings), a true universality is becoming apparent. Couzin goes on to allude that brain cells may also join and fire by these same principles. Which could imply, one might add, that this common dynamic is neural in kind. These disparate results coming together within a worldwide humankind herald a sequential, emergent iteration that can reveal and verify a natural genesis.

Zou, Ningmu, et al. Cooperative Communication within and between Single Nanocatalysts. Nature Chemistry. 10/6, 2018. Seven Cornell University researchers find that even in a basic biochemical domain as this, an innate propensity to achieve active formations by way associative activities can be seen well in effect.

Enzymes often show catalytic allostery (biomolecule binding) in which reactions occurring at different sites communicate cooperatively over distances of up to a few nanometres. Whether such effects can occur with non-biological nanocatalysts remains unclear, even though they can undergo restructuring and molecules can diffuse over catalyst surfaces. Here we report that similar but distinct, cooperative effects indeed exist for nanocatalysts. Using spatiotemporally resolved single-molecule catalysis imaging, we find that catalytic reactions on a single Pd or Au nanocatalyst can communicate with each other, giving rise to positive cooperativity among its surface active sites. (Abstract excerpt)

[Prev Pages]   Previous   | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19