NationStates Jolt Archive

From National Geographic Magazine. I won't post the whole article, which can be found here,: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ but rather a few paragraphs.

A forager won't come back until it finds something," Gordon says. "The less food there is, the longer it takes the forager to find it and get back. The more food there is, the faster it comes back. So nobody's deciding whether it's a good day to forage. The collective is, but no particular ant is."

That's how swarm intelligence works: simple creatures following simple rules, each one acting on local information. No ant sees the big picture. No ant tells any other ant what to do. Some ant species may go about this with more sophistication than others. (Temnothorax albipennis, for example, can rate the quality of a potential nest site using multiple criteria.) But the bottom line, says Iain Couzin, a biologist at Oxford and Princeton Universities, is that no leadership is required. "Even complex behavior may be coordinated by relatively simple interactions," he says.

and

The bees' rules for decision-making—seek a diversity of options, encourage a free competition among ideas, and use an effective mechanism to narrow choices—so impressed Seeley that he now uses them at Cornell as chairman of his department.

In fact, almost any group that follows the bees' rules will make itself smarter, says James Surowiecki, author of The Wisdom of Crowds. "The analogy is really quite powerful. The bees are predicting which nest site will be best, and humans can do the same thing, even in the face of exceptionally complex decisions." Investors in the stock market, scientists on a research project, even kids at a county fair guessing the number of beans in a jar can be smart groups, he says, if their members are diverse, independent minded, and use a mechanism such as voting, auctioning, or averaging to reach a collective decision.

I think this is powerful evidence that coordinated activity can be done quite easily and simply without leaders or rulers.

I think this is powerful evidence that coordinated activity can be done quite easily and simply without leaders or rulers.

I imagine it is quite easy when you're an emotionless creature biologically programmed to get food, dig tunnels, or nurse larvae, and so is everyone you know, and every outsider you meet is automatically deemed either a threat or a food source.

Insects and Humans are not the same. Humans tend to be more selfish etc...

I imagine it is quite easy when you're an emotionless creature biologically programmed to get food, dig tunnels, or nurse larvae, and so is everyone you know, and every outsider you meet is automatically deemed either a threat or a food source.Why should a lack of emotion and different biological programming necessarily lead to different group behavior than found in humans?

I imagine it is quite easy when you're an emotionless creature biologically programmed to get food, dig tunnels, or nurse larvae, and so is everyone you know, and every outsider you meet is automatically deemed either a threat or a food source.

I would not hesitate to classify the OP as a food source, for I enjoy Jello.

There's always room for Jello.

Wait... the fact that bees now, and have always (to the best of our knowledge) been able to work together to achieve common goals somehow is supposed to be evidence that humans are capable of the same?

I would not hesitate to classify the OP as a food source, for I enjoy Jello.

There's always room for Jello.

*agrees*

Wait... the fact that bees now, and have always (to the best of our knowledge) been able to work together to achieve common goals somehow is supposed to be evidence that humans are capable of the same?Yes.

Take bettors at a horse race. Why are they so accurate at predicting the outcome of a race? At the moment the horses leave the starting gate, the odds posted on the pari-mutuel board, which are calculated from all bets put down, almost always predict the race's outcome: Horses with the lowest odds normally finish first, those with second lowest odds finish second, and so on. The reason, Surowiecki says, is that pari-mutuel betting is a nearly perfect machine for tapping into the wisdom of the crowd.

"If you ever go to the track, you find a really diverse group, experts who spend all day perusing daily race forms, people who know something about some kinds of horses, and others who are betting at random, like the woman who only likes black horses," he says. Like bees trying to make a decision, bettors gather all kinds of information, disagree with one another, and distill their collective judgment when they place their bets.

That's why it's so rare to win on a long shot.

An instance of humans doing just that.

Why should a lack of emotion and different biological programming necessarily lead to different group behavior than found in humans?

Well... for one thing, humans are driven by the need to mate. That generally trumps other concerns.

Well... for one thing, humans are driven by the need to mate. That generally trumps other concerns.All right.

THERE'S A SMALL PARK near the White House in Washington, D.C., where I like to watch flocks of pigeons swirl over the traffic and trees. Sooner or later, the birds come to rest on ledges of buildings surrounding the park. Then something disrupts them, and they're off again in synchronized flight.

The birds don't have a leader. No pigeon is telling the others what to do. Instead, they're each paying close attention to the pigeons next to them, each bird following simple rules as they wheel across the sky. These rules add up to another kind of swarm intelligence—one that has less to do with making decisions than with precisely coordinating movement. Are pigeons not driven by the need to mate?

Yes.



An instance of humans doing just that.
Well, I suppose the only way to find out for sure is to try it. Which government building do you want?

A group of what are basically organic, preprogrammed robots is good evidence that humans should do the same thing?

A group of what are basically organic, preprogrammed robots is good evidence that humans should do the same thing?Do you have evidence that the differences in behavior are caused by one group being "organic, preprogrammed robots"?

Btw, you should have called this thread swarms of evidence. It would have been a nice pun.

An instance of humans doing just that.
What, looking at the previous history of a particular horse and jockey, and voting accordingly unless they're thick?

Chrissakes!

All right.

Are pigeons not driven by the need to mate?

Again: pigeons not known for their intelligence or emotional complexity.

They're flying in a way that conserves energy. If you want proof that this is not a good analog to human behavior, just take another example from DC: the traffic. Humans in traffic have no leaders, they're trying to perform a coordinated activity. And, instead of flowing smoothly, the roads become gridlocked every day without fail (except work days).

Why should a lack of emotion and different biological programming necessarily lead to different group behavior than found in humans?

Since anarchism has not just come about naturally there's obviously something different between human group behaviour and insect group behaviour.

If anything, bee hives are an argument for brainwashing the populace into docility and training them to only perform one task.

Basically, it's the only example of something even resembling anarcho-fascism I've ever seen. Congratulations, you just made an argument for a political viewpoint so weird even it's name is a contradiction.

Hoho, you've made me laugh. Humans are not insects. Humans are not pigeons. Humans are pack animals. Packs have leaders.

From National Geographic Magazine. I won't post the whole article, which can be found here,: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/ but rather a few paragraphs.



and



I think this is powerful evidence that coordinated activity can be done quite easily and simply without leaders or rulers.

Why don't you support the market again?

EDIT: Capitalists for three centuries have been saying that grand central planning is not necessary for order or the fulfillment of needs.

What, looking at the previous history of a particular horse and jockey, and voting accordingly unless they're thick?

Chrissakes!The betting also includes random guesses.

Again: pigeons not known for their intelligence or emotional complexity.

They're flying in a way that conserves energy. If you want proof that this is not a good analog to human behavior, just take another example from DC: the traffic. Humans in traffic have no leaders, they're trying to perform a coordinated activity. And, instead of flowing smoothly, the roads become gridlocked every day without fail (except work days).Perhaps because the traffic controllers aren't using 'swarm intelligence' to figure out the best traffic patterns?

Since anarchism has not just come about naturally there's obviously something different between human group behaviour and insect group behaviour.Other than the evidence suggesting many primitive cultures were like that, you mean?

If anything, bee hives are an argument for brainwashing the populace into docility and training them to only perform one task.Who does the brainwashing?

Who does the brainwashing?

Obviously, since we're not insects, we'll need to be brainwashed to act in such an unindividual manner. Presumably, you'd brainwash the people to do the brainwashing before the primary brainwashing began.

Hoho, you've made me laugh. Humans are not insects. Humans are not pigeons. Humans are pack animals. Packs have leaders.Leaders, perhaps, but not rulers.

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0707/feature5/gallery1.html

Why don't you support the market again?Because there are other rules that can be followed that lead to better decisions than the rules of the market.

Obviously, since we're not insects, we'll need to be brainwashed to act in such an unindividual manner. Presumably, you'd brainwash the people to do the brainwashing before the primary brainwashing began.

Who says that "unindividual" behavior is necessary?

The betting also includes random guesses.
Yeah, if you're crap at betting.

Because there are other rules that can be followed that lead to better decisions than the rules of the market.

Which "rules" would those be, and how do they favor anarchism?

Leaders, perhaps, but not rulers.
So how doesn't this refute what you said?
I think this is powerful evidence that coordinated activity can be done quite easily and simply without leaders or rulers.

Obviously, since we're not insects, we'll need to be brainwashed to act in such an unindividual manner. Presumably, you'd brainwash the people to do the brainwashing before the primary brainwashing began.Nonetheless, even ants don't only perform one task all the time:

(Quotes from article in quotes instead of quote boxes to cut down on the clutter.)

"Consider the problem of job allocation. In the Arizona desert where Deborah Gordon studies red harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex barbatus), a colony calculates each morning how many workers to send out foraging for food. The number can change, depending on conditions. Have foragers recently discovered a bonanza of tasty seeds? More ants may be needed to haul the bounty home. Was the nest damaged by a storm last night? Additional maintenance workers may be held back to make repairs. An ant might be a nest worker one day, a trash collector the next. But how does a colony make such adjustments if no one's in charge?"

Yeah, if you're crap at betting.Even still, the good bets and the crappy bets all combined usually correctly predict the outcome of the race.

Which "rules" would those be, and how do they favor anarchism?Something more like this:

"I've applied what I've learned from the bees to run faculty meetings," he says. To avoid going into a meeting with his mind made up, hearing only what he wants to hear, and pressuring people to conform, Seeley asks his group to identify all the possibilities, kick their ideas around for a while, then vote by secret ballot. "It's exactly what the swarm bees do, which gives a group time to let the best ideas emerge and win. People are usually quite amenable to that."

Who says that "unindividual" behavior is necessary?

Jello Biafra did. He just used a hive mind as an example of how human beings could act. Therefore, his supposed evidence that anarchism is natural in social insects also relies on the principle of the hive mind, which is the only thing that makes their anarchy functional.

So how doesn't this refute what you said?Ah, a typo. I was more concerned with the lack of rulers as opposed to the lack of leaders.
You are correct in that respect, though.

One big challenge to this idea is that swarm behavior only works when everyone is contributing and the overall needs of said community are fairly simplistic. Free riders will drag the system down and quickly, and it is the systems which are the most vital to social functioning that are the most vulnerable to free riders.

Unless you have a way of realistically solving society's infrastructure needs without centralized authority, it will be impossible to have any kind of anarchic society without massive declines in the quality and availability of said infrastructure, if it is available at all. Infrastructure is the backbone of any society and its economic system, and is the most vulnerable to the damage caused by free riders. Unless that problem (as well as other economic issues in the same vein) can be dealt with without government, anarchism is more or less impossible unless we are willing to sacrifice quite a significant portion of our living standards and societal development. (The same is true of defense, but that is another issue that can be discussed later.)

Something more like this:

"I've applied what I've learned from the bees to run faculty meetings," he says. To avoid going into a meeting with his mind made up, hearing only what he wants to hear, and pressuring people to conform, Seeley asks his group to identify all the possibilities, kick their ideas around for a while, then vote by secret ballot. "It's exactly what the swarm bees do, which gives a group time to let the best ideas emerge and win. People are usually quite amenable to that."

And so a democracy that determines where everybody can and cannot live is anarchy?

Do you have evidence that the differences in behavior are caused by one group being "organic, preprogrammed robots"?

One group? I think you mean "species." This is such a stupid stretch you're trying to make. How plain does it have to be for you - humans are not insects, nor birds. Humans are sentient and have rights and *gasp* their own thoughts and needs. These differences alone are enough to dismiss your pro-anarchistic drivel.

I think this is powerful evidence that coordinated activity can be done quite easily and simply without leaders or rulers.


I think emergent behavior is well documented. There are even little games on the net you can play with it.

One big challenge to this idea is that swarm behavior only works when everyone is contributing and the overall needs of said community are fairly simplistic. Free riders will drag the system down and quickly, and it is the systems which are the most vital to social functioning that are the most vulnerable to free riders.

Unless you have a way of realistically solving society's infrastructure needs without centralized authority, it will be impossible to have any kind of anarchic society without massive declines in the quality and availability of said infrastructure, if it is available at all. Infrastructure is the backbone of any society and its economic system, and is the most vulnerable to the damage caused by free riders. Unless that problem (as well as other economic issues in the same vein) can be dealt with without government, anarchism is more or less impossible unless we are willing to sacrifice quite a significant portion of our living standards and societal development. (The same is true of defense, but that is another issue that can be discussed later.)Would you say a nest is closer to a house or a city?

And so a democracy that determines where everybody can and cannot live is anarchy?Provided there is free association, yes.

One group? I think you mean "species." This is such a stupid stretch you're trying to make. How plain does it have to be for you - humans are not insects, nor birds. So? The correlation that humans are a different species from insects and birds is not causation that they must have different types of behavior.

Humans are sentient and have rights and *gasp* their own thoughts and needs. These differences alone are enough to dismiss your pro-anarchistic drivel.Can you demonstrate that satisfying the needs of the group does not satisfy the needs of individuals most of the time?
If satisfying the needs of the group usually results in an individual's needs being satisfied, then this is not evidence for your case.

Would you say a nest is closer to a house or a city?

A city, but there is an important difference nonetheless despite superficial similarity. The needs of a bee's nest are far different than the needs of a human city; the sanitation, water, transportation, services and food needs of a human city are far more complicated and diverse than those needed for a bee's nest. Another important difference is that human cities can't be supported by foraging alone and are on a far bigger scale in terms of their effect on the local environment.

Oh FFS. Is this the 1980s or something. Complex behavior emerges with a given set of simple rules. It's how flocks of birds swing around and swarm, or schools of fish behave.

Obviously there can be similar emergent properties in groups of people as described.

It really doesn't say anything about anything.

Oh FFS. Is this the 1980s or something.

How about the 1780s? Adam Smith applied ideas like this to the economy 230 years ago.

A city, but there is an important difference nonetheless despite superficial similarity. The needs of a bee's nest are far different than the needs of a human city; the sanitation, water, transportation, services and food needs of a human city are far more complicated and diverse than those needed for a bee's nest. Another important difference is that human cities can't be supported by foraging alone and are on a far bigger scale in terms of their effect on the local environment.Could rules about building hives be used to build sanitation, water, etc. systems?

Oh FFS. Is this the 1980s or something. Complex behavior emerges with a given set of simple rules. It's how flocks of birds swing around and swarm, or schools of fish behave.

Obviously there can be similar emergent properties in groups of people as described.

It really doesn't say anything about anything.In and of itself it doesn't, but it is evidence suggesting something.

Other than the evidence suggesting many primitive cultures were like that, you mean?

Bees and other insects still have much the same group behaviour. Humans don't. Maybe there's some kind of difference there. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we aren't purely driven by instinct. Who knows, but the point is that "anarchy" among insects doesn't do a lot to support actual anarchy.

I read the article your talking about, and there actually is plenty humans can learn from this. However, the system bees have is not really anarchy, but a biologically-programmed government. Humans could have something similar to bees, or ants, but we would need to create rules corresponding to the rules nature makes innate in these animals. That's what government does.

All in all, living in a life similar to a bee hive would be absolute hell anyway.

All in all, living in a life similar to a bee hive would be absolute hell anyway.

Not if you're a bee.

Could rules about building hives be used to build sanitation, water, etc. systems?

I don't think so, because of the complexity and division of labor involved that would require centralized authority to coordinate the development.

Of course, a look at the street map of pre-Haussman Paris, Rome, London or any other city that grew organically shows the inadequacy of anarchic development. The lack of planning and oversight produced overcrowded, polluted cities that had huge problems with disease and crime. The swarm model simply didn't work; in fact, the anarchic development of these cities actually impeded the function of those cities as economic and social sectors.

I think emergent behavior is well documented. There are even little games on the net you can play with it.

Tell us more of these games.

Tell us more of these games.

Knock yourself out

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

How about the 1780s? Adam Smith applied ideas like this to the economy 230 years ago.

-ish.

No-one really modeled it until the 80s.

So, what happens when an ant decides he doesn't want to go out and work?

So, what happens when an ant decides he doesn't want to go out and work?

Antz

Antz

*walked into that* :p

Knock yourself out

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

I was born in 81 and played that "game" probably before I could read.

Knock yourself out

http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

There's also one called 'Flow', but I have no link for it.

There's also one called 'Flow', but I have no link for it.

Flow is fun too. *nods*

People in anarchy-like situations tend to do poorly. Face it. Humans are selfish. Take away authority and all hell breaks lose. For a recent example of people in anarchy, see post-invasion Iraq. As soon as Sadaam's government collapsed, all hell broke lose.

Humans, like wolves are pack animals. Take out the leader, whether the human government or alpha wolf, and all hell breaks lose. When you take out the alpha wolf, the others begin to panic. The leadership that kept them alive for so long is gone. You're going to have a bunch of wolves competing for leadership. Expect bloodshed and some pretty unsuccessful hunts.

With humans, once the leadership is gone, it's every man for himself until a new leader shows up. People are going to compete. It's in our blood. Survival of the fittest. After a brief period of absolute anarchy, you'll see tribes form. Soon, some tribes will be wiped out while others form alliances. Tribes will grow bigger and bigger until you have a couple governments. It's human nature. It's how we got the governments we have today.

After a brief period of absolute anarchy, you'll see tribes form. Soon, some tribes will be wiped out while others form alliances. Tribes will grow bigger and bigger until you have a couple governments.It's how we got the governments we have today.

http://www.mediacircus.net/pota__10.jpg
"The only good human - is a dead human!"

This whole thread is ridiculous and absusrd.

Why should a lack of emotion and different biological programming necessarily lead to different group behavior than found in humans?
Because Bees lack things such as wants or free will.

If "Anarchism"= Brainwashed mindless people, then you can keep it.

Besides the Queen is still techincally the leader, and does in fact GIVE ORDERS.

There goes your anarchist idea.

Why don't you compare organs to the anarchist system? Or human cells?

Wait... That's because they have no brain power.

The human body isn't even anarchistic.

Investors in the stock market, scientists on a research project, even kids at a county fair guessing the number of beans in a jar can be smart groups, he says, if their members are diverse, independent minded, and use a mechanism such as voting, auctioning, or averaging to reach a collective decision.

Funny. Aristotle said the same exact thing over two thousand years ago.

People aren't ants or bees.

It sure would be nice if we could do photosynthesis like plants, I mean, it would basically eliminate world hunger!

I think the idea that most condemns anarchy is the fact that whenever any sort of government or organization is destroyed due to war, famine, politics, etc., another is formed. And, not only that, the new government is often a monarchy and develops into democracy.

Also, the mere fact that we have a government suggests that it holds water better than anarchy.

I don't think so, because of the complexity and division of labor involved that would require centralized authority to coordinate the development.

Of course, a look at the street map of pre-Haussman Paris, Rome, London or any other city that grew organically shows the inadequacy of anarchic development. The lack of planning and oversight produced overcrowded, polluted cities that had huge problems with disease and crime. The swarm model simply didn't work; in fact, the anarchic development of these cities actually impeded the function of those cities as economic and social sectors.Things can be planned and coordinated without a ruler doing the planning and coordination.
Your examples seem to have had a lack of rules governing them.

Because Bees lack things such as wants or free will.

If "Anarchism"= Brainwashed mindless people, then you can keep it.

Besides the Queen is still techincally the leader, and does in fact GIVE ORDERS.Pigeons have wants and free will, and yet they move according to swarm theory.
According to the article, the queen does not give orders.

People aren't ants or bees.So? Birds aren't ants or bees, and yet swarm theory guides their movement.

Humans are primates, not social insects or avians. Primate group behaviour is marked by "dominance hierarchies".

Why would you expect primates to exihibit the behaviour of swarm, flock, or herd animals?

As for the city/hive or city/nest analogy, sure a termite mound can be complex, but human cities are orders of magnatude higher in their complexity.

And the LOLiest thing I've seen all day is this:
"I've applied what I've learned from the bees to run faculty meetings," he says. To avoid going into a meeting with his mind made up, hearing only what he wants to hear, and pressuring people to conform, Seeley asks his group to identify all the possibilities, kick their ideas around for a while, then vote by secret ballot. "It's exactly what the swarm bees do, which gives a group time to let the best ideas emerge and win. People are usually quite amenable to that."

(Although, the idea that pigeons have "free will" is close behind that.)

Insects and Humans are not the same. Humans tend to be more selfish etc...

It's the thumbs......those darn poseable thumbs....... :)

Humans are primates, not social insects or avians. Primate group behaviour is marked by "dominance hierarchies".

Why would you expect primates to exihibit the behaviour of swarm, flock, or herd animals?Why would you expect them to be different simply because they are different species, knowing that different species of animals behave in similar ways?

As for the city/hive or city/nest analogy, sure a termite mound can be complex, but human cities are orders of magnatude higher in their complexity.True, but if termites can build complex things while following simple rules, why couldn't humans, with our bigger brains, build more complex things while following simple rules?
At what point is there too much complexity?

And the LOLiest thing I've seen all day is thisAccording to the article, that method leads to better decisions being made by the board. Why is that funny?

Why would you expect them to be different simply because they are different species, knowing that different species of animals behave in similar ways?

Because, like I pointed out, they don't behave in similar ways. Primate behaviour is based on dominance heirarchies. Eusocial insects behaviour is not.

True, but if termites can build complex things while following simple rules, why couldn't humans, with our bigger brains, build more complex things while following simple rules?
At what point is there too much complexity?

Because more complicated things require more specialization.

According to the article, that method leads to better decisions being made by the board. Why is that funny?

What's funny about it is the complete anthropomorphization of bee behaviours.

Because, like I pointed out, they don't behave in similar ways. Primate behaviour is based on dominance heirarchies. Eusocial insects behaviour is not.True, but different species of primates have different types of hierarchies. If dominance is vital to the function of primates, then it certainly doesn't take the same form.

Because more complicated things require more specialization. At what point does something become so complicated that it requires specialization?
Why would specialization require a dominance hierarchy?

What's funny about it is the complete anthropomorphization of bee behaviours.It seems useful to me, and to the people in the article.

True, but different species of primates have different types of hierarchies. If dominance is vital to the function of primates, then it certainly doesn't take the same form.

They have different types yes, but they have them. Eusocial insects don't. By suggesting that primates should behave like eusocial insects, you are ignoring that they don't.

At what point does something become so complicated that it requires specialization?
Why would specialization require a dominance hierarchy?

Either you confused what I said or I was insufficiently clear.

The infrastructure of a city is too complicated for the simple rules of eusocial insects. More specialized knowledge is needed. For that, more flexible brains are needed. Primates brains and behaviour evolved into what they are in part because that complexity and flexibility gave them evolutionary advantages.

It seems useful to me, and to the people in the article.

Suggesting that bees even have "ideas" to "kick around" is silly.

They have different types yes, but they have them. Eusocial insects don't. By suggesting that primates should behave like eusocial insects, you are ignoring that they don't.I accept that they do. I don't accept that they must.

Either you confused what I said or I was insufficiently clear.

The infrastructure of a city is too complicated for the simple rules of eusocial insects. More specialized knowledge is needed. For that, more flexible brains are needed. Primates brains and behaviour evolved into what they are in part because that complexity and flexibility gave them evolutionary advantages.Okay, but accepting this doesn't mean that specialization must lead to dominance hierarchies.

Suggesting that bees even have "ideas" to "kick around" is silly.Here is the part of the article talking about an experiment they did with bees:

"During the past decade, Seeley, Kirk Visscher of the University of California, Riverside, and others have been studying colonies of honeybees (Apis mellifera) to see how they choose a new home. In late spring, when a hive gets too crowded, a colony normally splits, and the queen, some drones, and about half the workers fly a short distance to cluster on a tree branch. There the bees bivouac while a small percentage of them go searching for new real estate. Ideally, the site will be a cavity in a tree, well off the ground, with a small entrance hole facing south, and lots of room inside for brood and honey. Once a colony selects a site, it usually won't move again, so it has to make the right choice.

To find out how, Seeley's team applied paint dots and tiny plastic tags to identify all 4,000 bees in each of several small swarms that they ferried to Appledore Island, home of the Shoals Marine Laboratory. There, in a series of experiments, they released each swarm to locate nest boxes they'd placed on one side of the half-mile-long (one kilometer) island, which has plenty of shrubs but almost no trees or other places for nests.

In one test they put out five nest boxes, four that weren't quite big enough and one that was just about perfect. Scout bees soon appeared at all five. When they returned to the swarm, each performed a waggle dance urging other scouts to go have a look. (These dances include a code giving directions to a box's location.) The strength of each dance reflected the scout's enthusiasm for the site. After a while, dozens of scouts were dancing their little feet off, some for one site, some for another, and a small cloud of bees was buzzing around each box.

The decisive moment didn't take place in the main cluster of bees, but out at the boxes, where scouts were building up. As soon as the number of scouts visible near the entrance to a box reached about 15—a threshold confirmed by other experiments—the bees at that box sensed that a quorum had been reached, and they returned to the swarm with the news.

"It was a race," Seeley says. "Which site was going to build up 15 bees first?"

Scouts from the chosen box then spread through the swarm, signaling that it was time to move. Once all the bees had warmed up, they lifted off for their new home, which, to no one's surprise, turned out to be the best of the five boxes."

It's not that much of a stretch to consider this kicking around ideas.

It's not that much of a stretch to consider this kicking around ideas.

You consider this to be a good analog to mammalian problem solving?

Even viruses and bacteria know how to pick the best homes, and they don't even have nervous systems. Hell, viruses aren't even technically alive, and they can do this.

Would you say a nest is closer to a house or a city?
A house, on account of a nest of ants or other eusocial insects effectively being a single, gigantic organism.

A house, on account of a nest of ants or other eusocial insects effectively being a single, gigantic organism.Isn't that a very precise description of a city?

I think this is powerful evidence that coordinated activity can be done quite easily and simply without leaders or rulers.
(among insects)

I wonder why the proponents of "there is no such thing as human nature - prior evidence does not indicate anything about the future" are now happy to twitter what is essentially "human behavior, like that of bees and ants, can be described as a set of simple machine actions and decisions, which are entirely predictable."

Maybe its because when you start out from a position that is unreasonable and inane, and at odds with everything observable and sensible, you are apt to mouth any other sort of ridiculous nonsense.

Grenada, this is an anarchist thread. It's not supposed to make sense. It doesn't have to make sense. It would be a sign of the apocalypse if someone learned anything new and interesting about anarchism from the Internet.

Isn't that a very precise description of a city?

You could draw connections to a cell, a person, a house, a city...Hell, go for the entire biosphere if you want.

You consider this to be a good analog to mammalian problem solving?Some people do, which is why they use similar methods to solve problems at their meetings.

Some people do, which is why they use similar methods to solve problems at their meetings.

I am actually not really sure how they got from swarm behavior to listening to everyone at a meeting.

The ants and bees are taking atomic behavior and translating it into a sustainable method of survival (not consciously, of course), with order being emergent from the actions of the individuals. There is no conscious consideration of the whole, the grand scheme, or the welfare of others, yet all of those are still fulfilled.

When one goes into a meeting and says we will take a democratic vote and establish order, one turns that completely on its head. It establishes an order and then brings the atomic individuals into a whole.

Swarm mentality/collectivism would never work with humans, nor would we want it to. It would be the death of individual values...

I am actually not really sure how they got from swarm behavior to listening to everyone at a meeting.

The ants and bees are taking atomic behavior and translating it into a sustainable method of survival (not consciously, of course), with order being emergent from the actions of the individuals. There is no conscious consideration of the whole, the grand scheme, or the welfare of others, yet all of those are still fulfilled.

When one goes into a meeting and says we will take a democratic vote and establish order, one turns that completely on its head. It establishes an order and then brings the atomic individuals into a whole.The idea is that the ants and bees are following a set of simple rules to achieve an outcome, just as the voting process does. You are correct in that in the case with humans, achieving the outcome is a conscious thing.

The idea is that the ants and bees are following a set of simple rules to achieve an outcome, just as the voting process does. You are correct in that in the case with humans, achieving the outcome is a conscious thing.

Do as I say or I will kill you is a simple rule that will produce order, but that is pointless because it is establishing order from the top, so to speak, just as is democracy.

EDIT: Again, the point is that ordered group behavior can come from completely atomic behavior of the constituents, and that is not what happens within democracy. Under democracy each individual acts with conscious consideration of the needs of the whole.

This only goes to support an "egoist" idea of anarchy.

Isn't that a very precise description of a city?

Not even remotely. Humans are not a superorganism. Humans are a pack. There's a difference.

Do as I say or I will kill you is a simple rule that will produce order, but that is pointless because it is establishing order from the top, so to speak, just as is democracy.

EDIT: Again, the point is that ordered group behavior can come from completely atomic behavior of the constituents, and that is not what happens within democracy. Under democracy each individual acts with conscious consideration of the needs of the whole.

This only goes to support an "egoist" idea of anarchy.Yes, I acknowledge the difference, but it seems to me that the point isn't that the insects, birds, etc. aren't keeping the big picture in mind, but rather that the big picture can occur without rulers.
I don't think that the consideration of the big picture is material to that, but I would say that because humans do consider the big picture, we are able to create things (proportionally) more complex to us than a hive is to bees.

Yes, I acknowledge the difference, but it seems to me that the point isn't that the insects, birds, etc. aren't keeping the big picture in mind, but rather that the big picture can occur without rulers.


No, the individualistic action of the participants is the key. This study provides absolutely no evidence that a democracy can exist without rulers, only that order can come from simple rules of individual action.

No, the individualistic action of the participants is the key. This study provides absolutely no evidence that a democracy can exist without rulers, only that order can come from simple rules of individual action.Yes, but it's not much of a stretch to believe that if order can come from simple rules of individual action, then order can come from a democracy, which is another form of simple rules of individual action.

Yes, but it's not much of a stretch to believe that if order can come from simple rules of individual action, then order can come from a democracy, which is another form of simple rules of individual action.

Democracy is a simple rule of collective action, not individual.

Just refer yourself to recent voter turnouts to know that fact.

Democracy is a simple rule of collective action, not individual.

Just refer yourself to recent voter turnouts to know that fact.The person elected is a collective action, in the same way that the building of a hive is a collective action.
The casting of the vote is an individual action, in the same way that gathering material for the hive or putting up a wall is an individual action.

The person elected is a collective action, in the same way that the building of a hive is a collective action.
The casting of the vote is an individual action, in the same way that gathering material for the hive or putting up a wall is an individual action.

And is voting a natural rule of human behavior?

And is voting a natural rule of human behavior?It stems from voicing one's opinion, which is a natural rule of human behavior.

It stems from voicing one's opinion, which is a natural rule of human behavior.

You are exhibiting another behavior of simple lifeforms: squirming.;)

You are exhibiting another behavior of simple lifeforms: squirming.;)Lol. Really? I thought there were times in the past that I had to squirm more than right now? Perhaps it's become subconscious?

Are you saying there's a major difference between voting and expressing one's opinion?

Lol. Really? I thought there were times in the past that I had to squirm more than right now? Perhaps it's become subconscious?

Are you saying there's a major difference between voting and expressing one's opinion?

Alright then, explain how voicing one's opinion is a natural rule of human behavior, and then explain how that implies that voting is a natural rule of human behavior.

Alright then, explain how voicing one's opinion is a natural rule of human behavior, and then explain how that implies that voting is a natural rule of human behavior.Hm. Well, I suppose that voicing opinions is simply something that people I know do, but I can't prove that this is universal amongst all cultures.
Either way, voting is merely the formalizing voicing of opinions, with democracy being the collective enaction of the majority of opinions.