3 ms·

I think that there is a swarming aspect to humanity, in the sense of locusts or passenger pigeons. Here's what I mean by that: For some species the survivabil

I think that there is a swarming aspect to humanity, in the sense of locusts or passenger pigeons. Here's what I mean by that: For some species the survivability rate is inverse to the population density- the habitat fills up and a natural equilibrium results. But for other species there is a range of population densities where the survivability rate is positively correlated with population- so the more you have, the better they survive. Any species that moves in large herds is like that- the predators get full, they can't eat any more, and the dent the predators can make on the population is negligible. We are like that too; the more of us there are, the more we can specialize tasks and support each other, and the faster our population increases. (Up to some limit). Swarming species are more delicate than they look though- passenger pigeons are a good example. Once some external force pushes the population below a certain level, the remainder have a much much harder time surviving. I don't know if people appreciate how easily a good nuclear war could cause the total extinction of humanity- once we lose the big interconnected economy, with all the easy to find resources gone, we could really be f*ed.

dredmorbius 9y ago
If that is true, and there may be a point, you might want to consider what the specific evolutionary benefit mechanism of that swarming behaviour is, and what its costs are. In the case of passenger pigeons (now extinct) and locusts (not a species but a behavioural mode of specific species of grasshoppers), the swarming behaviour was a mobile one, essentially a fast-cycle nomadic activity. Swarming for each both provided defence against predation (any predator species were overwhelmed by the number of prey) and against competition: by moving rapidly across landscapes, passenger pigeons and locusts could out-compete other species for food sources (including humans). If there's a benefit to human-based swarming, it doesn't appear to follow either of these modes. Humans don't swarm in mobs (outside of riots, and there, for similar advantage), but in stationary urbanisations. And the benefits seem to largely be of information flows and interactivity or interdependence. At the same time, cities have multiple vulnerabilities. They aren't mobile, they require prodigious resources (Los Angeles, as an example, sources water from up to 1,500 miles away, and every city on the planet is dependent on oil which is found in only a few specific high-concentration regions and much of which crosses oceans to arrive), and of waste removal. So, yes, humans become more effective competitors as they aggregate. Until, perhaps, they don't. Fly in the ointment and all that.

dredmorbius 9y ago

If that is true, and there may be a point, you might want to consider what the specific evolutionary benefit mechanism of that swarming behaviour is, and what its costs are. In the case of passenger pigeons (now extinct) and locusts (not a species but a behavioural mode of specific species of grasshoppers), the swarming behaviour was a mobile one, essentially a fast-cycle nomadic activity. Swarming for each both provided defence against predation (any predator species were overwhelmed by the number of prey) and against competition: by moving rapidly across landscapes, passenger pigeons and locusts could out-compete other species for food sources (including humans). If there's a benefit to human-based swarming, it doesn't appear to follow either of these modes. Humans don't swarm in mobs (outside of riots, and there, for similar advantage), but in stationary urbanisations. And the benefits seem to largely be of information flows and interactivity or interdependence. At the same time, cities have multiple vulnerabilities. They aren't mobile, they require prodigious resources (Los Angeles, as an example, sources water from up to 1,500 miles away, and every city on the planet is dependent on oil which is found in only a few specific high-concentration regions and much of which crosses oceans to arrive), and of waste removal. So, yes, humans become more effective competitors as they aggregate. Until, perhaps, they don't. Fly in the ointment and all that.