Cooperation, And Not Competition, Is Our Thermodynamic Future

[Such_Saturation]

"But muh human nature"

One of the great unanswered question in biology is why organisms have evolved to cooperate. The long-term benefits of cooperation are clear—look at the extraordinary structures that termites build, for example, or the complex society humans have created.

But evolution is a random process based on the short-term advantages that emerge in each generation. Of course, individuals can cooperate or act selfishly, and this allows them to accrue benefits or suffer costs, depending on the circumstances. But how this behavior can spread and lead to the long-term emergence of cooperation as the dominant behavior is a conundrum that has stumped evolutionary biologists for decades.

Today, that could change thanks to the work of Christoph Adami and Arend Hintze at Michigan State University in East Lansing. They have created a simple mathematical model using well understood physical principles to show how cooperation emerges during evolution.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...tion-finally-reveals-how-cooperation-evolves/

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03058.pdf

 

[lollipop]

"But muh human nature"

One of the great unanswered question in biology is why organisms have evolved to cooperate. The long-term benefits of cooperation are clear—look at the extraordinary structures that termites build, for example, or the complex society humans have created.

But evolution is a random process based on the short-term advantages that emerge in each generation. Of course, individuals can cooperate or act selfishly, and this allows them to accrue benefits or suffer costs, depending on the circumstances. But how this behavior can spread and lead to the long-term emergence of cooperation as the dominant behavior is a conundrum that has stumped evolutionary biologists for decades.

Today, that could change thanks to the work of Christoph Adami and Arend Hintze at Michigan State University in East Lansing. They have created a simple mathematical model using well understood physical principles to show how cooperation emerges during evolution.

Evolutionary biologists have never understood how cooperation evolves—until now

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03058.pdf

Very cool.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Completely unrealistic. This is why no one respects academics except wanna be intellectuals...no offense. Their thinking has no connection with reality. They use historical facts the way a drunk man uses a light post.
-------------------------------------------------------

Of course humans are designed to cooperate. Given enough resources (shelter, food, mates) zero sum competition becomes harmful. You gain status by being the most pro-social and competitive urge is subsumed.

Testosterone has been shown to promote social cooperation and pro-social extraversion when status is high and to promote ahgressiveness and anti-social behavior when social status is low.

But it's the hawks and doves problem. Doves cooperate. Hawks compete. A majority of doves leads to a peaceful, polite society ...which makes them easy prey for hawks. Majority hawk leads to a harsh, warlike society, but they're hardy and strong.
I'm not explaining it well but it's a common discussion in the genetic crowd on par with the r/k selection hypothesis

Anyways Native Peruvians were doves. Hippy-like peaceful people....Which is why the Spanish had no problem conquring and genociding them. The costal Native Americans in the US were also very peaceful and inviting. They welcomed the newcomers. After the spaniards first night in the Americas Christopher Columbus wrote in his journal that these people were so friendly and accepting they would be easy to subjugate.

The tribal native Americans further inland were hawks, which so why it took hundreds of years and drastic tactics (including germ warfare and killing off bison) to conquer the country after easily capturing the coast.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Completely unrealistic. This is why no one respects academics except wanna be intellectuals...no offense. Their thinking has no connection with reality. They use historical facts the way a drunk man uses a light post.
-------------------------------------------------------

Of course humans are designed to cooperate. Given enough resources (shelter, food, mates) zero sum competition becomes harmful. You gain status by being the most pro-social and competitive urge is subsumed.

Testosterone has been shown to promote social cooperation and pro-social extraversion when status is high and to promote ahgressiveness and anti-social behavior when social status is low.

But it's the hawks and doves problem. Doves cooperate. Hawks compete. A majority of doves leads to a peaceful, polite society ...which makes them easy prey for hawks. Majority hawk leads to a harsh, warlike society, but they're hardy and strong.
I'm not explaining it well but it's a common discussion in the genetic crowd on par with the r/k selection hypothesis

Anyways Native Peruvians were doves. Hippy-like peaceful people....Which is why the Spanish had no problem conquring and genociding them. The costal Native Americans in the US were also very peaceful and inviting. They welcomed the newcomers. After the spaniards first night in the Americas Christopher Columbus wrote in his journal that these people were so friendly and accepting they would be easy to subjugate.

The tribal native Americans further inland were hawks, which so why it took hundreds of years and drastic tactics (including germ warfare and killing off bison) to conquer the country after easily capturing the coast.

I see you don't believe in math

 

[Kyle M]

"Competition" as defined by lefty types who don't like capitalism, is actually an enormous cooperative system. The only competition is between those at the very top for the custom of society. Within a large corporation, which is competing with another large corporation, there is more cooperation than in any government or government-cartelized operation. The market coordinates activities by allowing actors within it to know what is dear and what is not, guiding them on how best to cooperate with their fellow market actors. If bread is cheap, and iron ore dear, it is more cooperative for society that a man chooses a career in iron ore extraction.

Whenever people talk about cooperation over competition, the political reality of that always, without exception, becomes state coercive control over the property (bodily and otherwise) of citizens. Cooperation and competition, as words, can be useful, but they have been tortured to such an extent politically that most people don't know what end is up within their underlying concepts.

 

[Kyle M]

the TLDR for above is simply that anything called "competition" involves a lot of cooperation within it, as a football match you can describe as two teams competing could also be described as two pairs of 20 people cooperating.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Yes cooperation emerges IN a competitive environment BECAUSE it is more efficient than lone wolf agents. That's the point.

 

[Queequeg]

Didn't John Nash (game theory/Nobel Laureate) solve this 50 years ago.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Yes cooperation emerges IN a competitive environment BECAUSE it is more efficient than lone wolf agents. That's the point.

well of course, people in an army or a raiding party are cooperating. But that seems like a cop out.

Ultimately they're competing. They're partaking in a zero-sum transaction where the other must lose for them to win.

If you guys really want to go down this road them ww2 was the most cooperative period in human history. Tens of millions of people coming together to butcher each other in the killing fields.

Let's not leave out the communist revolutions. How much cooperation does it take to massacre millions of russians and starve millions of Chinese?

Dozens of nations putting aside their differences to come together under one bloodstained flag ...the pinnacle of human brotherhood.

 

[Such_Saturation]

well of course, people in an army or a raiding party are cooperating. But that seems like a cop out.

Ultimately they're competing. They're partaking in a zero-sum transaction where the other must lose for them to win.

If you guys really want to go down this road them ww2 was the most cooperative period in human history. Tens of millions of people coming together to butcher each other in the killing fields.

Let's not leave out the communist revolutions. How much cooperation does it take to massacre millions of russians and starve millions of Chinese?

Dozens of nations putting aside their differences to come together under one bloodstained flag ...the pinnacle of human brotherhood.

It is a physical property of space. It will increase to the point the planet will be working towards ONE goal, with the alternative option being that there will be no planet at all.

 

[Queequeg]

well of course, people in an army or a raiding party are cooperating. But that seems like a cop out.

Ultimately they're competing. They're partaking in a zero-sum transaction where the other must lose for them to win.

If you guys really want to go down this road them ww2 was the most cooperative period in human history. Tens of millions of people coming together to butcher each other in the killing fields.

Let's not leave out the communist revolutions. How much cooperation does it take to massacre millions of russians and starve millions of Chinese?

Dozens of nations putting aside their differences to come together under one bloodstained flag ...the pinnacle of human brotherhood.

I think you are getting distracted with the external competition aspect as it is not a requirement for people to cooperate. This theory of evolving cooperation, which is actually just basic game theory as far as I can tell, works in all situations where individuals have a choice as to whether to cooperate with others or not cooperate. Each choice has a different payout and it is not always a zero sum game as when both players cooperate the payoff is highest to both. When you run a game like that over and over and especially with punishment the equilibrium choice is for all players to cooperate.

Here is a good summary of how Game Theory is applied to Evolution. Again I am not sure what new insights this paper is offering.
Evolutionary game theory - Wikipedia

 

[Queequeg]

It is a physical property of space. It will increase to the point the planet will be working towards ONE goal, with the alternative option being that there will be no planet at all.

Sounds like UN propaganda.

 

[Such_Saturation]

Sounds like UN propaganda.

Would you like to opt out?

 

[Queequeg]

Would you like to opt out?

not by myself

 

[Such_Saturation]

not by myself

You'd be all alone...

 

[Queequeg]

You'd be all alone...

If it was only me who dropped out. If the US and other democratic countries opted out things would be much better. One world government is one world dictatorship by definition as much of the world is far from democratic.

 

[Such_Saturation]

If it was only me who dropped out. If the US and other democratic countries opted out things would be much better. One world government is one world dictatorship by definition as much of the world is far from democratic.

I'm talking one world goals, not one world government.

 

[Queequeg]

I'm talking one world goals, not one world government.

One world goal is a euphemism for one world government. Who decides on the goal? What if a country changes their mind and wants to pursue other goals? What if that one goal is wrong such as climate change IMO. Democracy gives the best chance at freedom for the individual and it is doubtful that democracy can work on such a large scale especially with people at very different states of development. The EU for example is one big bureaucratic dictatorship pretending to be democratic.

 

[Such_Saturation]

One world goal is a euphemism for one world government. Who decides on the goal? What if a country changes their mind and wants to pursue other goals? What if that one goal is wrong such as climate change IMO. Democracy gives the best chance at freedom for the individual and it is doubtful that democracy can work on such a large scale especially with people at very different states of development. The EU for example is one big bureaucratic dictatorship pretending to be democratic.

The goal comes from the bottom because it is a reflection of physical properties. I don't mean we are at an appropriate time for this to happen, I just think it the only possible outcome.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

It is a physical property of space. It will increase to the point the planet will be working towards ONE goal, with the alternative option being that there will be no planet at all.

Science has been corrupted. Cooperation is not a property of space. Your interpretation of the paper makes it sound like some global citizen, new world order psyop. Yet another mandate set down by SCIENCE, the new God of our secular religion.

SCIENCE says evolution is real and we're highly evolved primates. Lord have mercy if you believe different.

SCIENCE says black holes are real and the universe started in a big bang. Textbooks rewritten. Questions forbidden.

SCIENCE says global warming is real and is responsible for everything from refugees to hurricanes: billions spent in tracking global warming, green cars, green tax, green legislation, this and that and more of this

Now SCIENCE says we have to come together as one or perish...hmm

I think you are getting distracted with the external competition aspect as it is not a requirement for people to cooperate. This theory of evolving cooperation, which is actually just basic game theory as far as I can tell, works in all situations where individuals have a choice as to whether to cooperate with others or not cooperate. Each choice has a different payout and it is not always a zero sum game as when both players cooperate the payoff is highest to both. When you run a game like that over and over and especially with punishment the equilibrium choice is for all players to cooperate.

Here is a good summary of how Game Theory is applied to Evolution. Again I am not sure what new insights this paper is offering.
Evolutionary game theory - Wikipedia

Few points:
1) The game is rigged.
2) we're not rational agents.
3) defection is hidden.

Game theory doesn't work in a system as complex and scaled up as ours.