I read the article. I think that though it is relatively short, it isn't shallow, and certainly isn't clickbait. They also point to the paper the article draws from if you want more.
>> ... it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.
>Then don't say otherwise in the title!
The title constrains the rules to those dictating bridge building, whereas the quoted caveat above is more general.
Yea they don't really define stampede, let alone the subsidence/ threshold to break-off.
That's not a simple rule.
Is it traffic, weight, vibrations? An absolute threshold for decrease, or just a rate drop?
Which made me think- maybe a second rule exists, but it probably isn't necessary from an 'algorithm works' standpoint.
If an ant starts marching again once it no longer has another on top of it- once the supply of ants starts to dwindle (too many tied up in bridge structure), the bridge will start to deconstruct itself on its own.
It's a status toggled by other elements having the same boolean column. If too many are 'busy' as bridges, that leaves too few to hold the toggle buttons of the remaining others.
It's not a bridge, it's a self-sorting, self-clearing traffic jam. You drive when you can.
Which as a civil engineer the traffic aspect is more interesting to me than the bridge aspect.
Deborah Gordon (ant biologist) makes this argument in her book Ant Encounters. Because the ants in a colony are all sisters, the unit of reproduction is actually the colony rather than the individual ant. Great book!
E.O. Wilson's published work was read by Will Wright, creator of SimCity / The Sims / SimAnt, and the material is what inspired him to create SimAnt :)
Will has also stated that the pheromone system designed for SimAnt was repurposed to be used in The Sims! Very interesting stuff if you ask me :)
Actually yes, its an interesting thought.
Not only are we a cooperative group of independent cells but those cells are fully replaced as we age so not even the original cells we start with. We are essentially walking cities of cells and somehow we gain consciousness. Pretty wild.
Not nerve cells. Our post-childhood adult brains persist until we die, so the city of cells (nice image BTW) has a permanent and persistent ruling council, as it were, even if the citizens come and go.
It isn't altruism anymore than your neurons are being altruistic. People have a really mistaken idea about ants (specifically using terms like queen implying there is a hierarchy). Ant _colonies_ are intelligent creatures that learn, remember, negotiate, wage war. Ants themselves aren't intelligent, don't have a hierarchy, don't even really have a "self"
Yep ants really are quite degenerated individually, compared even to Wasps they evolved from. I have a persistent fear that this is the fate of humanity and that we're already halfway there.
> Everyone in the colony takes care of the children of one queen.
Depending on how you look at it, she is their prisoner and the only way they get to pass on a proportion of their genetic material is by looking after her kids that share some of it.
Alternatively you can look at them as little automata largely driven by pheromones.
Or you could see them as part of a larger pseudo-organism that doesn't really have individual wants and drives in the way we understand them.
You live in a society where almost everyone goes to work to produce something that they will not directly consume.
Humans figured out a way to organise everyone and get them to work cooperatively, it's the free market.
In fact, it couldn't work any other way. Suppose you had 100% altruism and everyone wanted to promote the "greater good". You wouldn't ever know how to direct people towards that greater good. You need prices to drive production.
I doubt that free market drives people toward "greater good". What is "greater good" anyway? Can you give some examples of "greater good" and how the free market achieved it?
BTW, no market is truly free, not unless it allows fakes, quack medicine, child labor, selling humans, or other horrors of the past.
Like how the creation of the cotton gin totally freed up the time that laborers previously had to spend separating cottonseeds out to do more fun things. Things really improved for laborers in general after such inventions flowed through the free market.
Your "greater good" is not that great. Let me give some counterexamples:
- Sanitation: it's still done with public funding, no free marker will ever build a new sewer or water treatment plant.
- Medicine & vaccines: they're still developed by public funding and the incentives are the prestige and altruism of the researchers, not their income.
- Electricity: public investments everywhere.
- Roads & rail: No free market will ever create a highway, or even a secondary road. May I laugh about the rail "free market" / private investments?
- Food safety: achieved with laws and public funded inspection agencies.
You may argue that the free market expanded the internet. It seems small, doesn't it?
To be clear, I agree with you. I was sarcastically hinting at slavery to highlight that increases in productivity may not actually be for the greater good.
Every 'free' market is regulated. There is no such thing as a totally free market. The essential point is that "The Free Market" is a bullshirt concept.
The closest thing to a totally free market is the dark web, where you can buy/sell almost anything, but even that market starts to self-regulate with vigilantes highlighting & punishing fraud, etc.
More realistic markets start by banning many kinds of goids and services, and ways to do business - just because it seems obvious you can't sell murder services doesn't mean the market is unregulated.
Similarly, can't sell addictive drugs; still serms free, right? Ok, I've come uo with a great cheap way to make Insulin; it'll save thousands of lives and take over the market, but nope, can't sell it without proper licenses and inspections, etc. Market is still free, right?
Now I have a great gardening method to make cheap & nutritious vegetables without pesticides - I want to label it "Organic"; nope, in many markets, need proper certification to use that label, and i certainly need to meet food sales standards to sell it at all. Sparkling Wine? Can't call it "Champagne" unless it is certified from a certain region in France. At a farmstand in England, they cannot sell anything not made within a 25km radius. Investment Banks in the US are currently forbidden to take retail / individual personsv deposits, and banks that do are barred from many types of investment activities. Etc. etc., etc.
The point is that ALL actual markets are regulated, the question (and arguments) are about who regulates the markets and what kinds of regulations are appropriate.
The "Free Market" is a nonsense theoretical construct that does more harm than good.
I don't buy it, in the sense that ants are among the species we can observe that most display any lack of real "reasoning", they're the closest things we can easily study that feel like algorithms.
A famous example is when they form circles and just die all following those in front of them.
In fact, ants are so basic, that when an ant dies it releases a specific hormone that tells other ants to kick it out of the nest. Scientist could prove it by putting some of it on very lively ants. It didn't matter that it was clearly alive and moving, as soon as it was inside the nest, other ants would group and kick it out.
I think empathy requires a level of emotional intelligence such a basic insect just does not have.
> Primatologist Frans de Waal states bonobos are capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity, and described "bonobo society" as a "gynecocracy".
there are actually some mammals that behave in a similar fashion. some mole rats are eusocial [1]. there is also a book name coalescent by stephan Baxter that explores this concept and how it could work in humans.
Ants and apes have entirely different genetic configurations (XY -vs- WO), and it is actually genetically favorable for workers to take care of just the queen's offspring (i.e. a worker ant/bee which raise its nieces passes on more genetic information [to the future generations] than taking care of its own offspring).
"Wow, this article totally reminds me of Stephen Wolfram's work! It's amazing how these ants are following simple rules to create such complex behaviors. This is exactly what Wolfram has been talking about for years with his idea of cellular automata and complexity theory. I remember reading about how he pioneered the whole idea that simple rules can lead to complex systems. It feels like everything in nature is just proving him right, from the patterns in seashells to how these ants behave. I bet if we looked deeper, we'd find that Wolfram's principles are at the core of so many natural processes. It's incredible to see his influence everywhere!"
I generated the above paragraph for satire reasons using ChatGPT.
> ... it’s very possible there’s more governing army ant behavior than two simple rules.
Then don't say otherwise in the title!