Is collaboration favorable to isolation?

[Black Sheep]

Is this a result of study on evolution.or does it depend on the species?
If i remember correctly, Zeitgeist 2 mentions that working together is proven to be more efficient than being competitive.

Is this true generally or does it depend on other characteristics of the species?Like, the X creature lives a solitary life but has i.e. scales and 11 tails with venomous teeth - equipped jaws.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, yes, it was a view advocated by Richard Dawkins in 'The Selfish Gene', on which he then based the short film 'Nice guys finish first', which can be found on the interwebz. Of course, constant co-operation would make one a 'sucker' that can easily be taken advantage of by those that 'defect'. On the other hand, a 'tit for tat' strategy seemed most effective.
While his explanation did seem to include a little bit too much genetic determinism, I have no idea how justified this is.

[Black Sheep]

That was a brilliant documentaryhere 's the link to google video btw.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3494530275568693212


If anyone has any more stuff from dawkins please share it!

[Tzonteyotl]

I haven't seen these Zeitgeist films, so I don't know how they "prove" cooperation being more favorable to isolation. I mean, look at snakes. They're predominately solitary creatures (many being cannibalistic) that mainly come together just for mating, or perhaps in dens for hiberation, yet they're a tremendously successful group that inhabits just about every type of habitat, from jungles and deserts, to even the ocean. In that case, being solitary hasn't impeded their success. Not only that, even if they were cooperative, how would they eat? They swallow prey whole, so it's not like they could share a rat or something. So, I'd have to say it depends on the species.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

I haven't seen these Zeitgeist films, so I don't know how they "prove" cooperation being more favorable to isolation. I mean, look at snakes. They're predominately solitary creatures (many being cannibalistic) that mainly come together just for mating, or perhaps in dens for hiberation, yet they're a tremendously successful group that inhabits just about every type of habitat, from jungles and deserts, to even the ocean. In that case, being solitary hasn't impeded their success. Not only that, even if they were cooperative, how would they eat? They swallow prey whole, so it's not like they could share a rat or something. So, I'd have to say it depends on the species.

Yes look at snakes.
They cooperate in every facet of there lives, in fact there giant cities of individual living organisms that exist only to propagate the system. We call them cells. However these cities do not support each other.

Now look at us.
Humans are the undisputed masters of the planet, not for intellect but because we build giant hives. Because we support one another and look out for one another, because we divide jobs between different members of the group.

While the number of non-cooperating entities at each stage of the world is numerous, it is always the ones that cooperate who achieve the most.
Single celled organisms created multicelled organisms, multicelled organisms banded together to create families, families made tribes. and within humanity tribes became cities, and then nations.

[revolution inaction]

This is quite good
part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4471435322910215458
part 2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4491999408234054262&ei=dG6TSambNo2siALf-IjJCw&q=The+Genius+of+Charles+Darwin+with+Richard+Dawkin s&hl=en
part 3
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-828270247063909484&ei=dG6TSambNo2siALf-IjJCw&q=The+Genius+of+Charles+Darwin+with+Richard+Dawkin s&hl=en

There is a bit about selection for cooperation in one of the episodes, 2 i think, but its not the main point of the series

[Tzonteyotl]

Yes look at snakes.
They cooperate in every facet of there lives, in fact there giant cities of individual living organisms that exist only to propagate the system. We call them cells. However these cities do not support each other.

Are the single cells that make up a given snake, species? I don't think the question related to the cells that make up an animal, but to cooperation vs. isolation within a given species.


Now look at us.
Humans are the undisputed masters of the planet, not for intellect but because we build giant hives. Because we support one another and look out for one another, because we divide jobs between different members of the group.And through cooperation we've also become our own worst enemy and a burden upon the ecosystem. Not that we can't do things to ease/stop/reverse some of those negative results of our success as a species. It just shows cooperation to be a potentially double-edged sword. And even with species that cooperate, there's competition, such as hierarchy among wolves, lions, vultures, etc.


While the number of non-cooperating entities at each stage of the world is numerous, it is always the ones that cooperate who achieve the most.
Single celled organisms created multicelled organisms, multicelled organisms banded together to create families, families made tribes. and within humanity tribes became cities, and then nations.My point wasn't that species which cooperate aren't successful (or aren't the "most successful"). Rather, it was that the potential benefits of cooperation vs. isolation do depend on the species, which is what I thought the original poster was asking. Thus I gave the example of snakes, for which cooperation wouldn't work due to their biology (can't share food if you eat things whole).

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Are the single cells that make up a given snake, species? I don't think the question related to the cells that make up an animal, but to cooperation vs. isolation within a given species.

There ancestors were individual life forms, that clearly found complete subsumption into a larger system beneficial. This is the important thing.


And through cooperation we've also become our own worst enemy

That's because, we are so succesful that we are our only competition.


and a burden upon the ecosystem.

We can build better ones.


Not that we can't do things to ease/stop/reverse some of those negative results of our success as a species. It just shows cooperation to be a potentially double-edged sword.

No such thing as too much of a good thing, only good things running into barriers. The barriers are the problem, not the good thing.


And even with species that cooperate, there's competition, such as hierarchy among wolves, lions, vultures, etc.

Ants. Termites. Bees.
The other hive animals seem to be doing fine in that respect. Others, we still have those nasty social status instincts.


My point wasn't that species which cooperate aren't successful (or aren't the "most successful"). Rather, it was that the potential benefits of cooperation vs. isolation do depend on the species, which is what I thought the original poster was asking.

Well yes, a species without social instincts cannot cooperate de facto, but this is a biological and not an efficiency problem.
Humans however, build giant freaking hives. We win the prize of "most social mammal" pretty easily.

[Tzonteyotl]

There ancestors were individual life forms, that clearly found complete subsumption into a larger system beneficial. This is the important thing.

But that's not what the question was (unless I'm misunderstanding?). It was about within a given species.


That's because, we are so succesful that we are our only competition.That still means cooperation has drawbacks. Other organisms reach some sort of equilibrium within their shared environments. We just multiply and say "fuck it," like cane toads in Australia or something!:lol:


We can build better ones.:huh: What exactly do you mean?


No such thing as too much of a good thing, only good things running into barriers. The barriers are the problem, not the good thing.Pollution, toxic waste and habitat destruction are good things?


Ants. Termites. Bees.
The other hive animals seem to be doing fine in that respect. Others, we still have those nasty social status instincts.I'm sorry. Don't these insects also have a social hierarchy?


Well yes, a species without social instincts cannot cooperate de facto, but this is a biological and not an efficiency problem.
But that was the nature of the original poster's question, wasn't it? Therefore cooperation vs. isolation isn't general, but dependent upon the species.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Other organisms reach some sort of equilibrium within their shared environments. We just multiply and say "fuck it," like cane toads in Australia or something!:lol:

No animal has -ever- reached equilibrium with it's environment, it is always looking for an edge that will allow it to grow further. What happens is intertwining evolutionary forces keep most of the environment in check, but each species is still evolutionary seeking an edge.
Note what happens the MOMENT a species finds a new habitat.
What we do is fundamentally no different, were just much much better at it because we can adapt environments to us instead of merely adapting to our enviroment.


:huh: What exactly do you mean?

If the ecosystems can't adapt to humanity, we can always just build new ecosystems. Like cities.


Pollution, toxic waste and habitat destruction are good things?

Barrier, barrier, gotta make room for human habitats.


I'm sorry. Don't these insects also have a social hierarchy?

Not as we would understand it, no individual rules in an ant colony.


But that was the nature of the original poster's question, wasn't it? Therefore cooperation vs. isolation isn't general, but dependent upon the species.

A species can only follow it's nature, but cooperation is clearly superior to isolation. Is the best answer we can give to the OP. A species that doesn't cooperate will not gain the advantages, but without instinct cooperation is impossible.

[Tzonteyotl]

No animal has -ever- reached equilibrium with it's environment, it is always looking for an edge that will allow it to grow further. What happens is intertwining evolutionary forces keep most of the environment in check, but each species is still evolutionary seeking an edge.

Perhaps it was the way in which I phrased it, but I was basically trying to way what you're saying here, that evolutionary forces keep environments in check for the most part.


If the ecosystems can't adapt to humanity, we can always just build new ecosystems. Like cities.Yes, but those come at the expense of the ecosystem overall. In order to create cities, you must destroy great expanses of natural habitat thereby displacing and threatening whatever other species lived within it. So, while we may be successful in that we create our habitat, we are also risking the stability of the planet on which we live (if we don't go about our development responsibly).


Barrier, barrier, gotta make room for human habitats.Again, at the expense of the planet (and thus ourselves), if we don't do this wisely. It's not like we can travel and populate other planets at the moment.


A species can only follow it's nature, but cooperation is clearly superior to isolation. Is the best answer we can give to the OP. A species that doesn't cooperate will not gain the advantages, but without instinct cooperation is impossible.Fair enough.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

(if we don't go about our development responsibly).

Again, at the expense of the planet (and thus ourselves), if we don't do this wisely. It's not like we can travel and populate other planets at the moment.


Oh definitely we are going about it poorly. but as always, one must look for the problem not simply claim that which is impeded by problems is unworkable or that we should go no further.
We should seek to understand what the barrier is, and how best to work around it.

[griffjam]

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/departments/individualism-clashes-with-cooperation-it-just-aint-so/