Cognitive Complexity vs. Autonomic Efficiency: Evolutionary Strategies and Their Ecological Impacts

Introduction

The evolution of cognitive abilities in humans has led to remarkable advancements in innovation, adaptation, and flexibility. However, these cognitive traits have also introduced significant challenges, including environmental degradation, over-competition, and violence. In contrast, social insects, school fish, and other mammals, which rely more on unconscious autonomic functions and simpler cognitive processes, demonstrate resilience and adaptation without these drawbacks. These species exhibit a strong conservation of energy and information, maintaining stable and efficient behaviors over long periods.

Crucially, this text explores how information is intrinsically connected among multiple members of social insects, fish, and birds, leading to more efficient and resilient behaviors compared to individually complex cognitive species like humans. This interconnectedness allows for collective decision-making and problem-solving that often surpasses the capabilities of more cognitively complex individuals.

This divergence raises a profound question about the optimal evolutionary goal of the living systems' most advantageous integration to the environment: Is it preferable to develop a highly innovative complex species like humans, with our egocentric global dominance behaviors, or to foster highly efficient and resilient societies of species with their collective conservation and sustainability? The unconscious, autonomous actions of many species seem to protect not only their own survival but also the stability of their environment. This text explores the advantages and disadvantages of human cognition, its impacts on other species, the concept of information conservation, and the evolutionary divergence shaping these different strategies, all while considering this fundamental question about the direction of evolution.

2. Comparison with Social Insects, School Fish, and Other Mammals

Collective Intelligence and Information Conservation in Social Insects

• Efficiency Through Specialization: Social insects like ants and bees operate as super-organisms, with individuals performing specialized tasks benefiting the colony [3, 22, 23]. For example, honey bees have distinct roles such as foragers, nurses, and guards, each contributing to the overall success of the hive. This collective intelligence allows for efficient resource management without advanced individual cognition [43, 44, 45, 46].
• Environmental Integration: Social insects generally enhance or maintain their environments, promoting ecological balance through tightly integrated behaviors [44, 45]. Bees, for instance, play a crucial role in pollination, contributing to the reproduction of many plant species and maintaining biodiversity [44].
• Intrinsic Information Connectivity: These species demonstrate a remarkable ability to share and process information collectively, leading to behaviors that are often more efficient and sustainable than those of individually cognitive species. For example, ant colonies can efficiently find the shortest path to food sources through pheromone trails, a form of distributed problem-solving that emerges from simple individual behaviors.

Resilience and Information Conservation in School Fish and Other Mammals

• Balance with Nature: Most mammals and fish live in harmony with their environments, using resources sustainably and avoiding large-scale ecological harm [24, 25]. School fish, such as sardines or herrings, demonstrate this balance through their collective behavior, which optimizes feeding efficiency and predator avoidance without depleting local resources [7, 8].
• Collective Behavior: Many fish species exhibit schooling behavior, a form of swarm intelligence similar to that seen in social insects [7, 8]. This behavior allows for efficient information transfer about food sources and predators, demonstrating a form of collective decision-making that conserves energy and information. For instance, when a predator approaches, information about the threat spreads rapidly through the school, allowing for synchronized evasive maneuvers.
• Limited Cognitive Drawbacks: Unlike humans, these species do not engage in behaviors leading to widespread environmental destruction or self-harm [24, 25]. Their simpler cognitive processes, coupled with intrinsic information sharing, result in more sustainable interactions with their environment.

Information Conservation: A Key Concept

Information conservation refers to the maintenance of long-term stable, efficient patterns of behavior and environmental interactions proven successful over evolutionary time [9, 10]. In the context of social insects, schooling fish, and migrating birds, this concept takes on particular significance:

1. Behavioral Stability: Consistent behaviors allowing for efficient energy use and predictable ecosystem interactions [9, 10]. For example, ant colonies maintain stable foraging patterns that efficiently exploit food sources without overexploitation.
2. Ecological Integration: Well-integrated behaviors supporting overall ecosystem health [24, 25]. Migrating birds, for instance, play crucial roles in seed dispersal and pest control across vast distances, maintaining ecological balance through their instinctive behaviors.
3. Efficient Resource Use: Optimized resource utilization avoiding overexploitation [24, 25]. Schooling fish, through their collective behavior, can efficiently locate and utilize food sources while minimizing individual energy expenditure.
4. Reduced Cognitive Load: Simpler cognitive processes allow for more efficient autonomic responses [9, 10]. This is evident in the rapid, coordinated responses of bird flocks to predator threats, achieved without complex individual decision-making.
5. Long-term Adaptability: Maintaining successful behaviors that have withstood the test of time [9, 10]. The migration patterns of many bird species, refined over millennia, demonstrate this principle of long-term information conservation.
6. Swarm Intelligence: Seen in both social insects (like bees) and schooling fish, swarm intelligence allows for complex group behaviors to emerge from simple individual rules [7, 8]. This demonstrates efficient information processing and decision-making at a collective level, often surpassing the problem-solving abilities of more cognitively complex individual organisms.

3. Detailed Examples of Intrinsic Information Connectivity

To further illustrate the main message of this article, let's explore some specific examples of how information is intrinsically connected among social insects, school fish, and migrating birds. These examples demonstrate how collective information processing often leads to more efficient and resilient behaviors compared to individually cognitive species like humans.

3.1 Social Insects: The Hive Mind

Honeybees: Waggle Dance and Collective Decision Making

Honeybees provide a fascinating example of intrinsic information connectivity within a colony. When a scout bee discovers a new food source, it returns to the hive and performs a "waggle dance" to communicate the location and quality of the resource to other foragers [53].

• Information Transfer: The dance encodes precise information about the distance and direction of the food source relative to the hive and the sun's position.
• Collective Evaluation: Other bees observe multiple dances and collectively decide which source to visit based on the enthusiasm and number of bees promoting each location.
• Efficiency: This system allows the colony to efficiently allocate foragers to the best food sources without any centralized control or individual bee having complete information [54].

Ant Colonies: Emergent Intelligence through Pheromone Trails

Ant colonies demonstrate another form of intrinsic information connectivity through their use of pheromone trails:

• Distributed Problem-Solving: Ants leaving the nest randomly search for food. Upon finding a food source, they lay a pheromone trail on their return journey.
• Positive Feedback: Other ants are more likely to follow stronger pheromone trails, reinforcing the paths to the best food sources.
• Adaptability: As food sources are depleted, the pheromone trails evaporate, allowing the colony to quickly adapt to changing resources [55].

This system allows ant colonies to solve complex optimization problems, such as finding the shortest path to a food source, more efficiently than many human-designed algorithms [56].

3.2 School Fish: Synchronized Movement and Collective Sensing

School fish exhibit remarkable collective behaviors that enhance their survival and efficiency:

Information Transfer in Sardine Schools

• Rapid Response: When a predator approaches, the information about the threat spreads through the school at speeds faster than the predator's movement, allowing for coordinated evasive action [57].
• Collective Sensing: Schools can detect gradients in the water (e.g., temperature, salinity) more accurately than individual fish, allowing for more efficient navigation to favorable environments [58].

Collective Decision-Making in Golden Shiners

Research on golden shiners has shown that a small percentage of informed individuals can guide an entire school to a food source:

• Leadership without Hierarchy: Informed individuals don't need to be at the front of the school to guide its movement.
• Amplification of Weak Signals: The school can effectively follow a food gradient that would be imperceptible to individual fish [59].

3.3 Migrating Birds: Long-Distance Information Sharing

Migrating birds demonstrate intrinsic information connectivity across vast distances and time:

V-Formation Flying in Geese

• Energy Conservation: Birds flying in a V-formation can conserve 12-20% more energy than flying alone.
• Information Sharing: The lead bird provides information about air currents to the rest of the flock through its wing movements.
• Role Rotation: Birds take turns leading the formation, sharing the most energy-intensive position [60].

Collective Navigation in Homing Pigeons

Studies on homing pigeons have revealed sophisticated collective navigation strategies:

• Shared Knowledge: When flying in flocks, less experienced pigeons can benefit from the knowledge of more experienced birds.
• Collective Memory: Flocks can maintain and improve their navigational efficiency over multiple generations, suggesting a form of cultural transmission of route information [61].

4. Implications and Contrasts with Human Cognition

These examples of intrinsic information connectivity in social species highlight several key points when contrasted with human cognitive strategies:

1. Efficiency without Complexity: These collective behaviors achieve remarkable efficiency without requiring complex individual cognition. In contrast, human problem-solving often involves energy-intensive individual thinking and complex communication.
2. Scalability: The effectiveness of these collective behaviors often increases with the size of the group, whereas human decision-making processes can become less efficient as group size grows.
3. Resilience: These systems are highly resilient to the loss of individuals, as the information is distributed across the group. Human systems, especially those relying on key experts or leaders, can be more vulnerable to disruption.
4. Environmental Integration: The collective behaviors of these species are tightly integrated with their environments, leading to sustainable resource use. Human cognitive abilities, while powerful, often lead to environmental exploitation and degradation.
5. Evolutionary Stability: These collective behaviors have remained stable and effective over millions of years of evolution. In contrast, human cognitive abilities have led to rapid changes in our environment and lifestyle, potentially outpacing our ability to adapt.

By understanding and learning from these examples of intrinsic information connectivity in nature, we may be able to develop more sustainable and efficient systems in human society. This could involve:

• Designing decision-making processes that leverage collective intelligence rather than relying solely on individual expertise.
• Developing technologies that mimic the distributed, adaptive nature of these biological systems.
• Creating urban and economic systems that are more tightly integrated with natural processes, leading to more sustainable resource use.

In conclusion, while human cognitive abilities have led to remarkable achievements, the examples from social insects, school fish, and migrating birds demonstrate that simpler, collective cognitive systems can often achieve greater efficiency, resilience, and sustainability. As we face global challenges like climate change and resource depletion, incorporating lessons from these natural systems could be crucial for our long-term survival and flourishing.

Conclusion

The divergence in evolutionary strategies between humans and other species highlights important trade-offs:

1. Innovation vs. Stability: Human cognitive abilities drive rapid innovation but can lead to environmental instability [49, 50, 51, 52].
2. Adaptability vs. Efficiency: Human cognition allows quick adaptation but often at the cost of energy efficiency [50].
3. Global Impact vs. Local Integration: Human cognitive abilities enable global dominance but often disrupt local ecosystems [51].
4. Information Generation vs. Conservation: Human cognition constantly generates new information, potentially leading to instability [52].

Understanding these differences brings us back to the fundamental question posed at the beginning: What is the optimal evolutionary goal in relation to the environment? Is the development of a highly innovative species like humans, with our capacity for both creation and destruction, the pinnacle of evolution? Or does the collective intelligence, resilience, and efficiency demonstrated by social insects, school fish, and other mammals, with their intrinsically connected information processing and unconscious autonomous actions that protect both their species and their environment, represent a more sustainable evolutionary path?

The contrast between the efficiency of collective information processing in simpler cognitive and unconscious-acting autonomous systems and the individual-focused advanced and complex cognition of humans is stark. Social insects, schooling fish, and migrating birds demonstrate an ability to solve complex problems and adapt to environmental changes through collective behavior and information sharing. This often results in more sustainable, efficient, and resilient outcomes compared to human cognitive approaches, which, while innovative, can lead to environmental degradation and resource depletion.

The answer may lie in finding a balance between these two extremes. Perhaps the next step in human evolution is not further cognitive development, but rather the integration of our innovative capacities with the efficient, sustainable, and resilient practices observed in nature [49, 50, 51, 52]. By studying the collective behaviors of social insects like bees, the schooling behaviors of fish, and the harmonious existence of many mammal species, we can gain insights into long-term efficient, sustainable systems that balance individual and group needs [3, 7, 8, 19, 20, 21].

Future research and societal development could focus on:

1. Incorporating principles of information conservation and collective intelligence into human technological and social systems [9, 10, 52].
2. Channeling human cognitive abilities towards environmental preservation and sustainable resource management, inspired by the efficiency of simpler cognitive systems [49, 50, 51, 52].
3. Developing educational approaches fostering understanding of our place within ecosystems and the importance of maintaining long-term ecological balance, drawing lessons from the intrinsic information connectivity of social species [49, 50, 51, 52].
4. Creating societal structures that mimic the efficiency of swarm intelligence while maintaining human creativity and innovation [7, 8, 49, 50, 51, 52].

By critically examining this evolutionary divergence and learning from the successes of other less innovative autonomous species, we can work towards a more harmonious coexistence with the natural world [49, 50, 51, 52]. This approach would leverage our unique cognitive abilities to support global ecological stability, potentially charting a new course for human evolution that combines the best of both worlds—our capacity for innovation and the sustainable, collective efficiency demonstrated by nature's most successful unconscious acting autonomous species [49, 50, 51, 52].

References

1. Feipeng Wu, Yin Zhao, Hong Zhang. Ocular Autonomic Nervous System: An Update from Anatomy to Physiological Functions. Vision, 2022, 6(1), 6.
2. Eloisa Pavesi, Joana Gil-Mohapel, Patricia S. Brocardo. Exploring the Role of Neuroplasticity in Development, Aging, and Neurodegeneration. Brain Sci. 2023, 13(12), 1610.
3. Feinerman, O. and Korman, A. Individual versus collective cognition in social insects. J Exp Biol?(2017) 220 (1): 73–82.
4. Rakesh, D., McLaughlin, K. A., Sheridan, M., Humphreys, K. L., & Rosen, M. L. Environmental contributions to cognitive development: The role of cognitive stimulation. Developmental Review, 2024, 73, 101135.
5. Nagelkerken, I. et al. The effects of climate change on the ecology of fishes. PLOS Climate, 2023.
6. IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2022.
7. Ioannou, C.C. Swarm intelligence in fish? The difficulty in demonstrating distributed and self-organized collective intelligence in (some) animal groups. Behavioral Processes, 2017, 141, 141–151.
8. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C., Shi, Y. Swarm Intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.
9. Ewert, W., Marks, R.J. Conservation of Information and Coevolution. BIO-Complexity, 2017.
10. Understanding Evolution. Evolving Conservation Strategies. Berkeley, 2007.
11. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondizio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Agard, J., et al. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2019.
12. Purvis, A. Humans are causing life on Earth to vanish. Natural History Museum, 2019..
13. Diaz. S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. 2019. Science. Vol. 366, issue 6471.
14. WWF. WWF Report Reveals Staggering Extent of Human Impact on Planet. World Wildlife Fund, 2018.
15. Asma, L. J. F. (2022). The relationship between free will and consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
16. Caruso, G.D. (2013). Free Will and Consciousness: A Determinist Account of the Illusion of Free Will. Minds & Machines, 23(3), 519–522.
17. Baumeister, R.F., Mele, A.R., & Vohs, K.D. (2010). Free Will and Consciousness: How Might They Work? Oxford University Press.
18. Clausen, R., & York, R. (2008). Global biodiversity decline of marine and freshwater fish: a cross-national analysis of economic, demographic and ecological influences. Social Science Research.
19. Leighton, G.M., Charbonneau, D., & Dornhaus, A. (2017). Task switching is associated with temporal delays in Temnothorax rugatulus ants. Behavioral Ecology, 28, 319-327.
20. Costa, M.J., Fuentes-Pérez, J.F., Boavida, I., Tuhtan, J.A., & Pinheiro, A.N. (2019). Fish under pressure: Examining behavioural responses of Iberian barbel under simulated hydropeaking with instream structures. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0211115.
21. Boavida, I., & Pinheiro, A.N. (2019). Scientists study fish to learn how to adapt to the impacts of climate change. ScienceDaily.
22. Chittka L. and Muller H.. (2009). Learning, specialization, efficiency and task allocation in social insects. Communicative & Integrative Biology 2(2): 151-4.
23. Dornhaus, A. (2008). Specialization Does Not Predict Individual Efficiency in an Ant. PLOS Biology, 6(11), e285.
24. Ives, A.R., & Carpenter, S.R. (2007). Stability and diversity of ecosystems. Science, 317(5834), 58-62.
25. Loreau, M., et al. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 294(5543), 804-808.
26. Hess, G. (2024). Virtue Ethics and the Ecological Self: From Environmental to Ecological Virtues. Philosophies, 9(1), 23.
27. De Araujo, M. (2020). The Ethics of Genetic Cognitive Enhancement: Gene Editing or Embryo Selection? Philosophies, 5(3), 20.
28. Cafaro, P. (2020). Environmental Virtue Ethics and the Critique of Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 42(1), 45-59.
29. Bartness, T.J., Shrestha, Y.B., Vaughan, C.H., Schwartz, G.J., & Song, C.K. (2010). Sensory and sympathetic nervous system control of white adipose tissue lipolysis. Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 318(1-2), 34-43.
30. Collins, K.J. (2013). Temperature regulation and the autonomic nervous system. In C.J. Mathias & R. Bannister (Eds.), Autonomic Failure: A Textbook of Clinical Disorders of the Autonomic Nervous System (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
31. Johansson, F. (2004). The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts, and Cultures. Harvard Business School Press.
32. Bjorklund, D.F., Causey, K., & Periss, V. (2010). The Evolution and Development of Human Social Cognition. In P. Kappeler & J. Silk (Eds.), Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals (pp. 351-371). Springer Verlag.
33. Herrmann, E., Call, J., Hernández-Lloreda, M.V., Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Humans have evolved specialized skills of social cognition: The cultural intelligence hypothesis. Science, 317, 1360-1366.
34. Chapin, F.S. III, & Diaz, S. (2020). Interactions between changing climate and biodiversity: shaping humanity’s future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6295–6296.
35. Wabnitz, C.C.C., Lam, V.W.Y., Reygondeau, G., Teh, L.C.L., Al-Abdulrazzak, D., Khalfallah, M., et al. (2018). Climate change impacts on marine biodiversity, fisheries, and society in the Arabian Gulf. PLOS ONE, 13(5), e0194537.
36. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondizio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Agard, J., et al. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
37. Friedrich, O., Racine, E., Steinert, S. Pomsl, J. & Jox. R. J. (2021). An analysis of the impact of brain-computer interfaces on autonomy. Neuroethics, 14, 17-29.
38. Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B: Biological Sciences, 359(1451), 1775-1785.
39. Dossey, L. (1982). Space, time, and medicine. Sambhala.
40. Kates, R. W. et al., (2001). Environment and development. Sustainability science. Science, 292(5517), 641-642.
41. Pembroke, W. G. et al., (2021). Evolutionary Conservation and Divergence of the Human Brain Transcriptome. Genome Biology.
42. Frasnelli, E. (2021). Evolution and Function of Neurocognitive Systems in Non-Human Animals. Nature,11:23487.
43. Feinerman, O., & Traniello, J. F. A. (2016). Social complexity, diet, and brain evolution: Modeling the effects of colony size, worker size, brain size, and foraging behavior on colony fitness in ants.?Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology,?70(7), 1063–1074.
44. Saunders, M.E., & Rader, R. (2020). Ecosystem Services of Insects. In: Starr, C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Social Insects, pp1-7. Springer, Cham.
45. Del Toro, I., Ribbons, R.R., & Pelini, S.L. (2012). The little things that run the world revisited: A review of ant-mediated ecosystem services and disservices. Myrmecological News, 17, 133-146.
46. Hughes, W.O.H., Eilenberg, J., & Boomsma, J.J. (2002). Trade-offs in group living: Transmission and disease resistance in leaf-cutting ants. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1811-1819.
47. Roelofs, K. & Dayan, P. (2022). Freezing revisited: Coordinated autonomic and central optimization of threat coping. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 23(9):1-13.
48. Nagelkerken, I. et al., (2023). The effects of climate change on the ecology of fishes. PLOS.
49. Valera, L., & Castilla, J. (2020). Global changes: Ethics of science and technology assessment. Springer Nature.

50.? Jennings, V., Yun, J., & Larson, L. (2016). Finding Common Ground: Environmental Ethics, Social Justice, and a Sustainable Path for Nature-Based Health Promotion. 25; 4(3):61.

51.? Heruyono, A., Herdiansyah, H., & Putri, L.G.S. (2021). Environmental ethics perspective in fostering environmental awareness in the bandung eco camp community. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 802 012050.

52.?? Palmer, C., McShane, K., & Sandler, R. (2014). Environmental Ethics. Annual Review of?? Environmental and Resources, Vol. 39, pp.419-442.

53.? von Frisch, K. (1967). The Dance Language and Orientation of Bees. Harvard University Press.

54.? Seeley, T. D. (2010). Honeybee Democracy. Princeton University Press.

55.? Dorigo, M., & Stützle, T. (2004). Ant Colony Optimization. MIT Press.

56.? ?Bonabeau, E., Dorigo, M., & Theraulaz, G. (1999). Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial Systems. Oxford University Press.

57.? ?Domenici, P., & Batty, R. S. (1997). Escape behaviour of solitary herring (Clupea harengus) and comparisons with schooling individuals. Marine Biology, 128(1), 29-38.

58.? Berdahl, A., Westley, P. A., Levin, S. A., Couzin, I. D., & Quinn, T. P. (2016). A collective navigation hypothesis for homeward migration in anadromous salmonids. Fish and Fisheries, 17(2), 525-542.

59.? Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., Franks, N. R., & Levin, S. A. (2005). Effective leadership and decision-making in animal groups on the move. Nature, 433(7025), 513-516.

60.? Portugal, S. J., Hubel, T. Y., Fritz, J., Heese, S., Trobe, D., Voelkl, B., ... & Usherwood, J. R. (2014). Upwash exploitation and downwash avoidance by flap phasing in ibis formation flight. Nature, 505(7483), 399-402.

61.? Flack, A., Nagy, M., Fiedler, W., Couzin, I. D., & Wikelski, M. (2018). From local collective behavior to global migratory patterns in white storks. Science, 360(6391), 911-914.