Size Does Matter

Summary:
     Size is at least a major determinate in the survival of S-ORGs and, therefore, of the individuals who form S-ORGs. Since individual survival is so dependent on S-ORGs survival, it follows that individuals would evolve in such a way that allows them to form and participate in larger and larger S-ORGs. This co-evolution of S-ORGs and individuals seems to be born out in the historical record.

      Since the competition for survival and resources among groups depends on the size of the social organism, how do Social Organisms grow in size and what limits their size? Whatever theory we pursue here, it must allow for the extreme ranges we encounter in the size of S-ORGs. Probably the largest S-ORG we encounter regularly are insect hives. Ants have very simple language and very low intelligence by human standards, yet they form very large collections of individuals. When we look at animals, we encounter very large herds of a given species during migrations, but it is not clear that they are pursuing a group purpose (as apposed to some individual goal triggered by the seasons). For humans, bands and tribes have been about the same size for a very long time. For many animals, the maximum size of the S-ORG has been limited to a narrow range for a very long time. As animals have evolved, this range has not generally changed very much. A research question would be "how does group size change as species evolve?".
     The capacity to form large S-ORGs seems to relate to the complexity of the language mechanism of the entities that form the S-ORG. In the case of ants which have had a very long evolutionary history, the language mechanism may have evolved as a hard-wired genetically determined language of behaviors that changes very slowly over time. Animal communication may also be generally hardwired and evolved in the same way but include a capacity for expansion and augmentation in the short term. In other words, the critical characteristic would be the capacity for learned, complex vocabulary. If my theory here is correct, then animals have a capacity for passing on a learned vocabulary and the size of animal S-ORGs took a quantum jump when humans evolved the capacity for large vocabularies passed on to offspring. This may be no more complicated than the ability to hold a large number of sounds and associations in memory.
     Language, in the sense that I am using it, is a group phenomena. It is possible to have sounds associated with mental processes without having language. For our purposes, a language is a shared set of associations with a given set of sounds or actions. For instance, the dance of the ant on returning to the hive with food constitutes a form of language. This may be a hardwired, evolved communication, but for our purposes it constitutes a language where gesture is associated with information. It is interesting that humans associate intelligence with the capacity for complex vocabulary. In any case, the advantage of language during group conflict seems obvious.
     The basic human S-ORG at this point in the evolution of S-ORGs would be small scale and generally termed a "tribe". Animal S-ORGs generally reflect the characteristics of the individuals that compose them. At this point we can look at analogs of individuals as reflected in their S-ORGs. Individual animals have memories; the S-ORG has a distributed memory limited by the memories and language of its individuals. Group behavior is not very independent of individual behavior; if an individual raises an alarm, there is little difference in behavior across the group. The roles of individuals within the S-ORG vary very little across the group.
     As the size of S-ORGs increase, another indicator of S-ORG evolution is the number of roles the S-ORG supports. In primitive S-ORGS, there may be a chief, breeders (females of the species) and fighters (males of the species). Naturally, there are often female fighters (lions come to mind), sometime female chiefs but no male breeders. As S-ORGs increase in size the available roles for individuals increase. The shaman appears, males become nurturers and weapon makers (technicians) start to appear as well as traders. While this is a function of technology to some degree, the limits on S-ORG complexity lies with the nature of the group memory and how information is passed forward in time. The next stage of S-ORG evolution is written language. At this point, the size of S-ORGs take another quantum leap in size and complexity.
     Another quantum leap in S-ORG evolution is the formation of a super-tribal Social Organism. This level of S-ORG seems only to exist for humans. The super-tribal S-ORG is created when two or more tribal level S-ORGs are united into a larger S-ORG. Normally, in most species, when one S-ORG defeats another S-ORG, the defeated S-ORG's individuals are absorbed into the winning S-ORG or killed. In the super-tribal, the conflict results in a larger S-ORG with the resulting S-ORG containing two distinct S-ORGs within it. This mutation of the S-ORG is another giant evolutionary change, and I propose that this mutation is unique to human S-ORGs. It is at this stage that human empires come into being. It is this characteristic of human social organisms that make it so difficult to analyze and model the social organism. This many-things-in-one-space nature of S-ORGs is counter intuitive. From this seminal mutation of the S-ORG, we can understand the historical conflicts of groups. However, there is one further mutation of the S-ORG that completes the historical picture.
     The next mutation of the S-ORG occured when two S-ORGs merged on a voluntary basis. While most large S-ORGs up to this point were formed by violent domination, this type of S-ORG emerged when smaller tribal (or super-tribal) S-ORGs united to defend themselves from a larger super-tribal. This appears to be the origin of how the Roman and Greek empires emerged. The voluntary nature of these mutations were accompanied by unique, distinguishing characteristics of the Social Organisms. The primary evolutionary trend of S-ORGs has been to form larger and larger S-ORGs. The survivability of S-ORGs appears to be directly a function of their size. Everything else being equal, size will decide the outcome of S-ORG warfare. This leads to a testable theory. If this model is correct, then the distribution of individual genetic characteristics should favor the individuals who live inside the largest social organizations.