Can we tell whether human groups or societies are behaving as superorganisms?

Question

An anthill can be described as a superorganism, with behaviours and interactions much more complex than those of an individual ant. We could find analogies between the superorganism and other living organisms, as memory for instance. Chemicals that ants use to mark paths, could work as a gigant memory for the superorganism.

Multicellular organisms can be seen as superorganisms compounds of many individual cells too.

Among cells, they recognise certain patterns in their surrounding and behave accordingly to play specific roles, that is why most of us have all our body's parts in their place.

Humans, are multicelular organisms that recognise patterns with a different level of complexity and change their behaviour to fit within specific roles in a group of individuals or society.

I'm sure that cells lack the level of comprehension that humans have, which brings me to the question...

Are we part of a more complex superorganism, that we lack the level of conprehencion to identify or even understand?

Answer 1

In short, no. At least not under any falsifiable definition of an organism. When biologists refer to a superorganism or an extended phenotype, they aren't referring to a form of life, but the capacity of a species to propagate themselves.

Human systems fail the sniff test for life as well. Societies and organizations cannot replicate themselves by way of copying genes. Nor can they conduct respiration, or synthesize proteins. Most importantly, they are not contiguous, which is an absolutely necessary characteristic of an organism.

Another argument against is that the concept you refer to is self-insulating. It doesn't open itself up to criticism. Like Freudian psychoanalysis, any refusal to believe that one is an adherent to the proposed system could be dismissed as an "unawareness" of participation.

I should add that this does not mean that superorganisms do not exist, but that the sense of the word is entirely non-biologic. It is social. Unless one can make concrete parallels between the biological functioning of living systems and the mechanisms of human society (that is, they function the same without any abstraction from the physical), then it is incorrect to refer to society as a living being.

Answer 2

I think you have to be careful with metaphors. Very careful. Some writers get carried away with their ideas and comparisons and end up committing the error of treating metaphors as if they had formal import per se.

This question is, of course, metaphysical at bottom. For example, one metaphysical position may render the distinction between things is ultimately illusory, further rendering the existence of organisms illusory, at least as we understand them. Some metaphysical positions subordinate individuals to the societies they produce.

However, an Aristotelian metaphysics quite clearly places organisms above the societies they create. Here, individual organisms are defined through a final cause -- an end -- which they seek to realize and actualize. Some of those organisms realize their ends through interaction with other organisms of the same species, forming societies and communities among themselves in order to realize their natures, as it were. Societies are not individual in themselves but a multiplicity of individuals united in varying relations and subordinate metaphysically to the individuals participating in these relations.

The opposite is true when we consider parts of an organism where the parts of an organism are subordinate to the organism of the whole and ordered according to the finality of the organism. In this sense, you cannot speak of superorganisms despite very superficial similarities between the coordination between an organism's parts and cooperation between individuals. There is no being called "society" which has an end in itself, only a community of individuals which is instrumental in relation to the ends of its members.

Answer 3

David Sloan Wilson addresses your question in his 2002 book, Darwin's Cathedral. He is the developer of multilevel selection theory, where in addition to natural selection at the gene level, and the individual level, he makes the argument that there is also selection at the group level. He addresses the issue of whether human groups can be scientifically considered organismal in the sense that group behavior is a product of evolution that enables the group to survive and reproduce.

Edit: His conclusion is yes, human societies behave as organisms and have adaptations for group fitness.

Answer 4

Are we part of a more complex superorganism, that we lack the level of comprehension to identify or even understand?

We are part of several systems, some of which might form a separate whole in ways for which we don't have established concepts that we could use for comparison. These systems don't have consciousness in the usual sense, but they have other properties just as indescribable. I think "level of comprehension" or "level of understanding" misses the point, they are just different. It's also important to note that not every organization of humans, ants or other animals automatically forms a separate whole. For example, a separate whole should not draw too much of its identity from the identity of a few of its members. So mathematics is a separate whole, but a political party is normally not.

Answer 5

Who, by us, does see?

By cones and rods, we see What they themselves can't see, Hence who, by us, does see What we ourselves can't see?

By hair cells, we hear What they themselves can't hear, Hence who, by us, does hear What we ourselves can't hear?

By corpuscles, we feel What they themselves can't feel, Hence who, by us, does feel What we ourselves can't feel?

Boghos Artinian

Answer 6

I'm taking the question literally: The OP asks behaving as; this means we can only take observable behaviour into account, so we cannot appeal to what it means for an organism to feel in-itself, nor to perceive in-itself, nor to be conscious in-itself.

On that basis, we can certainly say that super-organisms do exist (there is a reason why we talk of the body politic).

But of course, consciousness is the very stuff of life - it shouldn't be left to one-side. Taking that into account then of course super-organisms do not exist (given the physics-based scientific/materialistic metaphysical structure within which we still reside today).

We can speculate: though there aren't any super-organisms in our immediate purview, can we rule them out as entirely impossible, that the laws of nature are against such a monster? We have no actual science of consciousness. Panpsychism posits all matter has a mental aspect: So we are already super-organisms, and so is the chair you are sitting on!

Answer 7

Are we part of a more complex superorganism, that we lack the level of comprehension to identify or even understand?

This question is self-contradictory and cannot be directly answered.

When we assume that we cannot comprehend X, then every proposition about X is, by our original premise, undecidable.

Another issue is that the set of properties of human beings are not isomorphic to the set of properties of human cells. For example, a human organism survives in Earth's atmosphere whereas a human nerve cell does not. Hence we cannot extrapolate the relationship between an organism and its cells out into the infinity and expect something similar to be there. Especially so when our starting point is that we lack the required capacity to notice it.

A hypothesis can be proven or disproven only if it is internally consistent and falsifiable but a question "Are we part of a more complex superorganism that we cannot understand nor identify?" is neither internally consistent nor falsifiable.

When it comes to anthills and societies, I tend to favor Occam's Razor and suggest emergent behavior.