Have any philosophers taken up human hive-like behaviour and its implications?
EO Wilson and others have outlined eusociality, a mode of group selection acting in addition to selection at the individual level https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4850877/ though this is not without critics https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/richard-dawkins-edward-o-_b_1588510 This seems to suggest that aspects of being human, like tool use, clothing and cooking, may have reinforced the benefits of social behaviour supporting group fitness, over individual success. This can be extended all the way to the success in science of the Allies over Axis powers (nuclear weapons), and later Soviet's (profound misconceptions about agronomy).
In philosophy (from the Wikipedia page on the Private Language Argument):
If the idea of a private language is inconsistent, then a logical conclusion would be that all language serves a social function. This would have profound implications for other areas of philosophical and psychological study. For example, if one cannot have a private language, it might not make any sense to talk of private experiences or of private mental states.
Science extends sensory faculties, through collective development of tools from vacuum pumps to CERN, and regulation of the quality of reported results through peer review and academic prestige. The cultural whole of science is not only greater than the parts, but seems to be creating deeper global integration and allocating technology and access to resources in return for that, creating a positive feedback loop.
Has anyone since Wittgenstein taken up the philosophical implications of this? Has anyone taken up the ideas of Kuhn & Popper and applied them like this? What do our eusociality and non-private aspects of language tell us about complex brains and how we know things?