The Hive Mind Government

[aitaituo]

A few feet is easy and only needs tech we could make today (at great expense) and a good wifi connection. Interplanetary is a bit harder and interstellar is almost impossible, but if FTL exists and FT credit trading does too (things we know are in stellaris) then that wouldn't be a problem.

What's the IEEE standard for biological wifi? Latency is the intractable problem, really. Even if they're using radio waves, their maximum range is surely less than a light second, so maybe it can work on a planetary scale, but any further and you're effectively creating a splinter hive mind. Presumably, once a splinter hive mind exists, it will probably be reluctant to depersonalize into the original one.

Hardware requirements are rather implausible for a naturally evolving biological organism, too. Either each individual is too dumb, as in eusocial and swarm insects, or each individual is so smart, in order to be able to process input from other individuals in the hive mind, one wonders why a more conventional evolutionary path wasn't followed.

These kinds of things could work with robots, though. Omnius from the Dune prequels is discrete hive mind on each planet with synchronization ships carrying interstellar updates continually.

Ender's Game on the other hand gave us the ansible.

Ender stole it from Ursula Le Guin.

 

[Sinister2202]

I suggest introduction of hive mind governments as a sort of encounter. Think of Starship Troopers for a moment, and imagine a barren world bustling with bugs that mindlessly serve the lord of the hive. They are not open for any sort of dialogue, trade is not an option, no ability to reach space or to build, and they are more like an obstacle to your colonization efforts - so maybe consider this as more like an encounter on a empty planet rather than represent them as a minor race as a whole, since minor races would actually develop technology, build, and have free-will of its own.

 

[NapoleonI]

A hive has no government. There is no alfa male or alfa female in a hive.
The collective only protects larva and food but not a queen or any leader. The "queen" simply is a unit of the hive that lays larva and eats food, but it does not make her more in control or more valuable. If the queen is killed the hive will simply generate a new.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

A hive has no government. There is no alfa male or alfa female in a hive.
The collective only protects larva and food but not a queen or any leader. The "queen" simply is a unit of the hive that lays larva and eats food, but it does not make her more in control or more valuable. If the queen is killed the hive will simply generate a new.

I understand the swarm intelligence exhibited on Earth species, for which all the activities of the hive are performed out of instinct, however for some hive species the queen assumes a limited role of "command" by basically addressing its needs to the rest of the hive via pheromones. Translating it to intelligence, technological innovation, and possibly cultural development, a hive such as an ant colony would pretty much require the queen to call more complex commands.

I bring up males as possible administrators since they are independent of the hive, traveling to other hives to reproduce. In a government, the male could be an answer to the fear of one colony assuming too much control over the other colonies on the homeworld.

However, since you mention this, it also brings up the matter of a completely decentralized hive-mind, a true swarm intelligence where the entire population of a species assumes total harmonic control over the matters of the state in the most literal sense, no queen, no male, no physical leader. However more, a swarm intelligence is incapable of of innovating, since a swarm intelligence is incapable of experimenting and making mistakes, thus a swarm intelligence like an anthill or beehive would be impossible to see in space. At the very least, an intelligent hive-mind species would be totally ruled by queens who would have degrees of free will, as well as males who would inevitably have a free will due to their inherent independence from the rest of the hive.

 

[QueenoftheIsles]

A hive has no government. There is no alfa male or alfa female in a hive.
The collective only protects larva and food but not a queen or any leader. The "queen" simply is a unit of the hive that lays larva and eats food, but it does not make her more in control or more valuable. If the queen is killed the hive will simply generate a new.

I beg to differ... bees are notable for swarming to surround their queen if she is endangered. A good example is this: a friend of mine has a grandfather who does beekeeping, occasionally the bees must be moved, the best way to do this is to go right for the queen. Almost all of the bees will follow her pheromones and try to encircle her, if you put the queen in a bucket, the bees will stay in the bucket with her and can all be transported together until she is in "safety" again in a new hive.

Your other point is valid though, most of the works with bees are female and can lay eggs just fine, the queen's pheromones just cause the drones to devour those eggs. When the queen dies however, its every bee for herself...

 

[Concrete]

A hive has no government. There is no alfa male or alfa female in a hive.
The collective only protects larva and food but not a queen or any leader. The "queen" simply is a unit of the hive that lays larva and eats food, but it does not make her more in control or more valuable. If the queen is killed the hive will simply generate a new.

Yes, in the hive societies we've observed this is the case.

To consider a hive society for this sort of game you immediately accept the realities of at least strategic thinking and technological development.

So the result has to account for these necessities.
You can take an ant hive. Then you need to imagine how it adapted to the point of space exploration. Then you fill in the blanks. It's silly to use a few examples of actual Terran lifeforms as an argument against a similar interpretation adapted to a sci-fi game.

 

[BrokenSky]

What's the IEEE standard for biological wifi? Latency is the intractable problem, really. Even if they're using radio waves, their maximum range is surely less than a light second, so maybe it can work on a planetary scale, but any further and you're effectively creating a splinter hive mind.

Basically. Although it depends, as I said, on the characteristic time of thought processes. For aliens who think more slowly than us, having a lag of a few seconds might not mean much, so it might well be possible to keep the whole thing together over a whole star system.

Edit: also not all hive-minds need be evolved; some might be more individualistic species eventually developing fully integrated brain-computers with always on internet connection (originally devised as a method to stop terrorism and other thought-crimes of course ).

 

[EddieTheLion]

If they've invented FTL communications (which they have, considering the way the game works), then maintaining unity across star systems shouldn't be a problem for them. Just hook up the transmitter to emitters and receivers of whatever method they have of exchanging thoughts.

Edit: also wanted to point out that a single hive eusocial civilization won't have inbreeding problems if they invented cloning before or shortly after becoming the sole remaining hive on their homeworld. They could just keep producing clones of long dead individuals.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

If they've invented FTL communications (which they have, considering the way the game works), then maintaining unity across star systems shouldn't be a problem for them. Just hook up the transmitter to emitters and receivers of whatever method they have of exchanging thoughts.

Edit: also wanted to point out that a single hive eusocial civilization won't have inbreeding problems if they invented cloning before or shortly after becoming the sole remaining hive on their homeworld. They could just keep producing clones of long dead individuals.

Eugenics would work, but pure cloning would not allow a species to adapt to changing natural worlds, risking extinction to diseases. There needs to be genetic deviation and variation among new generations, and some form of eugenics in a single-family species would at least allow scientists to ensure individuals have diverse traits (basically the opposite of what we tried to use eugenics for here on earth). However, even individuals cannot predict what traits might be useful in the long run, and it is best left to natural evolution, which occurs well when multiple families exist.

 

[zyphial]

Eugenics would work, but pure cloning would not allow a species to adapt to changing natural worlds, risking extinction to diseases.

Eh, once artificial reproduction and genetic modification come into play, it's far better to think of new "members of the species" as more like production models. Evolution still happens, but artificial selection outweighs natural selection and the genes advance not incrementally but by leaps and bounds. Rather like how, say, a tank might have a base chasis that then gets a new variant for each environment its deployed in, then gets upgraded incrementally until new tech or mission requirements come along and an entirely new model is developed whih inherits the learned improvements from the previous tank.

The only real risk to such a system is a disease or fast acting disaster that propagates faster than a new production line can be generated. Without diversity, a flaw in one is a flaw in all, and a fast spreading disease that can somehow jump between stars and planets (unlikely, but this is scifi, so maybe it's a nanite disease that generates wormholes/hyperdrives... or maybe has a super long contagious stage with no symptoms before sudden termination...). Ultimately it takes a real stretch of the imagination to bring down anything above Type II civilizations.

However, even individuals cannot predict what traits might be useful in the long run, and it is best left to natural evolution, which occurs well when multiple families exist.

Oh nonononono. Natural evolution (which should be defined as inherited genetics+random mutation+natural selection+time) is terribly slow and suboptimal. Something like 99% of random mutations are deleterious, and it takes millions of years to make even small changes. It's a powerful force over time but on a civilization's time scale it's practically a nonfactor in anything but microorganisms. Evolution is overhyped because it produces amazing results, but just look at what humans have done to canis familiaris in such a short time - and that's with tools from hundreds and even thousands of years ago.

 

[aitaituo]

Oh nonononono. Natural evolution (which should be defined as inherited genetics+random mutation+natural selection+time) is terribly slow and suboptimal. Something like 99% of random mutations are deleterious, and it takes millions of years to make even small changes. It's a powerful force over time but on a civilization's time scale it's practically a nonfactor in anything but microorganisms. Evolution is overhyped because it produces amazing results, but just look at what humans have done to canis familiaris in such a short time - and that's with tools from hundreds and even thousands of years ago.

I would have to disagree in part, specifically in regard to microorganisms. Generally, the best defense against them is genetic resistance and they evolve too quickly to use eugenics or even genetic engineering is too slow. Antibiotic type medicines are ineffective long term because they tend to work by exploiting simple weaknesses in the target microorganism, then force the evolution of the target species towards immunity. It's also a bad idea to try to replace an immune system with artificial supplements.

The real problem with genetic engineering, of course, is implementation on a mass scale. Look at the innumerable defective dog breeds.

 

[zyphial]

I would have to disagree in part, specifically in regard to microorganisms.

I actually made specific mention of microorganisms further down the post for this very reason.

It's also a bad idea to try to replace an immune system with artificial supplements.

Not really. If we're talking about a civilization with nanotech and sufficiently advanced biological understanding, then they can wipe out all consequential microorganisms by simply making the host species entirely incompatible. I can't be infected by a bacteriophage or potato virus precisely because my biology is different enough that it can't possibly interact with the receptors/environmental conditions of my body. A nano-body could likewise be made incompatible, and no amount of short term evolution is going to bridge that gap.

Problems would arise, of course, if a mad scientist invented diseases that were compatible (see my talk about disease).

The real problem with genetic engineering, of course, is implementation on a mass scale. Look at the innumerable defective dog breeds.

Dog breeding isn't even the tip of the iceberg. Dog breeding was done before we even knew genetics existed. It's a good example for saying what can easily be done, but a horrendous example of the "limitations" of genetic engineering.

Ancient Egyptians bred dogs, we're hardly limited to the same technological constraints as ancient Egypt. So far as I'm aware, GMOD dogs are illegal. Wasn't there a big huff about glow in the dark pets that caused a lot of knee-jerk law changes? Also, I seem to recall a big push after all the fear mongering surrounding Dolly. At the very least, I know it's strongly frowned upon. Direct genetic manipulation isn't employed, even though it would really help out some of the less fortunate breeds because the moral/social backlash that would result makes it economically unfeasible.

 

[aitaituo]

Regarding nanotech, at that point, are we still even human? It sounds like you're describing taking an adult human then using nanomachines to rebuild their cells from the ground up. If that is what you mean, then at that point the concept of disease is obsolete. I meant the difference between a medicine only approach, trying to eliminate all disease before the body itself really needs to do much of anything except digest and metabolize the medicine, or a genetic immunity approach through evolution. The former eliminates smallpox, but the latter provides better protection against all microorganism diseases, such as the small number of people who are immune to HIV which is thought to be from a mutation that originally spread due to protecting carriers from the bubonic plague.

That distinction is irrelevant if you're rebuilding human cells entirely. Not that I think that's really feasible in absolute terms. You'd want a cell that does the same things normal human cells do, but you want to build them out of entirely different components that won't be susceptible to any pathogen. It's a pretty tall order, even if you're not concerned with how you'll actually transform the cell.

With dog breeding, I'm not following you. Limitations? Dogs have been bred with traditional artificial selection, yes, but the point is the results. You have tons of different breeds created to satisfy whims and nearly all of them suffer from congental genetic disorders. There is no unitary direction towards something desirable, there is what sells now. Human genetic engineering will suffer the same problem. Adults already perform body modifications on themselves and parents quite happily send their children to Chinese language immersion primary schools, because that's the thing they think will help them get rich later on, just as they used to make them take Japanese, French, German, Latin, and so on. To clarify, I'm talking about mass implementation of genetic engineering and what will happen in that implementation, not about the technical side.

 

[zyphial]

Regarding nanotech, at that point, are we still even human?

Yes and no. As soon as we tweak our genes we stop being humans as in Homo Sapien. That species is well defined and though we get all sentimental about it there's really no reason to care if we stop being homo sapien. Everything that matters - heritage, culture, morals, science, philosophy, history, ect all stays exactly the same.

But we would still be "human" because all members of a subclade can be referred to by the name of any basal clade. We are in fact monkeys. And all monkeys are fish. So you are a fish. Congrats!

I meant the difference between a medicine only approach

The distinction here is fuzzy. What's the difference between a nanite and an enzyme? Once computer models are sufficiently advanced, there's no reason that new enzymes cannot be made biologically (that is, synthesizing gene sequences and splicing them into organisms), and those enzymes open the gates to the use of materials that generally aren't found in living things, which further opens the flood gates to newer enzymes that can do even more... eventually you get molecules that barely resemble their organic roots and... is that an enzyme, organelle, cell or a nanite?

But, if we rewrote our genes "medically" and changed all the cellular receptors, the respective ph's, salt concentrations, etc of our bodies, few if any organisms could adapt to a sudden 1 generation change like that. Remember Malaria has had issues with wrong cell shapes for millenia (Sickle Cell). As you indirectly mentioned, HIV is particularly susceptible to changes in the CD4 receptor site.

Not that I think that's really feasible in absolute terms.

Not today. Our models are weak and the computers necessary to compute better models are too expensive. But you seem to be thinking that because a rocket program was out of the budget of ancient Egypt, humans can never reach there. Better tech is getting cheaper. Fast. And the science is advancing at an extreme rate (wrong CPU or I'd link you to an amazing ted talk about just that).

You'd want a cell that does the same things normal human cells do, but you want to build them out of entirely different components that won't be susceptible to any pathogen. It's a pretty tall order, even if you're not concerned with how you'll actually transform the cell.

You wouldn't need to do that. You could, as I said earlier, but even if you didn't want to, you could still change all the receptor sites a little bit, change the ph in a few places (with buffers and other things in places you want to keep the same) and most organisms are suddenly incapable of doing anything in the host.

With dog breeding, I'm not following you. Limitations? Dogs have been bred with traditional artificial selection, yes, but the point is the results. You have tons of different breeds created to satisfy whims and nearly all of them suffer from congental genetic disorders.

The disorders are a direct result of using 3,000 year old technology. 3,000 years is a long time. We have better methods now.

To clarify, I'm talking about mass implementation of genetic engineering and what will happen in that implementation, not about the technical side.

It all depends. You're imagining a free society with an open market, and that that open market is what drives genetic innovation. That's not the only feasible model. A hive mind (the topic of the OP) or a totalitarian state could easily make everyone's genetics uniform and here would be no drive from a hypothetical market.

Assuming we are dealing with an advanced market society, different objectives does not automatically mean genetic error. The genetic errors we see in dogs are because breeders could not pinpoint desired genes. If a breeder wanted a short dog he'd take [SHORT+CANCER+SHORT_LIFE+UGLY] and breed it repeatedly with [SHORT+RENAL_FAILURE+CRIPPLED+PRETTY] until he was reasonably certain he'd eliminated all the alleles for tall - regardless of all that other junk that has now gotten thoroughly mixed in. He'd then take the new short breed and perhaps breed that repeatedly with PRETTY until he had a batch of [SHORT+PRETTY+etc] with who knows what else. Eventually he'd have a mix of sufficient "good" traits and not enough "bad" traits to make the breed useless and that's what we have today. It's 3,000 year old technology. It has no relation to modern genetic engineering at all.

Modern genetic engineering would take genes from possibly thousands of species and combine them into a base species to create [SHORT+HEALTHY+FRIENDLY+PRETTY] in one shot - or at least try to. We don't have a complete understanding of all the relevant systems nor have we successfully modeled an entire organism to any sufficient granularity today so unforeseen consequences can arise with today's limitations... but give us 200+ years of rapidly advancing computers and that's hardly a problem. Heck - with more computing power and time to run groundwork, we might start being able to model new enzymes and other biological nanites. It's more likely to occur in the next few decades than centuries, in fact.

 

[BrokenSky]

Dog breeding isn't even the tip of the iceberg. Dog breeding was done before we even knew genetics existed. It's a good example for saying what can easily be done, but a horrendous example of the "limitations" of genetic engineering.

In fairness it does illustrate the limitations of certain methods of genetic engineering (i.e. selective breeding).

The disorders are a direct result of using 3,000 year old technology. 3,000 years is a long time. We have better methods now.

I think the point he's making is that people tend to do things for short term payoffs and if humanity had access to genetic engineering we'd use it in irresponsible ways and probably kill ourselves by piling on short term modification without regard to the effects each one might, for example, have on each other.
Unless I'm misunderstanding...

 

[aitaituo]

I think the point he's making is that people tend to do things for short term payoffs and if humanity had access to genetic engineering we'd use it in irresponsible ways and probably kill ourselves by piling on short term modification without regard to the effects each one might, for example, have on each other.
Unless I'm misunderstanding...

Exactly. Even assuming we don't go the Khan Singh route, the Bioshock route is the most probable, because so many different approaches to species wide genetic engineering can crap out and crash to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[ParagonExile]

Genetic modification is so passe'.

Mechanical and nanotechnological augmentation is where the (space) money is. No matter how well you manipulate your human genes, you'll never be as strong, as fast or as smart as an AI can be. Plus you decouple your mind from your body, and can survive on any planet that technology can exist upon, as well as in space. On top of that you can "telepathically" link with others through radio, share subjective experiences, download knowledge and understanding directly, and are immune to every conceivable biological disease. *And* you can mass produce copies of yourself, replace your body parts at will...

*That* is a society I'd like to see. More alien than any biological alien could ever be. Pdox would probably nerf it though ;-;

 

[Chaos_TLW]

Yes and no. As soon as we tweak our genes we stop being humans as in Homo Sapien. That species is well defined and though we get all sentimental about it there's really no reason to care if we stop being homo sapien. Everything that matters - heritage, culture, morals, science, philosophy, history, ect all stays exactly the same.

Eeeeeeh, it is kind of messy. Just tweaking our genes around a bit wouldn't be enough to immediactly turn us into a new species. According to the most widely used current definition, you'd need to modify enough genes that the modified population cannot produce fertile offspring with the original species. Because it is such a gradual process, I don't think anagenesis(evolutionary change of species in a single lineage, contrast with cladogenesis, multiple isolated genetic lineages generating multiple species) in humans can be practically observed in a(few non-enhanced) lifespan(s) even with heavy genetic modification, and enough genetic change would only occur with geographical(interstellar, most like) isolation and specialization, that is, different planets producing different subspecies and species.
Unless, of course, we cryogenically freeze individuals of specific generations in specific points in time to, ahem... "test" whether the old generations can produce fertile offspring with the current, so as to be able to say with certainty when it can be considered a new species, somewhat like Richard Lenski did in his landmark study with evolutionary change in E. coli bacteria, except in his case it was used to determine when certain mutations appeared in specific populations.

 

[Milten]

Genetic modification is so passe'.

Mechanical and nanotechnological augmentation is where the (space) money is. No matter how well you manipulate your human genes, you'll never be as strong, as fast or as smart as an AI can be. Plus you decouple your mind from your body, and can survive on any planet that technology can exist upon, as well as in space. On top of that you can "telepathically" link with others through radio, share subjective experiences, download knowledge and understanding directly, and are immune to every conceivable biological disease. *And* you can mass produce copies of yourself, replace your body parts at will...

*That* is a society I'd like to see. More alien than any biological alien could ever be. Pdox would probably nerf it though ;-;

But unlike mechanisms, genetic modifications are always with, they are you. You'll be able to replace all your organs with mechanical parts, but what's the point if the brain still fails you with some Alzheimer? And if you replace brain, then it'll be just a computer with your knowledge instead of you, no fun. If you just insert some computers in your brain, then it's simply a calculator with fancy interface.
Genetic modifications cannot be hacked, they don't need hi-tech maintenance and can be repaired with some sandwich and juice. Augmentation is like plastic surgery, it fixes symptoms, not the problem.

 

[Kertheon]

Nobody is talking about MorningLightMountain of the CommonWealth Saga?

Aside of genetic manipulation and its use of electronics to send the mind control signals to the other relays. This kind of hive mind was completely dependant of permanent worm holes to expand its influence to other planets without fragmenting itself into multiple beings with distinct personalities.

Actually, Vicky 2's Consciousness and EU4's Local Autonomy are pretty much golden models for this.

I think you could also make it *feel* different by adding in bonuses and penalties. Maybe a hive mind at 0 consciousness has a lower tech rate - no competition, no inovation - and no/poor leaders - no individuals, no leadership. Perhaps recruiting leaders like Zerg Cerebrates or Locutus of Borg spikes consciousness (due to an infusion of individuality into the hive). A high consciousness could run the risk of massive civil wars/offshoots on top of the efficiency penalty, but higher tech rate and far better leaders. Sort of a see-saw effect that requires you to balance on the razor's edge until some disaster eventually pushes you over the edge...

The Local Autonomy concept would work wonders, at 0% the region is completely controlled by the master hive mind. If your wormhole is destroyed, or your mind infrastructure is starting to be too far, the local autonomy gradually starts growing representing the split of personalities of the local Hive Mind tough cluster until at certain threeshold is completely independent and its own empire.