Skip to main content
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
letter
. 2021 Oct 15;118(42):e2113678118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2113678118

Swarm intelligence begins now or never

Kang Hao Cheong a,1,2, Michael C Jones a,2
PMCID: PMC8545451  PMID: 34654748

In vivid detail, Bak-Coleman et al. (1) describe explosively multiplicative global pathologies of scale posing existential risk to humanity. They argue that the study of collective behavior in the age of digital social media must rise to a “crisis discipline” dedicated to averting global ruin through the adaptive manipulation of social dynamics and the emergent phenomenon of collective behavior. Their proposed remedy is a massive global, multidisciplinary coalition of scientific experts to discover how the “dispersed networks” of digital media can be expertly manipulated through “urgent, evidence-based research” to “steward” social dynamics into “rapid and effective collective behavioral responses,” analogous to “providing regulators with information” to guide the stewardship of ecosystems. They picture the enlightened harnessing of yet-to-be-discovered scale-dependent rules of internet-age social dynamics as a route to fostering the emergent phenomenon of adaptive swarm intelligence.

We wish to issue an urgent warning of our own: Responding to the self-evident fulminant, rampaging pathologies of scale (2) ravaging the planet with yet another pathology of scale will, at best, be ineffective and, at worst, counterproductive. It is the same thing that got us here. The complex international coalition they propose (1) would be like forming a new, ultramodern weather bureau to furnish consensus recommendations to policy makers while a megahurricane is already making landfall. This conjures images of foot dragging, floor fights, and consensus building while looking for actionable “mechanistic insight” into social dynamics on the deck of the Titanic. After lucidly spotlighting the urgent scale-dependent mechanistic nature of the crisis, Bak-Coleman et al. (1) do not propose any immediate measures to reduce scale, but rather offer that there “is reason to be hopeful that well-designed systems can promote healthy collective action at scale...” Hope is neither a strategy nor an action.

Despite lofty goals, the coalition they propose does not match the urgency or promise a rapid and collective behavioral response to the existential threats they identify (1). Scale reduction may be “collective,” but achieving it will have to be local, authentic, and without delay—that is, a response conforming to the “all hands on deck” swarm intelligence phenomena that are well described in eusocial species already (3, 4). When faced with the potential for imminent global ruin lurking ominously in the fat tail (5) of the future distribution, the precautionary principle dictates that we should respond with now-or-never urgency (6, 7). This is a simple fact (2, 8). A “weather bureau” for social dynamics would certainly be a valuable, if not indispensable, institution for future generations. But there is no reason that scientists around the world, acting as individuals within their own existing social networks and spheres of influence, observing what is already obvious with their own eyes, cannot immediately create a collective chorus to send this message through every digital channel instead of waiting for a green light from above. “Urgency” is euphemistic. It is now or never.

Acknowledgments

K.H.C. is partially supported by Academic Research Fund (AcRF) Tier 2 Grant MOE-T2EP50120-0021 from Ministry of Education of Singapore.

Footnotes

The authors declare no competing interest.

References

  • 1.Bak-Coleman J. B., et al., Stewardship of global collective behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2025764118 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cheong K. H., Jones M. C., Introducing the 21st century’s new four horsemen of the coronapocalypse. BioEssays 42, e2000063 (2020). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Glikson A. Y., “Swarm intelligence” in The Fatal Species: From Warlike Primates to Planetary Mass Extinction (Springer, 2021), pp. 9−16. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Krause J., Ruxton G. D., Krause S., Swarm intelligence in animals and humans. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 28–34 (2010). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Taleb N. N., How much data do you need? An operational, pre-asymptotic metric for fat-tailedness. Int. J. Forecast. 35, 677–686 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cheong K. H., Koh J. M., Jones M. C., Black swans of CRISPR: Stochasticity and complexity of genetic regulation. BioEssays 41, e1900032 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Taleb N. N., Read R., Douady R., Norman J., Bar-Yam Y., The precautionary principle (with application to the genetic modification of organisms). arXiv [Preprint] (2014). https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5787 (Accessed 19 July 2021).
  • 8.Taleb N. N., Norman J., Ethics of precaution: Individual and systemic risk. https://www.academia.edu/42223846/Ethics_of_Precaution_Individual_and_Systemic_Risk. Accessed 19 July 2021.

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES