Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2016
We appreciate the depth and breadth of comments we received. They reflect the interdisciplinary challenge of our inquiry and reassured us of its broad interest. We believe that our target article and the criticisms, elaborations, and extensions of the commentators can be an important contribution to establishing human ultrasociality as a new field of social science inquiry. A few of the commentators questioned our definition of ultrasociality, and we begin our response with an elaboration of that definition and a defense of our argument that human ultrasociality began with agriculture. We then respond to the second major area of controversy, namely, our use of group selection to explain the economic drivers behind the agricultural transition. We then focus on the issue of human intentionality raised by the phenomenon of collective intelligence. The intriguing question is to what extent can an entire culture change its own destiny? We then address the issue of the division of labor raised by a number of commentators. The complex division of labor was both a driver and a defining characteristic of ultrasociality, even though it was present in simpler forms in earlier societies. The remaining issues addressed include energy and complexity, expansion and sustainability, and the accelerating evolution of human ultrasociality. These were raised by only a few commentators, but their importance warrants further elaboration.
Target article
The economic origins of ultrasociality
Related commentaries (26)
Agriculture and the energy-complexity spiral
Agriculture increases individual fitness
Autonomy in ants and humans
Biological markets explain human ultrasociality
Contributions of family social structure to the development of ultrasociality in humans
Differences in autonomy of humans and ultrasocial insects
Differentiation of individual selves facilitates group-level benefits of ultrasociality
Does ultrasociality really exist – and is it the best predictor of human economic behaviors?
Human agricultural economy is, and likely always was, largely based on kinship – Why?
Human and ant social behavior should be compared in a very careful way to draw valid parallels
Humans are ultrasocial and emotional
Laying the foundation for evonomics
Malthus redux, and still blind in the same eye
On the effectiveness of multilevel selection
Rome was not built in one day: Underlying biological and cognitive factors responsible for the emergence of agriculture and ultrasociality
Social insects, merely a “fun house” mirror of human social evolution
The continuing evolution of ultrasocial economic organization
The convergent and divergent evolution of social-behavioral economics
The day of reckoning: Does human ultrasociality continue?
The similarity and difference between ant and human ultrasocieties: From the viewpoint of scaling laws
Ultrasociality and the division of cognitive labor
Ultrasociality and the sexual divisions of labor
Ultrasociality without group selection: Possible, reasonable, and likely
Ultrasociality, class, threat, and intentionality in human society
Ultrasociality: When institutions make a difference
“If it looks like a duck…” – why humans need to focus on different approaches than insects if we are to become efficiently and effectively ultrasocial
Author response
Disengaging from the ultrasocial economy: The challenge of directing evolutionary change