Pathocracy of Microworld: Microbial cheats orchestrate their downfall

[Tenten]

There are some formal and theoretical studies on a similar subject at the University of Lausanne.

Source: http://www.unil.ch/dee/page9068_en.html
Document: pdf document

Extract

Information transfer plays a central role in the biology of most organisms, particularly social species [1, 2]. Although the neurophysiological processes by which signals are produced, conducted, perceived, and interpreted are well understood, the conditions conducive to the evolution of communication and the paths by which reliable systems of communication become established remain largely unknown.

This is a particularly challenging problem because efficient communication requires tight coevolution between the signal emitted and the response elicited [3]. We conducted repeated trials of experimental evolution with robots that could produce visual signals to provide information on food location.

We found that communication readily evolves when colonies consist of genetically similar individuals and when selection acts at the colony level. We identified several distinct communication systems that differed in their efficiency.

Once a given system of communication was well established, it constrained the evolution of more efficient communication systems. Under individual selection, the ability to produce visual signals resulted in the evolution of deceptive communication strategies in colonies of unrelated robots and a concomitant decrease in colony performance. This study generates predictions about the evolutionary conditions conducive to the emergence of communication and provides guidelines for designing artificial evolutionary systems displaying spontaneous communication.

The simulated bots were allowed to explore their surroundings. The genomes of the bots that found food and avoided poison most efficiently were recombined, mimicking biological natural selection. Their "genomes" were combined and randomised in a way designed to mimick mating and mutation and used this to create the next generation robot.

In each experiment, five hundred generations were evolved this way, under different selective pressures. Some colonies used their lights to signal when they found food and others used signals to communicate they had found poison.

Cooperative communication evolved when selective success was judged at the group level – when many robots displayed efficient behaviour – or when the genomes of the robots were most similar – like biological relatives.

Genes that promote sharing spread when an individual's survival is tied to that of the whole group – like in bees or ants. They also do well in populations of close relatives, since helping kin helps the same genes reach the next generation.

In contrast, in simulations with bots not closely related and when group performance was less important, some robots evolved misleading behaviour. Some even produced signals that lured other bots away far from food.

Could we make an analogy?
From PONEROLOGY: THE HYSTEROIDAL CYCLE

In the search for a good life, humanity first used the power of animals, then turned to exploiting their fellow humans. In such a way, the seeds of suffering and inequality can be found in our hedonistic pursuit of “happiness”. In this way good times give birth to bad times. The knowledge learned by the suffering in bad times leads to the creation of good times, and the cycle repeats.

Worth reading ...
Document: Floreano, D., Mitri, S., Magnenat, S., Keller, L., 2007. Evolutionary conditions for the emergence of communication in robots. Current Biology 17, 514-519. pdf document