I am moving the posts on this story that Mad and I have been making in the "Additional Fiction" forum. I will make a new post for each of us, but note at the start WHO made the original post.Starting with my (Mr. P's.) first post:

I finished "Swarm". Very interesting. I have been busy all week and cannot post my thoughts right now.

I will comment on the main thought I have been tossing around, and that is: Is intelligence a BANE to life? What a concept. The humans in this story (and all around us) are so smug that 'we will overcome' through our big brains...but is it possible that we are really killing ourselves with our over-blown reverence of our intelligence? Ourselves and other life forms.

The Swarm is looked down upon by the two other species in this story...but it seems that the swarm dwarfs them both in the art of survival. I find it interesting that the intelligence aspect of the Swarm was drawn into existence by the threat to the entity.

Mad? Your thoughts?

Mr. P.

Mad Architect said:

misterpessimistic: I have been busy all week and cannot post my thoughts right now.

I'm looking forward to when you can sit down and discuss it more. And, hive queen, we'll certainly take it slow so that you can catch up. I haven't even gotten around to the third story yet, though I'm thinking I may tackle it tonight.

I will comment on the main thought I have been tossing around, and that is: Is intelligence a BANE to life?

That's certainly the idea that's espoused in this story, or something very like it, at least. And I think it serves as a kind of keynote for what's to follow in other stories. Intelligence seems to be what's driving the wedge between different human factions. But we can look back to that later on.

This is what I think. In as much as intelligence prods us to consider some situations more than we should, to second guess and so forth, it's something of a burden. If we had a more insect-like instinct, would we worry about whether or not our wives and parents loved us, whether or not our friends were stabbing us in the back? So that's one aspect to the problem.

More to Swarm's point, if instinct is always geared towards survival -- either on the level of the individual, the group, or as Dawkins would have it, the gene -- then intelligence is problematic precisely to whatever degree it can redirect our energy towards a goal that is not sanctioned by instinct. Our society has a popular symbol for this in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But on a more intimate level, an intelligence that would lead a person to put the sanctity of a concept above their own needs -- "give me liberty or give me death" -- is also one that could potentially act against the instinct of survival.

On the other hand, if Sterling is trying to put forth a real assertion here (rather than just playing with ideas), then I think he's stacked the cards a great deal. The Swarm is, after all, a product of his own imagination, and there's nothing in nature that really corresponds to it. Check out my last post in the "1984" thread that you just bumped for more of what I mean by that. And, incidentally, thanks for bumping that thread -- I had forgotten about that discussion.

I find it interesting that the intelligence aspect of the Swarm was drawn into existence by the threat to the entity.

Yeah, that was kind of cool. It implies that the Swarm has dealt with uprisings of this sort so often that they've evolved an internal mechanism for dealing with it. The Swarm intelligence resembles a kind of antibody in that sense.

I think one of the really impressive aesthetic touches with the story is the way in which Sterling evokes this long evolutionary history to the Swarm. I really got a sense of it developing by a kind of accretion -- species get absorbed into it, and start adapting to it, until they've become something else entirely, but something so dependent on the whole community that they can't be classed as anything but a sub-set of the Swarm. What it really makes me wonder about is how the Swarm began, what were its original species like, how did they develop this form of existence?

Mad Architect said:I don't have much time, so I'll try to address some of your points tomorrow. I did want to hit on a few notions, though.The resemblence to the Borg from Star Trek makes me wonder if maybe the Swarm wasn't the inspiration for Borg. I'll have to cross-check some dates.As for the line about missing your conversation, I think it points to one of the supposed drawbacks of intelligence. The Swarm intelligence has a distinct lifespan, and without some sort of intelligent company, you can imagine how hellish that lifespan might be. Whereas, a creature acting by pure instinct would presumably not feel the need for that sort of company, save where instinct demands a partner (as with the instinct to procreate).More later. Edited by: misterpessimistic  at: 6/30/06 2:27 pm

Mr. P.:Did a quick search and found that the Swarm was first published around 1982 and the Borg first appeared in 1988-1989. There was a reference to the Borg in a 1988 episode, but they first appeared in 1989.I did not see anything referring to the Swarm as an inspiration...but you never know.Quote:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I think it points to one of the supposed drawbacks of intelligence. The Swarm intelligence has a distinct lifespan, and without some sort of intelligent company, you can imagine how hellish that lifespan might be.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------That explains the end nicely...but what about the beginning? Does this reinforce the need for communication between intelligent species?Mr. P.____ ____ _____Mad Architect:Getting back to some earlier topics...misterpessimistic: Oh I can sit down...it is just that when I get to, my mind races and I cannot gather thoughts. I hate this. I have been this way for over a year now.Yeah, sounds like stress. Like some sort of repetitive stress reaction, where if you sit still for even a little while, you start worrying that something else is going to happen and you're not going to be prepared for it. I don't really know what to recommend, but it sounds like you need to find some ways to cool down. Less caffiene, maybe. A glass of wine might help -- not so much with beer, which always makes me either beligerent or lethargic. Just getting rid of some body tension might help. God, I'm starting to sound holistic...This is what I do not unerstand about Stirlings take...intelligence is not the evil I think, it is the inferior races (humans and the others) inabililty to utilize intelligence in an efficient manner.Maybe not efficient, but yeah, it does look like the problem is that of how they've chosen to implement intelligence. I think part of the Swarm intelligence's point is that the divisions would never have arisen without intelligence. It takes a certain amount of intelligence to question one's place in the social realm. Most of the Swarm members aren't intelligent enough to question their role and whether or not they'd want to be there. So maybe what's critical is the role played by intelligence in ambition, and it's the ambition that's setting individuals against one another.So can the swarm intelligence be seen as an instinct when it percieves a threat? Has the swarm learned to live with this burden of intelligence by putting it in its proper place? Intelligence is simply another tool certain species have to survive?As I understand it, the Swarm intelligence didn't perceive the threat -- the rest of the Swarm perceived it and kicked the intelligence back into action. It was an evolved, but ultimately unguided, chemical reaction.I'd also say that, had the intelligence not provided some sort of survival benefit, Swarm probably would have squashed it early on. One interesting characteristic of the Swarm as a whole is that it doesn't tolerate competition. Anything that can't be turned to its purposes is rooted out. And the Swarm intelligence is entirely directed towards that purpose. It's task is to turn the main character to the Swarm's purpose, and if that doesn't work, to kill it.But the Swarm intelligence (and presumably Sterling as well) seems to be implying that intelligence spirals off on its own direction. It may have utility as a survival tool, but it isn't limited to that. To deal with that contingency, the Swarm keeps its intelligence dormant, and only gives it a limited lifespan when it does become active.Both were glutting on what they felt was important for survival.For survival, or for something else? I don't get the sense that the Investors think their trading is likely to make them more capable of surviving -- although, maybe that doesn't really come out until "Spider Rose". The idea that "ambition" is opposed to survival is appealing to me. I think that dichotomy works well in trying to understand "Swarm".The instinct of survival for the individual, but if this helps a society survive, is this not a good use of intelligence?If it helps society survive, yes. Or, at least, it depends. There was a long-standing debate among evolutionary biologists as to whether the "survival of the fittest" referred to the survival of the individual, the survival of the species, the survival of the family group, and so on. Dawkins re-oriented the whole field by suggesting that it referred to the survival of the gene, where the unit "gene" referred only to whatever discrete unit was self-sustaining enough to pass for however many generations without significant change. As far as I know, most of the really vocal and visible evolutionary biologists today still work with that assumption. Personally, I'm more inclined to say that "survival of the fittest" applies to different units in different circumstances. Sometimes it's the survival of the gene that matters, sometimes it's the survival of the species, sometimes that of the individual. What matters is that the given trait is contributing to the survival of something.But getting back to my original point, an ideal like "liberty" can, in the hands of intelligence, take on a kind of life of its own, and I think Patrick Henry's (? is that right?) "Give me liberty of give me death" is emblematic of that. It says, in effect, survival itself is meaningless in the absence of this value. Which is a dangerous thought. In that particular quote, it's only made applicable to the individual's survival, but that doesn't mean that he might not have extended it to the whole of society. A religious fundamentalist might say something to the effect of, "A society without faith in God isn't worth preserving"; a secular idealist might say, "A species that is incapable of mutual respect and harmony isn't worth saving." Taking things to that extreme is, I think, a possibility that is inherent in a free-roaming intelligence.Intelligence in this way, promoting concepts over instincts, has given us morality and ethics. ...Now you can say that ethics and morality are grown on whatever system, but the fact is that intelligence produced them. This is a good use of intelligence.It's probably also necessary. If intelligence allows us to act against other instincts, then some form of preventative measure on the level of intelligence is probably crucial. Otherwise, intelligence would allow us to transgress all those boundaries without giving us any way of knowing when we've gone too far.Was there one original speices you think?Well, this is all far-fetched speculation, since I don't remember there being any clues in the story itself, but I'd say that there probably was. That makes the most sense to me, mostly because there seems to be a set of imperatives driving the Swarm that I suspect would have to come from a single set of genes. Deliberately squashing or assimilating potential evolutionary competition is a survival strategy. But I could be missing some subtlety here that could allow for a more conglomerate approach.Lastly...just what is the swarm protecting? The human is really taking the genetic material of ONE egg...to clone and thus produce a tool that humanity can use. Right?I'm not sure that the Swarm knows what it's protecting. It didn't think about what the human might use that egg for; initializing the Swarm intelligence was just a reflex, one that was likely evolved and tested in encounters with other species.That said, that's an adaptation that probably does work in the Swarm's favor. Humanity might have simply cloned its own Swarm drones, but the genetic material could also have been used to control the Swarm itself -- the humans had already experimented with that -- and it's hinted that humanity might benefit a great deal by driving the Swarm out of their resource-rich solar system. Until it awoke its intelligence drone, the Swarm probably didn't follow that line of reasoning, but it had evolved a kind of defense against the threat of genetic conquest. And that points, I'd say, back to the issue of ambition.Did a quick search and found that the Swarm was first published around 1982 and the Borg first appeared in 1988-1989. There was a reference to the Borg in a 1988 episode, but they first appeared in 1989.Cool, thanks. I'd say, even if it weren't a direct influence, that the ideas in "Swarm" probably trickled down to Roddenbury's writers.That explains the end nicely...but what about the beginning? Does this reinforce the need for communication between intelligent species?Could be a couple of things. Sterling might have just been going for the aesthetic effect. There's something vaguely satisfying about coming full circle. But if that's all there is to it, I'd say it's kind of a cheap effect. Something that obvious should be grounded in a good narrative or subtextual motive, so we should probably consider some alternatives.For one, it helps establish the place of humanity in the scheme of Sterling's universe. It was, in the Investor's mouth, slightly patronizing, and I think that serves as the background for the Shapers' ambitions. The comment also serves to contrast the Investors with the Swarm -- there is a relationship between the Investors and humans as a kind of intellectual equal, but neither the Investors nor the humans see the Swarm as peers. The fact that they can't converse is precisely one reason for this. And then, in a certain way, it points to a kind of decadence. They're using their intelligence not for any specific survival advantage, but rather to engage one another. Conversation is something you do once you can afford it; when you're busy scrambling for food or running from predators, you don't worry too much about talking. And once the main character (wish I could remember his name) secures his own survival at the end of the story, conversation again becomes a luxury he can afford. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy PiperEdited by: misterpessimistic  at: 6/30/06 2:24 pm

Mad Architect:misterpessimistic: Quote:So intelligence is not necessary to create faction but makes the ultimate reality of faction more aggressive and dangerous because we REALIZE that there are factions and that promoting our own will lead to fulfillment of our own goals?No, at least in the Shaper/Mechanist universe, I'd say that intelligence was necessary to the creation of the factions. These are factions centered around different notions of how to progress the whole species. I don't think it would be possible to create that sort of division without a rather complex intelligence.Quote:I tend the think that intelligence and the ability to reason would be enough to overcome the base intstincts in our speices...maybe this is so, but we have yet to reach the appropriate levels to make this so?I think Swarm would argue that they're base instincts only because we've labelled them so -- again, a function of intelligence.Quote:Wait...does Swarm have control or is it just an evolved entity? I see the Swarm as a conglomerate of beings, yet evolved into a single entity.As I understand it, Swarm blurs the line between entity and community. I'd say that, for the most part, whatever it has that qualifies as control is mostly a set of highly evolved responses that preserve a kind of status quo. Some element of free will apparantly arises whenever the Swarm Intelligence is activated, but that comes with built in limits (life-span, immobility, etc).Quote:I would think that there can be survival without ambition...but ambition can provide for survival among species that must compete for limited resources...and if your ambition is to control the material resources of a known universe, and you pursue that ambition adamantly, well then does that not help you and your society to survive?A lot depend, as usual, on how you look at the term. I'd say that ambition is most recognizable as a kind of gamble, putting your neck on the line to get some sort of gain. When it succeeds, it may make survival easier to come by. When it fails, it works against the instinct of survival. But most evolved instincts don't gamble like that -- they're rooted in strategies that have survived precisely because they're more likely to ensure survival. It's the difference between playing system blackjack, and betting everything on a good hand when it comes along.Quote:But to an intelligent species, maybe a life without meaning IS useless and why should we care at all if, in the abscence of that meaning, we annihilate all life?Right, but instinct doesn't really consider the value of life. It preserves life simply because it's been evolved to do so. There's a circularity to the whole thing that denies meaning; you have to bring meaning in from the outside, and I don't think that's possible until you have a kind of abstract intelligence.Quote:Why is directionless, menial existence worth preserving? I am being a bit overboard here...but you see what I mean I hope. What makes the Swarm so much better than everyone else?No, I see where you're going with that. 99% of the time, I think Swarm wouldn't. It can shut its intelligence on and off, so it sees that kind of speculation as counter-productive.Quote:In what way? Are you saying the Swarm has ambition? Or that it is just a huge response mechanism?I'd say the Swarm is antithetical to ambition. Every species that has come against it, it's stamped out the fire of their ambition. Edited by: misterpessimistic  at: 7/3/06 1:04 pm

I did it...I responded to the last post, did not copy the text and something went wrong. I lost everything. I do not feel like doing it again right now. I am giong to go calm down.EZ Board SUCKS!Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Ok...once again..... : -->:"> Mad:Quote:I don't think it would be possible to create that sort of division without a rather complex intelligence.I agree. All I am saying is that there are factions in nature and that (human) intelligence, in this story in particular, made the faction extreme. I am not denying the fact that the over-thinking of the humans have brought the fracture to a point where the very human race is thought of as simply a handy grouping term...that humanity has split off and these factions cannot be thought of as the same species(?) anymore.I do not think enough time has passed to totally isolate the two faction into new species, but with the genetic and cybernetic manipulations...maybe.Quote:I think Swarm would argue that they're base instincts only because we've labelled them so -- again, a function of intelligence.Yes. I see that. But the fact that we can label these things is a product of an intelligent species. Intelligence in this story, however, is made to seem like a base instinct by the Swarm and the Investors. I still do not see why it would be thus. Again, maybe it is that we, in the story, are still a young species and we have not managed to develop the ability to use our intelligence in the 'correct' way, vis a vis the other species.A thought I had: The humans and the swarm have faction within their existence...the swarm by assimilation and distribution of labor, the humans based on ideology. The Investors are the only race we have seen that seem to have no faction at all.Quote:I'd say that ambition is most recognizable as a kind of gamble, putting your neck on the line to get some sort of gain.I would say ambition is the DESIRES that make one want to play the 'game' of risk/reward. to gain...the drive that makes one So survival can exist without it, but it would be a very basic survival (as labeled by the species who have intelligence)...and by basic, I mean just what is necessary to keep a organism alive. Ambition is probably an evolved form of survival instinct...a side-effect of a bigger brain and greater intelligence. I have read, and I do not remember exactly where, that things may evolve without providing a benefit, so long as it does not produce an overwhelming negative. A net neutral.Quote:I'd say the Swarm is antithetical to ambition.Yet it can produce intelligence...do you think this temporary intelligence would should ambition? Does ambition necessarily manifest once intelligence comes into existence?Mr. P. Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

misterpessimistic: So survival can exist without it, but it would be a very basic survival (as labeled by the species who have intelligence)...and by basic, I mean just what is necessary to keep a organism alive.It seems to me that it would be very basic, natural selection type survival. You do whatever your instincts tell you. Because taking a gamble is, at base, a choice, one that often goes against instinctual behavior. And it requires some sort of intelligence because you have to be able to evaluate the gain that would come of acting against what, from an instinctual point of view, seems to be in your best interest. The Swarm probably never gambles -- it won't even gamble by giving its Intelligence appendage a variable lifespan. Intelligence can be given no more control than is absolutely necessary, and once Swarm is done with it, it goes back into its drawer.I have read, and I do not remember exactly where, that things may evolve without providing a benefit, so long as it does not produce an overwhelming negative.As long as variation doesn't hinder the organism's ability to pass its genetic code on to other species, yes, those traits can persist. The catch is that the environmental pressures that act on a species can change, such that neutral traits that have persisted for eons can suddenly become either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the character of the change.Yet it can produce intelligence...do you think this temporary intelligence would should ambition? Does ambition necessarily manifest once intelligence comes into existence?I think Swarm has evolved safeguards for suppressing its ability to act on ambition. And no, so far as I can see, there's no reason why intelligence should necessarily produce ambition, but I don't see how ambition could manifest itself without some sort of foresight, which implies ambition.

Is this a short story? And is it available for free online? I'll read it if one of you provides a source.