How 'natural' is democracy?

[Quiet]

How 'natural' is democracy?
Tim Wall
Discovery News

from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/02/24/3439004.htm

You may have heard of top dogs, queen bees and kings of the jungle, but never senators of the savannah and voter ants, which leads one to ask 'Is democracy unnatural?'

Actually, democracy, in the sense of collective decisions based on the motivations of the majority, guides the social interactions and group behaviour of many species from honey bees to chimpanzees.

Though they have a queen, honey bees don't live in a monarchy.

"There is no social hierarchy in a bee colony," says Dr Brian Johnson, a professor of entomology at the University of California at Davis. "The queen is just an egg laying machine. She is more important than the average worker to colony survival, but she is not a governor in any sense of the word."

Though there is no formal voting process, the hive acts according to the information gathered by the majority of hive members.

"This is crucial for bees because they have limited information at the individual level and can only make good decisions when they pool their information-gathering and processing skills," says Johnson.

Calling bee social behaviour, "democracy" or even saying that they make decisions runs the risk of anthropomorphism, or assigning human qualities to animals, says Dr Norman Gary, Professor Emeritus in entomology at UC Davis.

"Decision making requires awareness of options and insects don't have that," says Gary. "The bees are programmed to go out and react to stimuli."
Sticking with the group

Bees may not have developed a hive republic, but is there a deer democracy governing the forests?

"In red deer, it is in the interest of group members to stay together, for example, in order to detect predators better," says Larissa Conradt of the University of Sussex. "Therefore, individuals benefit if they synchronise their activities and movements, and they have to decide such things collectively."

Honey bees share the collective goal of hive survival at the expense of the individual, but life is not so simple for red deer groups, says Conradt. Individual deer have different physiological needs, and not every herd movement will benefit each individual.

"In such circumstances, there is a conflict of interest, and individuals pay a 'cost' when synchronising (they might forgo their own optimal activity in order to stay with the group)," said Conradt.

So, like members of a political party who don't agree with everything their candidate says, yet vote for him anyway, red deer stick with the herd because it's better than being abandoned.
Keeping others on side

Human's closest relative, the chimpanzee, takes decision making beyond the party politics of the deer-mocracy.

"I describe in Chimpanzee Politics how the alpha male needs broad support to reach the top spot," Dr Frans de Waal, Director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes Primate Center and psychology professor at Emory University. "He needs some close allies and he needs many group members to be on his side."

Although chimpanzee 'strong men' can rise to power, they often become bullies and are eventually deposed and exiled or even killed. Chimp consensus builders form more stable social structures by offering perks to supporters.

"The majority of alpha males seem rather of the supported type, may be quite small (although not too small or unhealthy), and spends a lot of time grooming allies, sharing meat or females with them, and other ways of keeping them on his side," says de Waal.

"This sounds democratic to me, as well as the fact that the group puts limits on alpha behaviour," he says. "For example if the alpha male attacks a juvenile using his canine teeth, the group may revolt, thus showing the limits of alpha's power."
Going the next step

Human democracy may have analogues in the natural world, but no other animal has taken collective decision making as far as humans.

"One big difference between collective decision making between humans and animals is deliberation," said Conradt. "Human can discuss issues prior to making collective decisions in a sophisticated manner that is not open to animals."

For all our complexity, humans make decisions using brains evolved through eons of survival in the natural world.

Instinctual reactions to stimuli guide human behaviour more than many appreciate, says Gary.

"People are more like insects than insects are like people."

So it seems democracy, as a political system, grows from instincts inherited from our ape ancestors, which were forged by ages of natural selection for optimised group decision making.

 

[Quiet]

Minnows reveal power of the 'uninformed'

This is interesting too

Minnows reveal power of the 'uninformed'
Friday, 16 December 2011
AFP

from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/12/16/3392564.htm

It might sound fishy, but US researchers say minnows make perfect lab rats when it comes to exploring the surprising power of the uninformed in group decision-making.

Research published today in the journal Science suggest individuals with no strong feelings about a given situation's outcome can dilute the influence of a powerful minority that would otherwise dominate.

In other words, thanks to the mighty minnow, it could be a scientific fact that apolitical individuals, when pressed for a decision, will shun the minority view - no matter how savvy, shrill or strident that view might be.

"Fish provide a really convenient small-scale system where they exhibit really fantastic collective dynamics," says study lead author Professor Iain Couzin of Princeton University.

In the study, one group of fish was trained to associate the colour blue with a food reward. Another, smaller group was trained to do the same, but with the colour yellow.

Putting the two groups together found the minority calling the shots when it came to deciding to what colour the entire school would swim to collect their reward.

But then things changed when a few, untrained fish - representing what Couzin's team called the 'uninformed' segment of the piscine realm, with no preference for one colour or another - were added to the mix.

"As we added 'informed individuals' into the process, we can actually flip the group back to majority control," says Couzin.

"The uninformed individuals spontaneously support the majority view and effectively reduce the differences of intransigence between the two subsets."
The silent majority regains control

Running the result through mathematical models and computer simulations, the researchers found parallels with human behaviour that blew common assumptions about the power of outspoken minorities out of the water.

"We usually assume that a highly opinionated and forceful group is going to sway everyone," says Donald Saari of the University of California. "What we have here is something very different."

In a political context, it could explain why an hardline candidate or extremist party might do well in a US primary or British by-election, but stumble when 'uninformed' voters turn out en masse for a general election.

"The uninformed individuals effectively are promoting a democratic outcome," says Couzin, adding however that there are limits - as his researchers discovered back at the fish tank.

"As we keep adding 'uninformed individuals,' eventually 'noise' (confusion) dominates," he says. At that point, information of any kind is no longer shared effectively - and the whole group starts making decisions randomly

 

[Quiet]

Cockroaches live in a democracy

I dont think this is or any of the above articles are necessarily 'democracy', but nonetheless its interesting

Cockroaches live in a democracy
Monday, 3 April 2006
Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News

from http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/04/03/1607034.htm

Cockroaches govern themselves in a very simple democracy where each insect has equal standing and group consultations precede decisions that affect the entire group, indicates a new study.

The research determines that cockroach decision-making follows a predictable pattern that could explain group dynamics of other insects and animals, such as ants, spiders, fish and even cows.

Cockroaches are silent creatures, save perhaps for the sound of them scurrying over a countertop. They must therefore communicate without vocalising.

"Cockroaches use chemical and tactile communication with each other," says Dr José Halloy, who co-authored the research in the current Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"They can also use vision," says Halloy, a scientist in the Department of Social Ecology at the Free University of Brussels in Belgium.

"When they encounter each other they recognise if they belong to the same colony thanks to their antennae that are 'nooses', that is, sophisticated olfactory organs that are very sensitive," he says.

Give me shelter

Halloy tested cockroach group behaviour by placing the insects in a dish that contained three shelters. The test was to see how the cockroaches would divide themselves into the shelters.

After much "consultation", through antenna probing, touching and more, the cockroaches divided themselves up perfectly.

For example, if 50 insects were placed in a dish with three shelters, each with a capacity for 40 bugs, 25 roaches huddled together in the first shelter, 25 gathered in the second shelter, and the third was left vacant.

When the researchers altered this set-up so that it had three shelters with a capacity for more than 50 insects, all the cockroaches moved into the first "house".

A delicate balance

Halloy and his colleagues found that a balance existed between cooperation and competition for resources.

"Cockroaches are gregarious insects [that] benefit from living in groups. It increases their reproductive opportunities, [promotes] sharing of resources like shelter or food, prevents desiccation by aggregating more in dry environments, etc," he says.

"So what we show is that these behavioural models allow them to optimise group size."

The models are so predictable that they could explain other insect and animal group behaviours, such as how some fish and bugs divide themselves up so neatly into subgroups, and how certain herding animals make simple decisions that do not involve leadership.

Important research

Dr David Sumpter, a University of Oxford zoologist, says the new study "is an excellent paper" and "important".

"It looks both at the mechanisms underlying decision-making by animals and how those mechanisms produce a distribution of animals amongst resource sites that optimises their individual fitness," he says.

"Much previous research has concentrated on either mechanisms or optimality at the expense of the other."

For cockroaches, it seems, cooperation comes naturally.

 

[sprinkles]

Democracy as humans practice it is not very natural.

We only need it because our social order has not evolved as fast as our intellect, so democracy is used to patch what might otherwise be a broken and barbaric system. Because frankly, humans are too stupid to handle how smart they are.

And it's right, humans shouldn't be compared to insects. Humans are a lot more stupid and unevolved.

 

[Tin Man]

Democracy as humans practice it is not very natural.

We only need it because our social order has not evolved as fast as our intellect, so democracy is used to patch what might otherwise be a broken and barbaric system. Because frankly, humans are too stupid to handle how smart they are.

And it's right, humans shouldn't be compared to insects. Humans are a lot more stupid and unevolved.

I've always thought it's the opposite. Society has evolved, but we haven't evolved with it. We have laws and rules to keep us safe (that point can be disputed, I know), but as we've seen time and time again once those boundaries are broken we completely succumb baser instincts.

And humans aren't any less evolved than insects, we're just weirder.

 

[sprinkles]

I've always thought it's the opposite. Society has evolved, but we haven't evolved with it. We have laws and rules to keep us safe (that point can be disputed, I know), but as we've seen time and time again once those boundaries are broken we completely succumb baser instincts.

Yes. That's my point. A highly evolved society should not require laws. We require laws because many are essentially beasts. More beastly than what they call beasts.

And humans aren't any less evolved than insects, we're just weirder.

I'd argue the opposite. Modern humans are a young species. An intelligent species yes, but young, inexperienced, and the primary merit we have is being able to solve problems that we caused ourselves in some way or another.

Human evolution has been a fast lane of quick and dirty haphazard progression. Other species progress in a more balanced and well adapted fashion, carefully climbing the mountain, while humans launch themselves towards the top in un-aimed catapults which results in many being lost, or smacking into trees or rocks. That's humans.

 

[this is only temporary]

Yes. That's my point. A highly evolved society should not require laws. We require laws because many are essentially beasts. More beastly than what they call beasts.

I'd argue the opposite. Modern humans are a young species. An intelligent species yes, but young, inexperienced, and the primary merit we have is being able to solve problems that we caused ourselves in some way or another.

Human evolution has been a fast lane of quick and dirty haphazard progression. Other species progress in a more balanced and well adapted fashion, carefully climbing the mountain, while humans launch themselves towards the top in un-aimed catapults which results in many being lost, or smacking into trees or rocks. That's humans.

Human evolution has been fast, and things are changing exponentially faster. It took us 8000 years to get from the agricultural revolution to the industrial revolution, and now people are saying by 2045 we'll have computers that are more powerful than all the human brains combined. In other words, artificial intelligence. Things are changing, and I'm certain that change will affect political systems and everything else:

http://sterlingely.argentumstudio.com/category/blog/technology/

(look at that diagram -- it shows how fast technological change is happening -- the second one down on the page, not the cartoon of the two guys with the ray gun, I don't know what that is. It's the diagram about Ray Kurzweil's singularity: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2048299,00.html)

So yes, we humans are evolving really fast and not all of us are evolving at the same pace. The world still has hunter-gatherers, for instance. But I have to point out that humans solve lots of problems that we didn't cause ourselves, in addition to the ones we did. Wheels, for example, solved the problem of having to walk everywhere. That's not something we caused ourselves.

Which is not to say we don't create problems; we do, but humans do some absolutely amazing things, and personally, I am delighted not to be a cockroach or a deer or some animal whose main approach to problem-solving is to die and let evolution fix everything. Humans are actually very awesome, I think, despite our faults.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4680]this is only temporary[/MENTION]

If you think about it, the wheel is responsible for world hunger as it allowed humans to expand further and do more than they probably should have. At this point the damage is already done though and we just have to accept that this is how the world works now.

I'd also not knock the deer and cockroach, especially not the cockroach which can go for a month without food and hold it's breath for 45 minutes.

Edit:
Also when put on equal terms, you are more fragile than the deer and way more fragile than the cockroach. Their solution is not to die, their solution is to be survivors without a multi-billion dollar infrastructure pampering them, and they are both quite good at it.

 

[this is only temporary]

LOL, well, that's true enough about cockroaches and survival, but I'd still rather not be one, I enjoy being able to understand more about the universe than how to hold my breath or go hungry or reproduce. Plus I like to actually be able to care about cockroaches and deer, and to be able to understand their place in things -- somehow I doubt cockroaches spend a split second contemplating humanity, or our merits. We seem to be the only species that can do that. We can wipe other species out or save them. I don't know of another species that can, or would, bring a different species back from the brink of extinction? Maybe there's one but it's probably not the cockroach.

Humans very nearly did die out something like 50,000 years ago, and we did survive. We probably could do it again. (There have been studies on the subject -- here's one article: http://io9.com/5501565/extinction-events-that-almost-wiped-out-humans)

 

[sprinkles]

LOL, well, that's true enough about cockroaches and survival, but I'd still rather not be one, I enjoy being able to understand more about the universe than how to hold my breath or go hungry or reproduce.

I don't think understanding more than that is entirely necessary. This is sentimental stuff here. You worry about what you enjoy which is one of humans biggest flaws. I too am afflicted with this flaw, but I've also felt better during the times I've been able to be rid of it.

Plus I like to actually be able to care about cockroaches and deer, and to be able to understand their place in things -- somehow I doubt cockroaches spend a split second contemplating humanity, or our merits. We seem to be the only species that can do that.

Rest assured their place works fine whether you understand it or not. Contemplation is unnecessary in most cases. It may seem absurd but roaches already do more for you than you do for them. If it were not for the roaches and other insects, you would die.

We can wipe other species out or save them. I don't know of another species that can, or would, bring a different species back from the brink of extinction? Maybe there's one but it's probably not the cockroach.

On the contrary. Without the roach, the earthworm, the tiny bacteria, you would not live. The roach can keep you alive. The difference is that the roach doesn't have to think about it.

Humans very nearly did die out something like 50,000 years ago, and we did survive. We probably could do it again. (There have been studies on the subject -- here's one article: http://io9.com/5501565/extinction-events-that-almost-wiped-out-humans)

Yes humans could probably survive again, but not by doing their current practices. What do you think humans were like 50,000 years ago?

 

[Tin Man]

Yes. That's my point. A highly evolved society should not require laws. We require laws because many are essentially beasts. More beastly than what they call beasts.


I'd argue the opposite. Modern humans are a young species. An intelligent species yes, but young, inexperienced, and the primary merit we have is being able to solve problems that we caused ourselves in some way or another.

Human evolution has been a fast lane of quick and dirty haphazard progression. Other species progress in a more balanced and well adapted fashion, carefully climbing the mountain, while humans launch themselves towards the top in un-aimed catapults which results in many being lost, or smacking into trees or rocks. That's humans.

Modern humans are quite young, but we've spent no shorter amount of time in our evolutionary progression than any other species. While I understand your anger at human stupidity, I find it remarkable at what we can do. Yes we bring much destruction into this world, but our capability to understand and regret this destruction is remarkable. We're the only creature that can marvel at our own existence (there is some evidence that a few other species have this capacity, but no definitive proof is there).

While it may be difficult to see it, you're forgetting the beauty and brilliance we are capable of. Whether such creation rivals the destruction we have wrought, I do not know.

 

[sprinkles]

Modern humans are quite young, but we've spent no shorter amount of time in our evolutionary progression than any other species. While I understand your anger at human stupidity, I find it remarkable at what we can do.

I'm not necessarily angry. I'm annoyed. There's no point in being angry, it's not the fault of humans and anger doesn't solve anything. It isn't that I'm not angry at all though, just not as much as you might think.

Even when I've said I'd like to wipe out humans, as you might have seen somewhere on here, that is more pragmatism than anger. Killing humans wouldn't fix them. It wouldn't make me happy. Vengeance or punishment are no good either. However there remains a pragmatic reason to kill them - to make them stop being.

Yes we bring much destruction into this world, but our capability to understand and regret this destruction is remarkable. We're the only creature that can marvel at our own existence (there is some evidence that a few other species have this capacity, but no definitive proof is there).

I'm not so much concerned about destruction of the world. Destroying things is normal. What irritates me is humans propensity for thinking we are special while doing so.

While it may be difficult to see it, you're forgetting the beauty and brilliance we are capable of. Whether such creation rivals the destruction we have wrought, I do not know.

I'm not forgetting it, I'm currently ignoring it, especially since a lot of things people consider to be brilliant I do not find to be particularly so, and the things that are beautiful and brilliant are not necessarily exclusive to humans, or are not a special talent that humans derived on their own. I feel that humans take way too much credit for themselves and need to learn their place.

 

[this is only temporary]

I don't think understanding more than that is entirely necessary. This is sentimental stuff here. You worry about what you enjoy which is one of humans biggest flaws. I too am afflicted with this flaw, but I've also felt better during the times I've been able to be rid of it.


Rest assured their place works fine whether you understand it or not. Contemplation is unnecessary in most cases. It may seem absurd but roaches already do more for you than you do for them. If it were not for the roaches and other insects, you would die.


On the contrary. Without the roach, the earthworm, the tiny bacteria, you would not live. The roach can keep you alive. The difference is that the roach doesn't have to think about it.


Yes humans could probably survive again, but not by doing their current practices. What do you think humans were like 50,000 years ago?

Well, perhaps sentimentality is a human flaw, but things can be and have been destroyed, messed up and otherwise ruined without an ounce of sentimentality. It's not necessary to feel pride or guilt to destroy something, and I'd guess most destruction in the world has been devoid of either pride or guilt. Mosquitoes, for instance, have killed billions of humans and never will care. Ivy kills forests. There were mass extinction events before humans arrived on the scene. We simply found ourselves in this world, with all its threats to survival, and it is mostly our brains, along with our brains' "flawed" (debatably!) ability to be way too clever and overly sentimental, that enabled us to survive in it so far. That's human. Dinosaurs lived and died presumably without ever once thinking how awesome they were, and yet they were awesome, nor were they able to figure out how to stop the comet that killed them and a lot of other species as well. Maybe there's a chance that thinking how awesome you are is just a part of what makes you able to stop comets. Maybe.

Or was that a meteor? I don't remember. Good thing no one is relying on me personally to stop one.

 

[Tin Man]

I'm not necessarily angry. I'm annoyed. There's no point in being angry, it's not the fault of humans and anger doesn't solve anything. It isn't that I'm not angry at all though, just not as much as you might think.

Even when I've said I'd like to wipe out humans, as you might have seen somewhere on here, that is more pragmatism than anger. Killing humans wouldn't fix them. It wouldn't make me happy. Vengeance or punishment are no good either. However there remains a pragmatic reason to kill them - to make them stop being.


I'm not so much concerned about destruction of the world. Destroying things is normal. What irritates me is humans propensity for thinking we are special while doing so.


I'm not forgetting it, I'm currently ignoring it, especially since a lot of things people consider to be brilliant I do not find to be particularly so, and the things that are beautiful and brilliant are not necessarily exclusive to humans, or are not a special talent that humans derived on their own. I feel that humans take way too much credit for themselves and need to learn their place.

I don't know. An unsatisfying reply, but I simply do not know. I think about such things a great deal and can come to no conclusion. Sometimes I do believe that it would be better had we not evolved the way we have; that it would be better if our existence was the same as most other species. Then they're are other times where I see our propensity for ingenuity, our vast potential and can't help but marvel at the process that brought man to this state. I'm of two minds on this subject so cannot dispute anything you say. I also cannot accept it.

Does my ability to consider two conflicting ideologies equally valid make me special? Does it make man special? Maybe it's up to the species who will take our place when we inevitably die out, like the countless creatures before us.

 

[sprinkles]

Well, perhaps sentimentality is a human flaw, but things can be and have been destroyed, messed up and otherwise ruined without an ounce of sentimentality. It's not necessary to feel pride or guilt to destroy something, and I'd guess most destruction in the world has been devoid of either pride or guilt. Mosquitoes, for instance, have killed billions of humans and never will care. Ivy kills forests. There were mass extinction events before humans arrived on the scene. We simply found ourselves in this world, with all its threats to survival, and it is mostly our brains, along with our brains' "flawed" (debatably!) ability to be way too clever and overly sentimental, that enabled us to survive in it so far. That's human. Dinosaurs lived and died presumably without ever once thinking how awesome they were, and yet they were awesome, nor were they able to figure out how to stop the comet that killed them and a lot of other species as well. Maybe there's a chance that thinking how awesome you are is just a part of what makes you able to stop comets. Maybe.

Death and destruction is necessary. Even disease serves a purpose as it can thin out excessive populations. If mosquitoes hadn't killed billions of humans, we'd have that many more in poverty and starvation.

Some times things die. Some times big space rocks wipe everything out. This is normal. Extinction is normal - the vast majority of species that ever lived are extinct.

Without death, you could not live. The world would be too crowded. I'm sure dinosaurs died exactly when they needed to so that other species could survive. Things end up as they are. Now we might gain the ability to stop big space rocks from destroying the planet, and I don't necessarily have a problem with that either. I think it's a good idea and might help humanity have enough time to get itself in order so that it can become actually great.

As it stands now though, we're still animals. This is evidenced by the fact that when a new innovation comes up, like the web, everyone flocks to it out of instinct and ignorance just like the animals they claim to not be, and thereby ruin it like they did with the dotcom bubble, which I was a part of and saw. Of course, there's a select few that don't necessarily apply - the true innovators, and children. These aren't mere humans.

Mere humans do not invent. They do not accomplish. Most are not particularly clever. Very few humans initiate or create a new paradigm. What most are good at is taking what one particularly clever human came up with and driving it into the ground.

 

[this is only temporary]

Oh, well, bubbles? Those are fun, talk about sentimentality! We've all been part of bubbles. I was part of one too! It was kind of interesting. That's called living in the times we're living in, and the thing about bubbles, is there will alway be another one. There are cycles, you know. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it doesn't. What humans are good at, or try to be good at, is surviving, and sometimes that means jumping on someone else's brilliant idea, that's what we've always done. Most innovations work this way to some degree, I believe, languages, art, everything.. there's not too much new under the sun. Sometimes we even copy animals' good ideas. anyway, now I'm babbling and gottan run, but if it's all right with you I'll continue being glad I'm not a roach. <3

 

[sprinkles]

I don't know. An unsatisfying reply, but I simply do not know. I think about such things a great deal and can come to no conclusion. Sometimes I do believe that it would be better had we not evolved the way we have; that it would be better if our existence was the same as most other species. Then they're are other times where I see our propensity for ingenuity, our vast potential and can't help but marvel at the process that brought man to this state. I'm of two minds on this subject so cannot dispute anything you say. I also cannot accept it.

Does my ability to consider two conflicting ideologies equally valid make me special? Does it make man special? Maybe it's up to the species who will take our place when we inevitably die out, like the countless creatures before us.

I think when we have the power of humans sans this conflict you speak of, then we will be truly special.

I consider the fact that one can have conflicting ideology as evidence of a problem. To me this means something is wrong. If things are actually working correctly, there should be no conflict. You wouldn't even need faith that you're making the right choice, because if things are working properly, the right choice will be made.

 

[Tin Man]

I think when we have the power of humans sans this conflict you speak of, then we will be truly special.

I consider the fact that one can have conflicting ideology as evidence of a problem. To me this means something is wrong. If things are actually working correctly, there should be no conflict. You wouldn't even need faith that you're making the right choice, because if things are working properly, the right choice will be made.

There I will disagree with you. I think that conflict is an integral and important part of humans. Life ( for humans anyway) isn't so simple, we face dilemmas every day and need a dissenting voice to find the right choice.

Even if we have evolved to a stage where the focus is long term with considerations both moral and philosophical considered, it doesn't mean we will make good choices. As you said destruction is natural and the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate life. Without a confliction of thought, it would be all too easy to come to a consensus that would have dire implications for all living beings.

 

[sprinkles]

There I will disagree with you. I think that conflict is an integral and important part of humans. Life ( for humans anyway) isn't so simple, we face dilemmas every day and need a dissenting voice to find the right choice.

Even if we have evolved to a stage where the focus is long term with considerations both moral and philosophical considered, it doesn't mean we will make good choices. As you said destruction is natural and the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate life. Without a confliction of thought, it would be all too easy to come to a consensus that would have dire implications for all living beings.

I think given time humans would evolve beyond morals and philosophy, and these will become antiquated. If we live that long.

You are correct in that as long as humans can make bad choices, we can come to a consensus that would have dire implications. What I'm saying though is that the ability to make bad choices in itself can disappear. This is because natural laws do not make mistakes. There is no good or bad in them. If we can achieve harmony with natural law, there will be no bad choices.

 

[Tin Man]

I think given time humans would evolve beyond morals and philosophy, and these will become antiquated. If we live that long.

You are correct in that as long as humans can make bad choices, we can come to a consensus that would have dire implications. What I'm saying though is that the ability to make bad choices in itself can disappear. This is because natural laws do not make mistakes. There is no good or bad in them. If we can achieve harmony with natural law, there will be no bad choices.

What is your definition of natural law. Right now humans are as much in harmony with it as any other creature. This is the way we evolved, the way we are isn't down to gods or supernatural (probably not). We could have turned out in numerous different ways, but we didn't. If natural law does not make mistakes then we cannot be anything else but natural.