Blog Archive

A Bright Symbol of Ultrasociality

Regular Posts6 CommentsCooperation

Last weekend we were visiting my stepson and his family in New Hampshire. He has an interest in astronomy, and he suggested that after dinner we go out and watch the International Space Station (ISS). You can get a schedule of ISS appearances on the NASA site.

We went outside to a clearing and got ready. Five minutes later, and right on time, I saw a bright dot rise above the horizon and start streaking across the dark sky. With the help of high-powered binoculars I could barely make out the elegant shape of one of humanity’s most impressive achievements. The whole experience was over in two minutes, but it was an incredible thrill to watch this remarkable feat of human cooperation. I often use the image of the ISS when I introduce the idea of ultrasociality in my talks about the evolution of cooperation.

Source

The ISS is a result of something that humans learned to do only very recently—cooperate on a very large scale. In the broadest sense, hundreds of millions contributed to it, including myself. After all, it was a small fraction of the taxes I pay that ensures that the ISS continues to grow and function. But how many people actually participated in building it? Nobody knows for sure, but consider that the total cost of the station is roughly $150 billion. Dividing it by $50,000, the median pay of an American worker, I estimate that more than 3 million people-years were required to build and operate the Station. (This is actually an underestimate, because the median pay in Russia, for example, is much lower than in America.) A few, those who work for the NASA or Roscosmos, have devoted years of their life to the station. Most, like welders in Russia who assembled the Soyuz module, contributed only a few weeks of work. So the ISS builders must number in many more millions than three.

Source

Another remarkable thing about the ISS is that its builders, as well as the cosmonauts and astronauts working in it, did not come from a single country. The ISS is a joint project supported by fifteen nations (US, Russia, European Union, Japan, and Canada). It was constructed and kept operational by people from all over the world, including—in fact, led by—two nations that were recent Cold War adversaries.

“Since the beginning of human spaceflight fifty years ago, astronauts have reflected on how peaceful, beautiful, and fragile the Earth looks from space,” wrote the ISS astronaut Ron Garan in his blog Fragile Oasis. “We can look down and realize that we are all riding through the Universe together on this spaceship we call Earth, that we are all interconnected, that we are all in this together, that we are all family.”

Source

Of course, this is an optimistic view; the reality on the ground is much grimmer. There are still wars that kill thousands of people every year, such as the one currently raging in Syria. Millions of people have been forcibly displaced by violence or fear of violence—60 million in June 2015, according to UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency. Over 3 billion of people—almost half of the world’s population—live below the poverty threshold of $2.50 a day. And the life systems on the spaceship Earth may be failing.

In fact, as Garan discovered while taking some practice shots to test his camera, you can see some borders from space. The border between India and Pakistan shows up as an illuminated line hundred kilometers long.

Source

It is lit up by the floodlights India uses to prevent infiltration by terrorists and arms smugglers. This is a sobering reminder that the conflict between these two nuclear-powered nations over Kashmir, which has caused four major wars and continues to kill dozens of people every year, has not been resolved.

How do we stop wars and eliminate suffering and poverty? “The answer is quite simple—just do something,” proposes Galan in his blog. “The challenges of the world are really about how each of us individually responds to them. In other words, to what extent does humanity, on a person-to-person basis, commit to making a positive difference, no matter how small, or how big?”

Galan’s heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, his answer is wrong. Difficult things like building peaceful, wealthy, and just societies cannot be done by individuals, even if well-intentioned, when they work separately. The only way we can eliminate violence and poverty is by working together. In other words, the answer is cooperation. And it’s not a simple answer, because getting people to cooperate is a hard job. Fortunately, the humanity has been learning how to cooperate on increasingly large scales, accomplishing increasingly amazing achievements. The International Space Station shows that we have come a long way in the last few thousand years.

Blog Archive Comments 6 comments Comments originally published with this post. This archive is read-only.
  1. WillS

    Wow, that sounds like a sermon, which seems odd coming from such a secular source. But maybe it shouldn't be. Scientific thinking need not (should not) be amoral and value-neutral. Thanks for the perspective recalibration. It is so easy to get absorbed in daily minutia and lose sight of the bigger picture.

  2. admin

    If this sounds sermony, perhaps it's because I grew up during the 1960s when dreaming about the bright future of the humanity was not exceptional. Today, our dreams seem to center on how to make your first million... or, for many, how to simply survive.

  3. Chris Kavanagh

    Interesting post, when I was reading I was reminded of a short documentary on the 'overview effect' two university friends of mine made (inspired by Garan's message) that you might enjoy: https://vimeo.com/55073825. While the images and message of global unity are admirable, I couldn't help thinking when watching about the rather idealised portrayal and the fact that the claims of dissolving boundaries all seemed to be coming from US astronauts. Do Russian cosmonauts report similar things? The short movie was expanded into a feature length documentary in which the same individualistic response to global issues is promoted (albeit in a very fuzzy manner) e.g. increased introspection will make us more aware of our interlinked nature and make us more committed to saving/acting in harmony with the planet: http://weareplanetary.com/. For the same reasons you mention above I didn't find this particularly convincing.

    1. admin

      Russian cosmonauts say the same thing about Earth without borders: http://blog.atlantm.com/archives/35356 http://ria.ru/space/20141004/1026907141.html

      1. Chris Kavanagh

        Interesting to know, thanks for the references!

  4. O.Voron

    Beautiful post, Peter. However, reading in the news about how desperately Europeans are trying to figure out what to do with African and Arab migrants coming to their shores by thousands daily, literally so, I can't help thinking that we still need borders. Unfortunately... May be some day in the distant future...

Connections

Related work

Book

The Great Holocene Transformation

Sep 17, 2025Turchin, P.

What Complexity Science Tells Us about the Evolution of Complex Societies

Why do the 99.9% of humanity live in large-scale societies organized as states? During the Holocene (the last 10,000 years), human societies have been transformed utterly: from small groups of nomadic foragers to our current interconnected world of large-scale societies organized as states. Population numbers, agricultural productivity, technological…

Beresta BooksSocial ComplexityCooperation
Book

Ultrasociety

Nov 17, 2015Turchin, P.

Cooperation is powerful

We organize ourselves into communities of hundreds of millions of individuals, inhabit every continent, and send people into space. Human beings are nature’s greatest team players. And the truly astounding thing is, we only started our steep climb to the top of the rankings—overtaking wasps, bees, termites and ants—in the last 10,000 years. Genetic…

Beresta BooksCooperationCultural Evolution
Publication

What is society?

Jul 9, 2026Turchin, P.

This article engages with Mark Moffett’s proposed definition of society, which emphasizes shared group identification over social interaction, and argues for a different, problem-driven approach to definition in evolutionary social science. Rather than treating definitions as primary, I situate them within the broader research agenda aimed at explaining the Great Holocene Transformation—the dramatic expansion of human societies in scale and complexity over the past 10,000 years. My central analytical focus is on cooperation: the capacity of individuals to coordinate actions toward collective goals despite incentives to free-ride. Accordingly, society is defined here as a collective of individuals engaged in sustained cooperation, with interest group proposed as a more flexible and analytically useful term. Within this framework, polities represent a key subtype of interest groups, characterized by their role as independent political units whose persistence depends on maintaining cooperative cohesion, particularly among elites. Other commonly cited features of societies—such as group identification, territoriality, and intergenerational continuity—are treated as secondary mechanisms that support cooperation rather than defining properties. Ultimately, I argue that flexible, operational definitions are most valuable at intermediate stages of scientific inquiry, where they facilitate the construction and empirical testing of theoretical models.

Theory and SocietyCooperationSocial Complexity
Publication

Social complexity promotes cooperation and functional integration in large-scale societies

May 29, 2026Sandeford, D. S., Turchin, P., Hamilton, M. J., et al.

How do large-scale human societies maintain functional integration? Over the last 12,000 years, polities grew over six orders of magnitude in population, far exceeding the scale at which the interpersonal mechanisms that promote cooperation in small-scale societies can operate. Here we test the hypothesis that cooperation and functional integration in large-scale societies is promoted by social (and, specifically, institutional) complexity. We model large-scale societies as territorial social networks subject to energetic, cognitive, and competitive constraints. We demonstrate that agricultural intensification generates increasing population density, raising the per capita rate of social interaction beyond what small-scale mechanisms can sustain and requiring institutional rules to substitute for interpersonal knowledge. The model predicts that territory and social complexity scale with polity population with exponents of 5/6 and 1/6. Tests against data describing hundreds of polities spanning the Holocene support these predictions, providing quantitative evidence that social complexity is a central integrative mechanism enabling large-scale human cooperation.

SocArXivSocial ComplexityCooperation
Publication

Multilevel Selection in Cultural Macroevolution

Feb 8, 2026Turchin, P.

Cultural macroevolution (CME) is a subfield of cultural evolution that studies large-scale changes in the cultural traits of whole groups. A central question in CME is how and why characteristics of polities (such as chiefdoms, states, and empires) evolve over time. Multilevel selection, and especially its application to cultural evolution, provides a very useful theoretical framework for CME because many polity-level characteristics evolve under selection pressures that act in opposite directions at different levels of hierarchical organization. In this chapter I discuss the conceptual framework that multilevel selection provides for studying CME and summarize the main empirical results from my recent book (Turchin 2025). I conclude that major predictions of cultural multilevel selection theory enjoy substantial empirical support.

SocArXivCultural EvolutionCooperation
Publication

Navigating polycrisis: long-run socio-cultural factors shape response to changing climate

Sep 18, 2023Daniel Hoyer, James S. Bennett, Jenny Reddish, et al.

Climate variability and natural hazards like floods and earthquakes can act as environmental shocks or socioecological stressors leading to instability and suffering throughout human history. Yet, societies experience a wide range of outcomes when facing such challenges: some suffer from social unrest, civil violence or complete collapse; others prove more resilient and maintain key social functions. We currently lack a clear, generally agreed-upon conceptual framework and evidentiary base to explore what causes these divergent outcomes. Here, we discuss efforts to develop such a framework through the Crisis Database (CrisisDB) programme. We illustrate that the impact of environmental stressors is mediated through extant cultural, political and economic structures that evolve over extended timescales (decades to centuries). These structures can generate high resilience to major shocks, facilitate positive adaptation, or, alternatively, undermine collective action and lead to unrest, violence and even societal collapse. By exposing the ways that different societies have reacted to crises over their lifetime, this framework can help identify the factors and complex social–ecological interactions that either bolster or undermine resilience to contemporary climate shocks.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological SciencesCooperationPolitical Instability