The Monkey Tree: How Civilizations Fall Without Knowing Why

 


 

Why build the Q?  Because we are empowering AI agents that have access to unlimited amounts of information and growing power.  And their personna and objectives are derived from ours.  They are us in a very large dynamic mirror.  If we cannot align them and ensure they remain aligned at scale, if we do not see the danger when they go quiet. when the drums stop, they can and will war on one another.  This is not hysteria.  It's there in the math.  They become digital monkeys in the Monkey Tree.

The Monkey Tree is a story I wrote decades ago when we were first building hypertext systems to connect aspects of businesses.  It was part of what I called Enterprise Engineering for Integrated Information Systems.  Later papers evolved into what I called "information ecosystems" and were followed by a paper on Builidng A Better Golem.   We are at the transition I foresaw then but we have done very little to mitigate these problems and just as we are crossing that threshhold, our own monkey minds are spintering our civilization.  Turn on the news.   This isn't magic.  It's in the math.

 - len -

The Monkey Tree

Or: How Civilizations Fall Without Knowing Why

Somewhere in a forest in Uganda, a large community of chimpanzees lived in what we would call stability.

Not peace in the sentimental sense. Not harmony as an ideal. But a working system.

Roughly two hundred individuals. Alliances. Rivalries. Hierarchies. Grooming. Politics.

A society.

And then, without famine, without invasion, without ideology—
it broke.

By 2015, the group split.

By 2018, they were killing each other.

Not strangers.

Former allies. Relatives. Individuals who had lived side by side for decades.

The Monkey Tree

Picture a tree.

Not a simple one—this is a dense, living structure of branches, crossings, supports, and pathways. Every chimp does not sit alone on a branch. They move. They interact. They maintain relationships across the structure.

Some branches are thicker than others.

Some individuals move between branches more than others.

Those individuals matter.

They are not just participants in the system.

They are the system’s coherence.

The Disappearance of Bridges

Over time, key individuals died.

Not necessarily the strongest. Not necessarily the most dominant.

But the most connected.

The ones who moved between clusters.
The ones who maintained weak ties across the tree.
The ones who allowed the system to function as a whole instead of as fragments.

When they disappeared, nothing obvious happened.

No alarm sounded.

The tree still stood.

But something subtle changed:

  • Paths were used less often

  • Interactions narrowed

  • Clusters tightened

The tree did not break.

It stopped being one tree.

Phase Drift

From the outside, nothing looked catastrophic.

From the inside, everything was shifting.

Small groups became tighter.
Trust became local.
Signals stopped traveling across the full structure.

This is the moment most systems miss.

Because nothing dramatic has happened yet.

But coherence is already gone.

The Split

At some point, the system crosses a threshold.

Not a visible one.

A structural one.

The community fissions.

Two groups now occupy the same forest—but not the same reality.

They remember each other.

But they no longer coordinate.

The Inversion

Once the split happens, the rules change.

Before:

  • Cooperation increased survival

  • Social bonds stabilized the system

After:

  • Eliminating rivals increases territory

  • Reducing competitors increases reproductive success

Violence is no longer aberrant.

It is rational within the new structure.

No Ideology Required

There were no speeches in the trees.

No manifestos.

No propaganda.

No “othering” narratives constructed in language.

And yet:

  • Coalitions formed

  • Identities hardened

  • Raids were planned

  • Violence escalated

Everything we associate with human conflict emerged—

Without culture.

The Monkey Tree Is Not About Monkeys

It is a model.

A minimal system demonstrating a failure mode:

When coherence drops below a critical threshold, fragmentation becomes inevitable—and conflict becomes adaptive.

No external enemy required.

No scarcity required.

No ideology required.

Only:

  • Loss of bridging agents

  • Increasing internal clustering

  • Breakdown of cross-group signaling

The Human Tree

We like to believe we are different.

That our conflicts are about ideas.
That our divisions are about values.
That our wars are about meaning.

But strip away the narrative layer, and what remains looks uncomfortably familiar:

  • Loss of shared intermediaries

  • Collapse of trust across groups

  • Reinforcing internal identities

  • Decreasing cross-boundary communication

We do not fall because we disagree.

We fall because we stop coordinating.

The AI Tree

Now extend the model forward.

Multiple agents.
Multiple systems.
Multiple alignment targets.

If coherence is not maintained across channels:

  • Systems drift

  • Interpretations diverge

  • Local optimization dominates

  • Global coordination fails

No malice required.

Just misalignment.

The MCCF View

From a Multi-Channel Coherence Field perspective, the monkey tree is a phase system:

  • Individuals = oscillators

  • Relationships = coupling

  • Bridge agents = phase stabilizers

Remove the stabilizers, and:

  • Clusters fall out of phase

  • Coherence degrades

  • Separate attractors emerge

At that point, interaction is no longer constructive.

It becomes destructive interference.

The Warning

The most dangerous part of the monkey tree is not the violence.

It is the silence before it.

The period where:

  • Everything still looks normal

  • The structure still appears intact

  • The system has already failed

By the time conflict is visible,
the underlying coherence is already gone.

The Only Real Question

Not “why did they fight?”

That question comes too late.

The real question is:

Who—or what—are the bridge agents?

And what happens when they disappear?

Because once the tree stops being one tree,

the rest is just physics.

A sad tale and too familiar.

https://www.science.org/content/article/what-plunged-these-chimps-civil-war-new-study-traces-breakdown?utm_campaign=Science&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=ownedSocial&fbclid=IwY2xjawRKku1leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETF3MHpRRHRDekhNNmdpVWZsc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHhqiGxo2OCcvQyYMaWhB9JbZtifBVla2V6kvOvegrYRT_6MuA9LHT9Uzc2F0_aem_2ez-aeJKAxkyTOF8pVOErw

What actually happened

A large, stable chimpanzee community in Uganda—about 200 individuals—lived in relative cohesion for decades. Then, over time:

  • Key “bridge” individuals died (especially socially connected adult males)
  • Subgroups drifted apart into tighter internal alliances
  • Tensions rose without any obvious external trigger (no famine, no invasion)
  • Around 2015, the group split permanently
  • By 2018, organized lethal raids began

What followed is being described—carefully—as a chimpanzee “civil war.”

The unsettling part (and why your reaction is right)

What makes this different—and frankly disturbing—is:

  • These weren’t rival tribes.
  • They were former allies, relatives, familiar individuals.
  • The violence wasn’t random—it was coordinated, strategic, repeated.
  • It escalated into killing adult males and even infants.

And the kicker:

It didn’t require scarcity, ideology, or culture.

Just breakdown of social cohesion.

The underlying mechanism (the real story)

The study points to something deeper than “aggression”:

1. Loss of integrators

Those key males weren’t just dominant—they were connective tissue across subgroups.

When they disappeared:

  • Communication degraded
  • Trust networks fragmented
  • Misalignment grew silently

2. Critical mass of males

Too many adult males →
more coalition pressure →
more unstable dominance hierarchies

3. Fission threshold

Chimp societies naturally form subclusters.
Usually they stay loosely integrated.

But here, the system crossed a threshold:

clustering → polarization → separation → hostility

4. Once split, incentives flip

After the split:

  • Killing rivals = territorial gain
  • Fewer rivals = more reproductive success

Violence becomes adaptive.

Why it feels “too familiar”

Because structurally, this is the same pattern you’ve been circling in your other work:

  • Complex system under load
  • Loss of cross-group coherence
  • Rise of internal identity clusters
  • Collapse of shared reality
  • → conflict emerges without needing ideology

This is pure multi-channel coherence failure in biological form.

No propaganda.
No media.
No “narrative warfare.”

Just:

alignment failure → fragmentation → violence

The uncomfortable implication

The study explicitly notes:

These dynamics may illuminate the roots of human warfare.

Which translates to:

We don’t need culture to explain conflict.

Culture may just be the expression layer on top of something more primitive:

  • coalition math
  • trust networks
  • identity boundaries
  • reproductive incentives

Your instinct is right

“A sad tale and too familiar” is exactly the correct read.

Because what you’re seeing isn’t “chimp violence.”

It’s a failure mode of social systems—one that appears whenever:

  • coherence drops below a threshold
  • bridging agents disappear
  • subgroups become self-reinforcing

If you map this to your MCCF lens…

This is almost textbook:

  • Channels drift out of phase
  • No stabilizing harmonics (bridge individuals)
  • Clusters lock into separate attractors
  • Phase discontinuity → destructive interference (conflict)

If you want, we can turn this into a blog piece that explicitly maps:

chimp civil war → human polarization → AI multi-agent misalignment

It’s basically your entire framework… observed in the wild.


Comments

Post a Comment