21 replies to this topic

[camponotuskeeper]

I don't know exactly where this would go. but how similar are ants and humans. i mean we both have agriculture and slavery. some countries have a queen. WE were once nomadic. we both build our own homes. but what else do we have in common with ants? 

[OhNoNotAgain]

I'm pretty sure this is covered extensively in many other works, such as AntsCanada's book, but off the top of my head:

- social hierarchy

- specialization

- child care

- cooperative behavior and the ability to rally the masses to a common cause

- agriculture

- slavery

- construction and repair

- migration and moving with agricultural livestock/plants

- warfare

- regicide

- garbage collection and putting out the trash

- running away screaming from scary things

- swarming free food at the buffet

- zombies

[DDD101DDD]

I'm pretty sure this is covered extensively in many other works, such as AntsCanada's book, but off the top of my head:

- social hierarchy

- specialization

- child care

- cooperative behavior and the ability to rally the masses to a common cause

- agriculture

- slavery

- construction and repair

- migration and moving with agricultural livestock/plants

- warfare

- regicide

- garbage collection and putting out the trash

- running away screaming from scary things

- swarming free food at the buffet

- zombies

Zombies?

[Martialis]

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

[OhNoNotAgain]

 

 

- zombies

Zombies?

 

 

 

I was kidding, obviously. 

Ophiocordyceps.

I suppose the closest real world human zombie story is how entrepreneurs are more likely to be infected with toxoplasmosis... 

[Antennal_Scrobe]

The difference is that humans, when they do the things you mentioned, have learned how to or have come up with the idea themselves, usually with no influence from their biology. Ants are essentially "programmed" by evolution, and react to stimuli with "scripted" responses; the rest of the colony responds to those responses, creating a complex, fascinating, almost mechanical system. 

[ponerinecat]

Genocide and chemical warfare, as well as internal power struggles and backstabbing.

[camponotuskeeper]

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.
Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.
We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

The difference is that humans, when they do the things you mentioned, have learned how to or have come up with the idea themselves, usually with no influence from their biology. Ants are essentially "programmed" by evolution, and react to stimuli with "scripted" responses; the rest of the colony responds to those responses, creating a complex, fascinating, almost mechanical system.

I get these but according to the definition of agriculture is practice of farming, and the definition is the activity of growing crops, the definition of crops is cultivated plant grown for food. Don’t ants cultivate fungus for food so they do practice agriculture. I don’t mean genetically or programmed by evolution, but that they both have many similarities in the actions they do.

[Kalidas]

So a few things to add.

First I don't really see ants as having a "hierarchy" perse. No one ant (aside from the queen) is seen as more important and they all (queen included) contribute pretty equitably.

"Queen" ants aren't really "Queen's" like we would think. They don't tell other ants what to do or how or when etc... They just lay the eggs and found the colony. A "queen" ant is more akin to a mother than a royal figure.

[ponerinecat]

So a few things to add.

First I don't really see ants as having a "hierarchy" perse. No one ant (aside from the queen) is seen as more important and they all (queen included) contribute pretty equitably.

"Queen" ants aren't really "Queen's" like we would think. They don't tell other ants what to do or how or when etc... They just lay the eggs and found the colony. A "queen" ant is more akin to a mother than a royal figure.

Workers often treat the queen like a vending machine. No respect. They just keep it running and wait for all the good stuff to pop out.

[OhNoNotAgain]

Yeah not REALLY a hierarchy buuuut it's clear that typical workers are more expendable in terms of overall colony behavior. And the queen's pheromones do affect worker ants' reproductive systems.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Another thing is that ant colonies, in a sense, are sort of like mini-democracies. Ants "vote" via pheromones about things like moving or where to put their focus.

[TheMicroPlanet]

So a few things to add.

First I don't really see ants as having a "hierarchy" perse. No one ant (aside from the queen) is seen as more important and they all (queen included) contribute pretty equitably.

"Queen" ants aren't really "Queen's" like we would think. They don't tell other ants what to do or how or when etc... They just lay the eggs and found the colony. A "queen" ant is more akin to a mother than a royal figure.

Thank you for pointing that out. It really irritates me when laypeople refer to queens as if they were the rulers of the colony, because like we here know, the queen doesn't rule the colony; the colony rules the colony. And even though there are many similarities, it still kind of irks me when people think of ants as communist. Even if ants are communist, they certainly do it a lot better than humans could ever do.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

Couldn't our relationship with corn, in a broad sense, be considered symbiosis? I mean, first of all, compare the ancient "teosinte" with modern day corn. Corn wouldn't have become what it is now without human intervention. Second, corn gets protection and sustenance from us, and we obtain food from them. Sounds a lot like what Atta and Acromyrmex spp. do with their fungi.

[Mdrogun]

Yeah not REALLY a hierarchy buuuut it's clear that typical workers are more expendable in terms of overall colony behavior. And the queen's pheromones do affect worker ants' reproductive systems.

Really, in a way, it'd be more accurate to call the queen a slavemaker. Her workers are forced into servitude if they want any hope of their genes surviving into the next generation. Ants do not have feelings. They don't understand the concept of one thing being better than the other. These are all human ideas that we project onto ants.

 

The reason that the queen's pheromones affect the worker ants is because colonies where the workers aren't affected didn't do as well and were selected out of the population. Likely because colony function disintegrates when the workers can spread their own genes directly. The workers did not choose to allow this, nor do they "see" it as some sort of class-system.

 

 

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

Couldn't our relationship with corn, in a broad sense, be considered symbiosis? I mean, first of all, compare the ancient "teosinte" with modern day corn. Corn wouldn't have become what it is now without human intervention. Second, corn gets protection and sustenance from us, and we obtain food from them. Sounds a lot like what Atta and Acromyrmex spp. do with their fungi.

 

The thing you're missing is that in the human-corn scenario, we controlled the corn and selected which traits were exaggerated or bred out of the population. In the ant-fungus scenario, the fungus has as much control over the ants as the ants do over the fungus. We look at it as humans and go "hurr durr that looks like when we farm corn." But really, the fungus has figured out a way to be perfectly cared for 24/7. All it has to do is allow the ants to eat some of itself that it created from the mass amounts of food the ants provide for it. If at any moment the fungus were to die, the ants would quickly follow suit. That is why it is symbiosis and not ant-agriculture.

[TheMicroPlanet]

 

Yeah not REALLY a hierarchy buuuut it's clear that typical workers are more expendable in terms of overall colony behavior. And the queen's pheromones do affect worker ants' reproductive systems.

Really, in a way, it'd be more accurate to call the queen a slavemaker. Her workers are forced into servitude if they want any hope of their genes surviving into the next generation. Ants do not have feelings. They don't understand the concept of one thing being better than the other. These are all human ideas that we project onto ants.

 

The reason that the queen's pheromones affect the worker ants is because colonies where the workers aren't affected didn't do as well and were selected out of the population. Likely because colony function disintegrates when the workers can spread their own genes directly. The workers did not choose to allow this, nor do they "see" it as some sort of class-system.

 

 

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

Couldn't our relationship with corn, in a broad sense, be considered symbiosis? I mean, first of all, compare the ancient "teosinte" with modern day corn. Corn wouldn't have become what it is now without human intervention. Second, corn gets protection and sustenance from us, and we obtain food from them. Sounds a lot like what Atta and Acromyrmex spp. do with their fungi.

 

The thing you're missing is that in the human-corn scenario, we controlled the corn and selected which traits were exaggerated or bred out of the population. In the ant-fungus scenario, the fungus has as much control over the ants as the ants do over the fungus. We look at it as humans and go "hurr durr that looks like when we farm corn." But really, the fungus has figured out a way to be perfectly cared for 24/7. All it has to do is allow the ants to eat some of itself that it created from the mass amounts of food the ants provide for it. If at any moment the fungus were to die, the ants would quickly follow suit. That is why it is symbiosis and not ant-agriculture.

 

...which is why I said it was in a broad sense. Of course some things are going to be different (in this case, origins), but nonetheless, these two relationships are strikingly similar. And besides, (again speaking in a broad generalization) over time, natural selection keeps selecting the better genes from the ant relative to the fungus and the fungus relative to the ant. Could not the corn, in a similar way, adapted such that it is cared for 24/7 (even with human engineering, we were bound to make a few mistakes, and the corn had to adapt relative to that)? Another thing is that the ant too has come up with a way to be perpetually fed, analogous (in the literary sense) once again to our use of corn. And referring to your remark on our control over corn, the ant's pure existence with the fungus guides the forces of natural selection (however, our control over corn is mostly volitional rather than natural) Even though we humans do indeed have more control over the corn's adaptations, the laws of nature still apply. Besides, whether or not the corn's adaptations are a result of natural selection or anthropogenic causes makes little difference as, speaking naturalistically, humans are still an element of nature.

 

I can already see this is a particularly touchy subject, but it is kind of an interesting one. Besides, regardless of the outcome, whatever is true is true and we should believe what is proven to be true, right? There's no shame in that. 

Edited by TheMicroPlanet, December 27 2019 - 6:17 AM.

[Becky]

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

I agree that humans and ants aren't alike AT ALL. In fact they are as different as they can be and just because life forms express similar behavior doesn't mean it's related - for example birds fly through the air with adapted hands (which are adapted feet which are adapted fins) while insects fly with pertrusions from their exoskeletons (essentially they're flying with deformed skin).

 

However the claim that agriculture is very different from a symbiotic relationship isn't entirely right. Humans are pretty much in a symbiotic relationship with their crops and their livestock - many of the plant and animal species we humans are cultivating couldn't survive on their own in the wild anymore but we also couldn't survive without them. This is particularly obvious in third world countries where the loss of livestock (usually goats) is a quick road to the brink of survival for a lot of people unless they get help from outside.

[ponerinecat]

 

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

I agree that humans and ants aren't alike AT ALL. In fact they are as different as they can be and just because life forms express similar behavior doesn't mean it's related - for example birds fly through the air with adapted hands (which are adapted feet which are adapted fins) while insects fly with pertrusions from their exoskeletons (essentially they're flying with deformed skin).

 

However the claim that agriculture is very different from a symbiotic relationship isn't entirely right. Humans are pretty much in a symbiotic relationship with their crops and their livestock - many of the plant and animal species we humans are cultivating couldn't survive on their own in the wild anymore but we also couldn't survive without them. This is particularly obvious in third world countries where the loss of livestock (usually goats) is a quick road to the brink of survival for a lot of people unless they get help from outside.

 

Not symbiotic. We have come to rely on the plants, but the plants don't need us, and we don't need the plants. We just like them. Symbiosis is extremely specialized, which our relationship is not.

[ponerinecat]

 

 

Yeah not REALLY a hierarchy buuuut it's clear that typical workers are more expendable in terms of overall colony behavior. And the queen's pheromones do affect worker ants' reproductive systems.

Really, in a way, it'd be more accurate to call the queen a slavemaker. Her workers are forced into servitude if they want any hope of their genes surviving into the next generation. Ants do not have feelings. They don't understand the concept of one thing being better than the other. These are all human ideas that we project onto ants.

 

The reason that the queen's pheromones affect the worker ants is because colonies where the workers aren't affected didn't do as well and were selected out of the population. Likely because colony function disintegrates when the workers can spread their own genes directly. The workers did not choose to allow this, nor do they "see" it as some sort of class-system.

 

 

Ants and humans aren’t really alike at all.

Humans and ants’ last common ancestor was hundreds of millions of years ago.

We anthropomorphize their behaviors as “slavery” and “agriculture” (to use to ur examples) but these aren’t really that accurate. The latter, for example, is more a symbiotic relationship than true agriculture.

Couldn't our relationship with corn, in a broad sense, be considered symbiosis? I mean, first of all, compare the ancient "teosinte" with modern day corn. Corn wouldn't have become what it is now without human intervention. Second, corn gets protection and sustenance from us, and we obtain food from them. Sounds a lot like what Atta and Acromyrmex spp. do with their fungi.

 

The thing you're missing is that in the human-corn scenario, we controlled the corn and selected which traits were exaggerated or bred out of the population. In the ant-fungus scenario, the fungus has as much control over the ants as the ants do over the fungus. We look at it as humans and go "hurr durr that looks like when we farm corn." But really, the fungus has figured out a way to be perfectly cared for 24/7. All it has to do is allow the ants to eat some of itself that it created from the mass amounts of food the ants provide for it. If at any moment the fungus were to die, the ants would quickly follow suit. That is why it is symbiosis and not ant-agriculture.

 

...which is why I said it was in a broad sense. Of course some things are going to be different (in this case, origins), but nonetheless, these two relationships are strikingly similar. And besides, (again speaking in a broad generalization) over time, natural selection keeps selecting the better genes from the ant relative to the fungus and the fungus relative to the ant. Could not the corn, in a similar way, adapted such that it is cared for 24/7 (even with human engineering, we were bound to make a few mistakes, and the corn had to adapt relative to that)? Another thing is that the ant too has come up with a way to be perpetually fed, analogous (in the literary sense) once again to our use of corn. And referring to your remark on our control over corn, the ant's pure existence with the fungus guides the forces of natural selection (however, our control over corn is mostly volitional rather than natural) Even though we humans do indeed have more control over the corn's adaptations, the laws of nature still apply. Besides, whether or not the corn's adaptations are a result of natural selection or anthropogenic causes makes little difference as, speaking naturalistically, humans are still an element of nature.

 

I can already see this is a particularly touchy subject, but it is kind of an interesting one. Besides, regardless of the outcome, whatever is true is true and we should believe what is proven to be true, right? There's no shame in that. 

 

 

The corn did not adapt. Selective breeding is not adaptation to survive, but adaptation because its the only thing that could happen. Corn doesn't need us. In fact, we probably hindered corn's success evolutionarily. Instead of adapting to survive, they are forcefully adapted to have their seeds be eaten. And no, the laws of nature do not apply. We broke those laws a while ago. We don't need to apply to the laws of nature because our survival no longer depends on it. Humans have ousted the need for all the basic "laws of nature." We are not an element of nature. We are organic, and natural, and part of the environment, but not part of nature. We have isolated ourselves from all life on Earth in this way by achieving our current status. We do not need nature any more.

[ponerinecat]

To be honest, our relationship with all our livestock and crops is parasitic.