Glen asked
> Thus, perhaps "ascriptive"? By how you define "ascriptive status",
> why should it not be considered as such just because of hormones? Are
these
> hormones really "bred" into these insects or is the Queen Bee/Ant
> administering the hormones to her subjects in order to affect their
> development from birth? If so, the basis of rejecting ants or bees as
having
> ascriptive status becomes unfounded.
>
> What's more interesting is whether "ants" and "bees" could be
considered a
> potential model of the future of our society (Back to the hive
mentality
> again). They've certainly had this superior level of organization
long
> before humans could ever walk on twos or talk about twos and this
> organizaion is probably due to the large population of ants/bees that
had to
> sustain themselves together. Thus ascribed status might then be
considered
> to be something used by societies that need greater organization in
order to
> succesfully handle larger co-habitating populations?
>
> There's always a chance I might be offending someone in this type of
topic
> so I want to stress that I personally am an egalitarian at heart.
Peace.
Thanks for the caveat at the end.
On ants, bees, termites and some wasps, there has recently been a lot
of research done on the development of "hormone based societies" and
social development, in which a number of "rules" have been developed
which explain such functional specialisation. These rules are related
to the presence of single concentrated and very stable food sources and
a number of other factors (such as acute inter-group competition, and
big survival advantages for a reduced fertility of active members, with
a specialisation of fertility in one breeding female). The people
researching these rules then considered if such "hives" could develop
amongst mammals, and made predictions under which circumstances it
could happen.
Shortly thereafter the situation of the African hairless mole rat were
realised to be an example of a "hive mammal". Unlike bees and termites
and even more so ants, however, which are amongst the most successful
species on the planet (there is a greater biomass of ants on the Earth
than there is of humans!), the African mole rat is not a very
successful species. There are factors operating in most mammal
societies that prevent the "hiving" specialisation around a single
breeding specialty. Ants and bees form, in reality, a single
superorganism. Because the queen effectively acts as the gonads of the
hive, in reality competition in such organisms is between one hive and
another hive, individual creatures (with the exception of the breeding
queens) are totally expendible, just so long as they contribute to the
success of the whole. Scientists are now using these insights as a way
of explaining the evolution of multicellular life, where a similar
cooperation amongst free living cells, now working in colonies, earlier
occurred. Except for the fact that the selfish gene means survival
occurs via the gonads, which need to be kept alive at all costs (like
Richard Dawkins shows, we are survival machines built for our genes to
perpetuate themselves), there is no status differentiation in hive
creatures - they are all genetically programmed equally, just like
there are no status differences in the cells of your body.
Thus the "hive mind" ruled by the "queen" is an anthropomorphic falacy,
a projection upon the hive of the forms of status we see in human
society.
In this it is interesting comparing the Bee's Language, discovered by
Otto Frisch, with human languages. Bee's language, while amazingly
complex and capable of carrying a great deal of information, can best
be understood as being similar to the chemical language of the immune
system of our bodies, rather than the learned and flexible languages we
speak as humans.
Hope this helps
John