Gowdy & Krall (G&K) suggest that, “exploring the common causes and consequences of ultrasociality in humans and the social insects that adopted agriculture can provide fruitful insights into the evolution of complex human society” (target article, Abstract). They highlight the similarities between ant and human populations at the macro-level, and end by speculating about the implications of agriculture and ultrasociality for the predicaments humans currently confront: “the accelerating degradation of the earth's ecosystems and the generation of inequality” (sect. 6, para. 3). In drawing implications from this comparison it is vital to be aware of the essential differences between ants and humans.
One way to explicate the radical differences between ants and humans is to unpack G&K's assumptions about autonomy. They claim that, “a major consequence of ultrasociality is a loss of individual autonomy” (sect. 5.2, para. 4). However, the human notion of autonomy does not have a clear application to an ant's way of life. Whether solitary species of bees have more autonomy in the sense of independence and freedom compared to those species living in hives is far from clear. In the case of humans, rather than autonomy being lost through human sociality, we suggest that humans develop as persons with the potential for autonomy through developing within a human social life.
Human infants are born relatively helpless and are therefore dependent on their caregivers for their needs, none of which can be intentionally communicated by the infant initially. However, by developing within this heavily scaffolded ecological niche, infants are able to gradually master increasingly complex forms of communication due to their burgeoning ability to anticipate others' responses to their actions (Carpendale et al. Reference Carpendale, Atwood and Kettner2013a). That is, they become aware of the meaning that their actions convey to others (Mead Reference Mead1934). This step is not necessary, or indeed even possible, for social insects. As human infants learn the rudiments of language, they can begin to use these communicative skills as tools for thinking, giving them the ability to consider alternative strategies rather than blindly reacting to the events occurring around them (Canfield Reference Canfield1995).
Many species are social to some extent, but their ways of being social can differ radically. For example, although both human behavior (Canfield Reference Canfield1995) and ant behavior (Gordon Reference Gordon2010) can be understood through an appeal to “patterns of interaction,” it is precisely humans' ability to gradually learn and then consider these interactive patterns, along with the effect that their actions can have within them, that separates the human notion of autonomy from that of ants. It is within this intelligent interaction with the world and other people that we can see the origins of autonomy in human beings. Human intelligence involves increasing flexibility in responding, and the ability to select among alternative strategies, and in this sense an increase in autonomy. According to a socio-genetic view of development, intelligence develops within social relations, beginning with communicative development in infancy before extending into the development of language, social understanding, and moral development (Carpendale et al. Reference Carpendale, Hammond, Atwood, Lerner and Benson2013b; Carpendale & Lewis Reference Carpendale, Lewis, Liben and Müller2015).
In sum, it is important to be cautious about comparing ant and human behavior. Although ants could be described as waging wars, capturing slaves, and dying in defense of their nests, they are not given medals. Applying the human notion of sacrificing one's life for others does not apply to an ant's way of life. Individual ants do not have the capacity to anticipate the (potential) effects of their (potential) actions, whereas this ability is central to both the development and continued realization of human autonomy. We applaud G&K's attempt to grapple with the predicament humans face, but we suggest that responding to it is better served by understanding the crucial differences between ants and humans. G&K seem to conceptualize autonomy as individual choice and implicitly contrast it with compulsory conformity, but for humans, unlike ants, another form of social relations is possible among equals based on mutual respect. Humans do not just conform to rules imposed by authority; they also may choose to live by obligations to others adopted through cooperation among equals (Carpendale Reference Carpendale, Müller, Carpendale and Smith2009; Piaget Reference Piaget1932/1965). One factor leading to the predicaments we currently face may actually be autonomy and self-interest. The human way of being social results in flexibility and intelligence, as well as the ability to engage in discussion, such as the current debate about divestment and the need to leave three quarters of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground.
Gowdy & Krall (G&K) suggest that, “exploring the common causes and consequences of ultrasociality in humans and the social insects that adopted agriculture can provide fruitful insights into the evolution of complex human society” (target article, Abstract). They highlight the similarities between ant and human populations at the macro-level, and end by speculating about the implications of agriculture and ultrasociality for the predicaments humans currently confront: “the accelerating degradation of the earth's ecosystems and the generation of inequality” (sect. 6, para. 3). In drawing implications from this comparison it is vital to be aware of the essential differences between ants and humans.
One way to explicate the radical differences between ants and humans is to unpack G&K's assumptions about autonomy. They claim that, “a major consequence of ultrasociality is a loss of individual autonomy” (sect. 5.2, para. 4). However, the human notion of autonomy does not have a clear application to an ant's way of life. Whether solitary species of bees have more autonomy in the sense of independence and freedom compared to those species living in hives is far from clear. In the case of humans, rather than autonomy being lost through human sociality, we suggest that humans develop as persons with the potential for autonomy through developing within a human social life.
Human infants are born relatively helpless and are therefore dependent on their caregivers for their needs, none of which can be intentionally communicated by the infant initially. However, by developing within this heavily scaffolded ecological niche, infants are able to gradually master increasingly complex forms of communication due to their burgeoning ability to anticipate others' responses to their actions (Carpendale et al. Reference Carpendale, Atwood and Kettner2013a). That is, they become aware of the meaning that their actions convey to others (Mead Reference Mead1934). This step is not necessary, or indeed even possible, for social insects. As human infants learn the rudiments of language, they can begin to use these communicative skills as tools for thinking, giving them the ability to consider alternative strategies rather than blindly reacting to the events occurring around them (Canfield Reference Canfield1995).
Many species are social to some extent, but their ways of being social can differ radically. For example, although both human behavior (Canfield Reference Canfield1995) and ant behavior (Gordon Reference Gordon2010) can be understood through an appeal to “patterns of interaction,” it is precisely humans' ability to gradually learn and then consider these interactive patterns, along with the effect that their actions can have within them, that separates the human notion of autonomy from that of ants. It is within this intelligent interaction with the world and other people that we can see the origins of autonomy in human beings. Human intelligence involves increasing flexibility in responding, and the ability to select among alternative strategies, and in this sense an increase in autonomy. According to a socio-genetic view of development, intelligence develops within social relations, beginning with communicative development in infancy before extending into the development of language, social understanding, and moral development (Carpendale et al. Reference Carpendale, Hammond, Atwood, Lerner and Benson2013b; Carpendale & Lewis Reference Carpendale, Lewis, Liben and Müller2015).
In sum, it is important to be cautious about comparing ant and human behavior. Although ants could be described as waging wars, capturing slaves, and dying in defense of their nests, they are not given medals. Applying the human notion of sacrificing one's life for others does not apply to an ant's way of life. Individual ants do not have the capacity to anticipate the (potential) effects of their (potential) actions, whereas this ability is central to both the development and continued realization of human autonomy. We applaud G&K's attempt to grapple with the predicament humans face, but we suggest that responding to it is better served by understanding the crucial differences between ants and humans. G&K seem to conceptualize autonomy as individual choice and implicitly contrast it with compulsory conformity, but for humans, unlike ants, another form of social relations is possible among equals based on mutual respect. Humans do not just conform to rules imposed by authority; they also may choose to live by obligations to others adopted through cooperation among equals (Carpendale Reference Carpendale, Müller, Carpendale and Smith2009; Piaget Reference Piaget1932/1965). One factor leading to the predicaments we currently face may actually be autonomy and self-interest. The human way of being social results in flexibility and intelligence, as well as the ability to engage in discussion, such as the current debate about divestment and the need to leave three quarters of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground.