toyotathon posted:tears posted:Especially since the very reason for drawing parallels between insect eusociality and humans is to serve an extremely repressive system that already exists in humans.
i mean that's silly. that's as silly as saying the reason for studying atoms is to make bombs, or that studying vietnamese concentration camps is to run them more efficiently. we don't study class society to support it, we study it to destroy it. the reason it's apt to compare social systems is because human class society and class/caste society in other animals formed to address the same material problems of what to do with surplus value.
you completly misunderstand what I am saying, im not saying that the study of eusocial insects is somehow wrong, i'm saying that the origin of eusocial naturisation lies in seeking justifications for human class society in other organisms, which is exactly what sociobiology is, as is the current evolutionary psychology paradigm that has supplanted it;
and that humans are not "eusocial" in the way that insect eusociality is understood and that the very concept of a blanket "eusociality" across all organisms is bunk science.
also sorry i was mad as hell yesterday, today i am calm and collected and happy to discuss this now, also sorry i called you a nazi, ive got a thing about evolutionary biologists, a field predominantly made up of nazi scientists, guess its because i used to be one of them once
toyotathon posted:1. Female stings prey, lays egg.
2. Female stings prey, places it in a convenient niche, lays egg.
3. Female stings prey, constructs a nest on the spot, lays egg.
4. Female builds a nest, stings prey, transports it to nest, lays egg.
5. Female builds a nest, stings and transports a prey item, lays egg, then mass provisions with several more prey (added quickly, before egg hatches).
6. As in (5) but prey items are progressively provided, as the larva grows.
7. As in (6) but progressive provisioning occurs from the start.
8. In addition to progressive provisioning in a preconstructed nest, female macerates prey items and feeds the pieces directly to the larvae.
9. Founding female is long-lived, so that offspring remain with her in the nest, add cells, and lay eggs of their own.
10. Little colony of cooperating females engages in trophallaxis (liquid food exchange), but there is still no division into reproductive and worker castes.
11. Behavioral division between a dominant queen caste and subordinate worker caste appears; unfertilized workers may still lay male-destined eggs.
12. Larvae are fed differentially; queen and workers that result are physically distinct, but intermediates remain common.
13. Worker caste is physically strongly differentiated, and intermediates are rare or absent.
is just an example of what i have been saying, they're superficially analogous structures, but when you actually look at what is going on what seems analogous actually falls apart. YOu even say so yourself that all eusociality is matriarchal. And the different castes are born from the colonies' queen, so how does this have any relation or link to say the dominant class-led slave breeding programs example of engels, or anything to do with human class society, which is already stratified into classes with relatedness playing no role? again im not denying the existence of a hypothetical future slave breeding class structure, or past attempts at doing this, im saying that comparing such programs to eusocial insects is an incorrect assumption of convergent evolution based on projective natural history
Consider this, lichens are fungi that have discovered agriculture – seem familiar?
Lichens involve the use of slaves – fucking hell!
Lichens go to war against each other – holy shit!
Let me explain this, prepare to have your minds blown.
Some lichens work in capturing free living photosynthesis capable cyanobacteria or algae, just like the slave catchers of old, installing them into a nest where they will toil away until they die, with the majority of the surplus value they produce in the form of sugars stolen away by the ruling fungi caste. Other lichen work by breeding their own captive algae which are incapable of existence outside of the lichen system, a true example of reproductive division of labour. These enslaved algae have now become incapable of free living existence, dependant on their slave masters, the fungi to survive. Hell, sometimes the fungi capture two different types algae in a tripartate structure, one to photosynthesise and one to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere, both farming and chemical industry.
Regardless of whether the slave breeding or slave capture system is used the installed slaves become entirely dependant on their fungal overlords for access to water and shelter from the elements and predation, if they fail to give up significant surplus value to feed the fungi they will be killed.
And get this, while many of the cyanobacteria and algae are perfectly capable of living free from exploitation and domination in the lichen, all of the fungal bourgeoisie, regardless of species, are incapable of a free living existence, they are entirely dependant on their slaves for sustenance
Lichens go to war against each other just like humans, when one lichen colony expands and meets another a vicious bio-chemical warfare ensues, while humans have prohibitions on the use of chemical and biological weapons, the fungal bourgeoisie has no such compunctions and millions of innocent algal slaves are caught in the crossfire.
Think of this, every time you see a lichen you are seeing a micro slave plantation directly comparable to human social organisation.
Humans class society already demonstrates most of the traits found in lichens – overlapping generations in the same colony/nest, and cooperative care of and raising of young (bacteria or algal slaves in the case of lichens), only the lack of reproductive division of labour in humans stands between us and locking class society in as lichen society and plenty of members of the ruling class salivate about turning human society into lichen society.
It is imperative that we understand the lichen slave-system if we are to prevent this happening to us.
toyotathon posted:
this post owns toyotathon, and i think that in some alternate timeline i would have been happy to study eusocial insects with you. I'm pretty sure that i understand the point you are trying to make about social control and its potential to be developed into even more fixed structures, in-fact i have made the same sort of linkage, though not as overt and from a completly different perspective when i am talking about MK-ULTRA and mind control. Where we differ is in you extrapolating from eusocial insects which i dont think i will ever see as anything but projective natural history, but you have made me think very deeply about this and rekindled my interest in something that i thought was well in my past, so thank you, anyway, i hope you have a nice christmas, i might use this thread to poke fun at sociobiology and its even more idiotic child gene centric evolutionary theories some more since thats something we can both agree on and maybe people are interested in, maybe
tpaine posted:answer for your crimes, tears
i mod an unpopular web forum
toyotathon posted:we and the mole rats are related equally to the insect eusocials like wasps and bees, sharing the same distant chordate ancestor.
we are also just as equally related to tapeworms as we are to bees, the split is way back in cambrian explosion - 500MY time frames, so im unsure what the relevance of drawing attention to the evolutionary link between chordates and members of the prostostome clade is in relation to eusociality; we're far more related to starfish & sea cucumbers - unless you're trying to highlight how unrelated we are to eusocial insects?
