#1
[account deactivated]
#2
[account deactivated]
#3
[account deactivated]
#4
[account deactivated]
#5
thanks for making the thread and especially for taking an interest. it might be a dead-end investigation for our class but who wants to leave swords on the ground for the class enemy to wield against us? like tears points out the people interested in sociobiology now are basically class enemies and are rooting around in it to serve our masters and carry out eugenics in disguise. lots of sciences suffer this, though.

about EO Wilson: pretty much all of tears' comments about him are right; he's a stopped clock. most researchers spend their whole lives being wrong in private. EO Wilson must lack the shame-gene and prefers to be wrong in the spotlight. like for instance, in 'Social Conquest of Earth', he doesn't even identify the human 'nest' correctly. the nest is a defended site of food storage and raising young, and he says it's the fire-pit. clearly if it's anywhere, it's the granary. the granary came with the early eusocial culture adaptations. he is wrong about human society so often that rifling through his body of work to recover anything of value is labor intensive. fortunately there are many eusociality/superorganism researchers today with less baggage.

about biological determinism: the way you know biological determinists are all full of shit is that all their just-so explanations flatter themselves and their nations. if they were honest and consistent, they'd worry about how white amerikans are the most genocidal humans who have ever lived, their europeans cousins not far behind. they'd admit things like the white blood (or whatever nickel substitute word they use to mean the same thing) has poisoned earth's rivers and oceans, 3/4 of carbon pollution is due to whites. if they were consistent they'd look at the real white history and conclude that whites are a pestilence, but they consistently conclude the opposite, because they aren't scientists, they're little eichmanns. we've got 8,000-some-odd years of highly varied gene flow since the dawn of class society but live in a world of human workers; whatever effect human breeding has had on us can't be very large, yet.
#6

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

#7
oh boy
#8
sociobiology greatest hits

#9
[account deactivated]
#10
One final thing and ill lay off for a bit is that this:

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

#11

tears posted:

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



when i look at that evolutionary path i actually see the comparison get even stronger. like let's look at the development of 10, trophallaxis. trophallaxis is a development within bees, eusocial wasps, ants, and termites, that allows one individual to share food with another. it balances the food supply within the colony, it allows a colony to store the most possible food in the sum of all stomachs.

there isn't really any reason for this to develop except for like parent food regurgitation to offspring. basically it does not exist outside eusocials. there is no evolutionary reason for it to develop, to share food. food is precious and scarce and to offer it freely is long-term suicide.

except humans do this really weird animal behavior too. i just got back from a bday party where everybody shared food, like the host had to beg everyone to bring less food. we humans have a communal food culture. again this is animal behavior that is normalized in eusocials but very rare or strictly reciprocal in other animals, even chimps. other animals don't just give food away freely to neighbors. it's just us and the eusocials.

you can also see that it developed in other animals prior to class society. that is true in humans too. all the indigenous, non-class societies i've read about also have strictly communal food cultures, insulting the meat and whatnot.

i've talked about breeding the most but while the social insects had to evolve these behaviors over millenia, we inherit cultures that reasoned all these behaviors out. they aren't bred into us. the long-term breeding in the human class war is a problem because it will someday lock in this rotten thing, but we're not there yet. doop de dooo

Edited by toyot ()

#12
I don't know what any of the words in this thread mean but i think humans are probably different to bugs. Thank you all.
#13
humans are bugs
#14
again, without falling into the trap of hamilton's rule ultra biological reductionism, eusocial insects live in matriarchally structured colonies with a high degree of relatedness between individuals in the colony, with all castes are born by a reproductive queen, and with very short generation times. I see no way that this is anything but superficially analogous to human class society which has neither a high degree of relatedness in "colonies", nor the biological potential for different classes being produced by a single reproductive female (my eyes are rolling so hard as i write this), nor very short generation times. If you take your slave breeding analogy to its extreme you would surely be implying that humans could undergo some sort of ruling class led forced speciation into a dominant and subordinate species based social and "genetic" control, not that humans would start to organise themselves into highly related matriarchal societies with a single breeding queen.
#15
also it would be helpful to know what model(s?) you are using to explain the development of altruism in the pre-eusocial stage of eusocial insects, and if you are applying the same model universally including to the evolution of cooperation in humans
#16
Humans are effectively well on the pathway to becoming lichens and its only a matter of time before the bourgeoisie breed us into lichen-like superstructures.

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.
#17
tears please return this gif to its rightful place in a stickied thread atop the forum
#18
i will do this for you
#19

tears posted:

Humans are effectively well on the pathway to becoming lichens and its only a matter of time before the bourgeoisie breed us into lichen-like superstructures.



roseweird if anything from this crazy thread ends up frontpage it's this post

my bus is leaving in like an hour and with it my internet for a week, can't respond to everything sorry. but feudal humans already were forming closed reproductive groups along class lines, right? hereditary monarchies were independently invented in all(?) civilizations (not sure about coast salish). in amerika the class prison system just-so-happens to lock kids up age 18-30++ during family-making years but i get a trickle of news reports where judges offer sterilization in exchange for reduced sentences. don't got some extensive prison gene flow study tho sorry, just a thought.

i don't really have confidence in any evolutionary model i've read about for non-human eusociality development... intrinsic fitness rested on haplodiploidy, but that isn't true in even half the creatures. wilson (sorry sorry) has a new theoretical model where if i understand it the reproductive gradually breeds itself by selectively killing worker-daughters, but 1) wilson and 2) it's new and untested and controversial since the last 50 years people assumed it was a solved problem. the model to me is less important/interesting than the very strange end-adaptation and the material pressures that birthed it across the animal kingdom (maintaining food stores).

there are major human differences obviously (patriarchy) to arrive at the adaptation of class society... gotta go bye merry xmas etc

#20
[account deactivated]
#21
[account deactivated]
#22
[account deactivated]
#23
- You'll finally see.
- What, that I've been right this whole time?

He thought he'd cared but now he wasn't sure. They'd been following the termite trail for 6 hours through sweat-forest and bramble. No, he was sure: he wanted to be wrong, and learn an extra lesson to never do this again.

- I think I see it.
- But how would you know?
- It's a termite mound.

He picked up two squirming workers, which confused everybody.

- Look, both these workers--
- They aren't workers.
- Okay. Both these termites are returning to the nest with food. Other animals don't do this, see? Other animals eat then gather then eat then hunt. These social insects (he ignored her frown) collect food and store it for long-term survival.

He knew her silence meant disapproval. So he pressed.

- Watch.

Blue latex glove out of pocket, blue latex glove on left hand, left hand into mound, hoping he'd get lucky. And, yes.

- Look in there.
- What am I looking at?
- The queen.
...
- That isn't a termite.
- What?
- Look at it. It's not a termite.
- It's a termite. It's their mother.
- THOSE are termites, THAT looks totally different.

He was going to fucking lose it.

- Look at those things by it. Why are so many different insects living in this mound?
- The LARVAE?
- They aren't even termites.

This wasn't going to work, but he started to fantasize he was having a conversation with somebody completely different, who'd recognize the sense of the point he was about to make.

- Look over here, this is an ant trail --
- I mean, it's a trail, I wouldn't call it an ant trail.
- ...
- This one is carrying a leaf, this one is carrying a different color leaf. And look (she grabbed a handful) they're all acting different, running different directions! They don't even all look the same. Maybe a couple of these are ants, but they can't all be ants. Ow!

Either the humidity did it or an honest moment of clarity. The bugs would listen! They would understand his point, even better than he did.

- If we follow those ants to their nest, we will find what we found in this termite mound. Many workers, carrying food instead of eating it, to store it near the queen and larvae. These animals don't talk to each other, but they developed these same social systems independently, in response to the same food pressures.
- Look at how naive you are. Those aren't ants. There is no such thing as 'ants'. How do you know what's at the end of this bug trail? You don't. And how do you know the bugs didn't talk to each other? This is all just a bunch of bugs in the forest. In fact, now that I think about it, I wouldn't even call this a forest. All I see is a bunch of trees. Why did you even bring me out here?
#24
[account deactivated]
#25

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

#26
cool i hope ny post was not mean... if i can be indulgent i tried to made this insane pedant D&D man wandering 6 hrs in the sweaty forest with a latex glove in his pocket, the lady determined to humor him, to be not sympathetic, because internet debates are silly and bourgeois and liberal and are entertainment not a way to learn... i hope when she told him she literally would not see the forest for the trees that he (i) Got It and like died, have a good xmas, greyhounds have wifi when they stop by subways and mcdonalds, goodBye

Edited by toyot ()

#27
damn we neeed another spinoff thhread already to talk about tears' past as a nazi scientist O_O
#28
[account deactivated]
#29

tpaine posted:

answer for your crimes, tears


i mod an unpopular web forum

#30
[account deactivated]
#31
Tears aka Raskalnikov, finding happiness through suffering after immense tribulations.
#32
#33
#34
[account deactivated]
#35
#36

roseweird posted:

i don't think points like "bugs are matriarchal" and "even mold has slaves" are trivial either.



yah i don't either. but has there been any slam-dunk historical-material explanation, from any discipline, for human patriarchy esp post-class society? i've only read caliban, and the martha mies that swampman posted... maybe it's out there and i'm just ignorant. there's engels development of the gens and i've read scattershot anthro about bridewealth.

cookin up a post about the {other} class mammals, the two african naked mole rats. we and the mole rats are related equally to the insect eusocials like wasps and bees, sharing the same distant chordate ancestor.

Edited by toyot ()

#37

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?

#38
i thought he meant that we and the molerats are both the same evolutionary distance from insects? although im not really sure what that means. kind of an unclear sentence all around
#39
but since all extant deuterostomes (which includes all chordates) are of the same evolutionary distance from all the extant protostomes (which includes all insects) in not seeing the relevance, - its the same evolutionary distace from your dog to your dogs roundworm infestation as from a molerat to a wasp, or from a human to a clam, or an eel to a spider, because the first lot are deuterostomes and the second protostomes...
#40
didn't mean much except that it is not a social adaptation unique to insects (or close insect relatives like the eusocial sponge-dwelling shrimp), it is widely and thinly spread over the animals

the eusocial mole-rats are interesting b/c their ranges border non-eusocial cousins. and so they make a nice test case about what food situations lead to class societies (but if you're reading this thread you already know )