Comments: 6
Tarturus [2015-01-19 01:08:26 +0000 UTC]
While I have doubts on the plausibility of eusocial sophonts, it is nevertheless an interesting concept.
Good job with the design btw.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Concavenator In reply to Tarturus [2015-01-21 14:45:43 +0000 UTC]
I don't think eusociality makes intelligence any less likely. I posted a brief argument about that here .
š: 0 ā©: 1
Tarturus In reply to Concavenator [2015-01-21 22:39:46 +0000 UTC]
Well, basically one of the things that makes me doubt it is the fact that there doesn't seem to be much point in being sapient in the first place if there's a eusocial system in place. One of the advantages of sapience is that it allows for far more flexible behaviour. However, in eusocial organisms behaviour is very rigid. Everyone in the lower caste(s) exist solely to serve the higher caste, which controls everything (generally through pheromones). There doesn't really seem to be all that much point for sapience to develop in a species where hardly anyone is supposed to think for themselves or act with any sort of independence.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Concavenator In reply to Tarturus [2015-01-22 11:52:03 +0000 UTC]
I have a few points to answer:
1. Eusociality is basically a reproductive adaptation, and I don't think it necessarily correlates to rigid behaviour. The behaviour of ants and bees is very mechanical because their nervous system is too small and simple to allow complex reasoning, but in that regard they're not much different from other insects.
2. Do eusocial queens really "control" the workers? Despite their name, they're servants to the colony as much as everyone else - reproduction is simply their job. They're less replaceable and thus more protected, but I don't think they really have any say on the matter. The Gbodr queen certainly doesn't.
3. Naked mole rats are fully eusocial rodents, and, empirically, their brain is not any less developed than the brain of common rats (the encephalization quotient is about 0.4 for both).
4. Gbodr do act independently: the end of their actions is always the good of the colony, but the way they achieve that end is up to them. To make an example, a Gbodr gatherer can choose where it wants to go to search for tubers or pseudo-insects, and what to do when it meets a predator, but it does so for the colony's sake. The queen doesn't tell them anything, she simply stays in the royal chamber to spawn.
š: 0 ā©: 1
Tarturus In reply to Concavenator [2015-01-22 23:17:42 +0000 UTC]
Fair enough.
Out of curiosity though, which evolutionary pressures was it that made the Gbodr do all their actions for the sake of their colony rather than for the sake of themselves? Or, in other words, what was the evolutionary benefit for them in being eusocial?
š: 0 ā©: 1
Concavenator In reply to Tarturus [2015-01-23 12:17:06 +0000 UTC]
They live in a desert with very sparse resources, i.e. tubers, which are very large but far apart, so very few explorers manage to find food at all, but what they find is still enough to feed everyone (as far as I know, this is the same reason naked mole rats became eusocial).
Assuming that Gbodr are diploid, like mammals, the genetic relationship between a worker and her children, sisters and mothers is exactly the same (1/2): therefore, from a "selfish gene" point of view, helping their mother and sisters to survive is exactly as advantageous as raising their own children, but more likely to be effective. (If they were haplodiploid, like ants, the workers would be a clone of their mother and sisters, meaning they would gain more from helping their family than from reproducing. But I don't think that fits with the life cycle I described on the forum.)
As instincts and behaviour develops, natural selection rewards the cooperating colonies. Since everyone in a colony is closely related, the genes for cooperation vs. individualism would probably be found in everyone. On a long timescale, selfish Gbodr end up destroying their own colony, and the genes that promote selfishness (which is not the same thing as a selfish gene!) eventually wipe themselves out.
Once instincts to work for the colony are in place, and advanced intelligence is gained, culture follows. Early Gbodr cultures would reward cooperation and discourage individualism; since breaking the rules endangers the whole family, punishments would be severe (death or exile, which is still death). Being selfish in any way - say, finding food and keeping it for yourself - would be universally seen as a hideous crime.
I hope this was clear enough.
š: 0 ā©: 0