Can anybody clear this up? So the main takeaway is that differentiation, the split of tasks by ability and cooperation in general increases the productivity in a species?
What are the environmental conditions that select for the necessary adaptations leading to eusociality. Why the nest with a cache of food? For some reason, after reproduction, it pays to hang with the nest that's there rather than abandon it , disperse, and build a new one. With a cache, there's a more reliable food source. I'd think that parasite load would be a cost of hanging with the nest they've got. Also, it won't be easily concealed, so it'll need to be defended. The energy and risks of building a new nest would select for hanging with the nest that's there already. How does the argument apply to H. sapiens and hunter-gatherers? They were both territorial and mobile. A simpler argument for the sub-sociality of our species is the length history of inter-group competition and conflict. Fighting wars with weapons would lead to positive feedback favoring both within group sociality and brain size (intelligence). It's an old argument, not very popular because of what it says about our ancestry, but it suggests that our path was different from that of the 20 species that Professor Wilson talks about.
Late reply but yes human intelligence is only necessary because of competition through warfare, wolfs exhibit similar hunting behaviour but aren’t as smart. Because wolves don’t wage war, chimps do, humans more so.
I don't get it, doesn't the definition of eusocial given here include other large mammals such as big cats (i.e. lions) as well as wolves, along with many primates/monkeys and even meerkats? Aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales seem to fit the criteria given here, too. Looking at the discussion on wikipedia, (an earlier definition? of) eusociality requires the irreversible sterilisation of a caste, which only happens to post-menopause females in mammals... so humans are eusocial because we have grandmothers who still contribute to society? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEusociality#meerkats
I was thinking the same thing... so i just tag myself in here to follow the post if anyone gives a good explaination (JFB1111's is plausible but speculative)
Mr. Wilson always uses insects to explain human behavior. These insects evolve through parthenogenesis. He has a very difficult time finding a comparable species to explain eusociality through non-kin selection, such as birds. All of the species he mentions, especially birds, can be explained through kin selection. I'm not saying he is wrong, but I agree with Richard Dawkins; Mr. Wilson is far too confident in his ideas, which have not been accepted by the majority of evolutionary biologists.
Yeah, it worries me that by his description, Trump and fellow kleptocrats are the “ruling caste”. There’s a lot of difficulty in extrapolating from the robotic behavior of insects to the huge number of conflicting motives in primates.
Interesting, but this is a typical perspective of sociologists, that is, an emphasis on the collective, particularly as driven by instincts or genetics. The flaw in most sociological explanations is the near total minimization of the intelligence, rationality, and choice-making individuals--which is putting the cart before the horse.
***** it s not one or the other, they work together just as he described the dynamic of the individuals creating civilizations and societies using the characteristics you describe in combination with their environment. it is a dynamic that incorporates all of these elements..
There is no knockout gene just like there is no gay gene, the epi-genome places tags on certain genes to turn them on or off and scientist do it in the same exact way
I wish he could speak better. He is always cluttering his sentences with unnecessary details, therefore pushing his point to next sentence, therefore pushing your patience
@fastrally I don’t remember when I made this comment, my guess is that I might have tried to reply to someone? I remember learning about E.O.Wilson and his work on ant colonies and kin selection
So, is he saying that caring for your young is the key to specialization and that's why we "dominate" as a species? If that's the case, am I the only one noticing that there are soooo many other intelligent animals of varying sizes that care for their young and haven't created societal specializations? I mean, I have to be missing something right? He couldn't have made that much of a misstep.
He doesn't say "the knockout gene," he says "a knockout of a gene that removes the tendency to disperse." The title is quite misleading.
thank you! I read his book and didn't remember that term. I was thinking what?
Beautifully told. And people go for stories about some guy turning water into wine that nobody actually sees over THIS? Insane.
Yay! Science is back on BigThink. You should come around more often...
Anybody else mirin' his full head of hair at 85?
The man is a genius! Wish he was still with us.
MORE OF EO WILSON PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
E.O. Wilson is absolutely brilliant.
I like his voice..I could listen to this man for hours on end
It's like the idea of comparative advantage.
After I read "The Slefish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, this field of science can't stop to excite me.
Miroslav Angelov Double thumbs-up, mate!
Wow... E.O. Wilson... He's awesome!
Can anybody clear this up? So the main takeaway is that differentiation, the split of tasks by ability and cooperation in general increases the productivity in a species?
My wold view is left shifting and turning after this video, thank you.
What are the environmental conditions that select for the necessary adaptations leading to eusociality. Why the nest with a cache of food? For some reason, after reproduction, it pays to hang with the nest that's there rather than abandon it , disperse, and build a new one. With a cache, there's a more reliable food source. I'd think that parasite load would be a cost of hanging with the nest they've got. Also, it won't be easily concealed, so it'll need to be defended. The energy and risks of building a new nest would select for hanging with the nest that's there already. How does the argument apply to H. sapiens and hunter-gatherers? They were both territorial and mobile. A simpler argument for the sub-sociality of our species is the length history of inter-group competition and conflict. Fighting wars with weapons would lead to positive feedback favoring both within group sociality and brain size (intelligence). It's an old argument, not very popular because of what it says about our ancestry, but it suggests that our path was different from that of the 20 species that Professor Wilson talks about.
Late reply but yes human intelligence is only necessary because of competition through warfare, wolfs exhibit similar hunting behaviour but aren’t as smart. Because wolves don’t wage war, chimps do, humans more so.
I recommend 1.25 speed
She hungers...never sated. This one feast on me, but also the yuong ones. That one doesn't, but drags us down.
No escape velocity.
Life evolved toward cooperation, once it is established... Maybe?
He said 20 species became Eusocial Ants, Termites, Humans. What are the other 17?
Bees, wasps, naked Mole Rats, uhh that's all I know
We can work together as a human race if the time calls for it, unlike ants, who stick to their own colonies.
Yes, finally some good stuff again!
I love this guy.
idiocracy is a good movie
I don't get it, doesn't the definition of eusocial given here include other large mammals such as big cats (i.e. lions) as well as wolves, along with many primates/monkeys and even meerkats? Aquatic mammals such as dolphins and whales seem to fit the criteria given here, too.
Looking at the discussion on wikipedia, (an earlier definition? of) eusociality requires the irreversible sterilisation of a caste, which only happens to post-menopause females in mammals... so humans are eusocial because we have grandmothers who still contribute to society? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AEusociality#meerkats
Paul Somers He only mentioned ants, termites & us out of 20. No idea what the other 17 are. Maybe it's a few you mentioned?
I was thinking the same thing... so i just tag myself in here to follow the post if anyone gives a good explaination (JFB1111's is plausible but speculative)
Mr. Wilson always uses insects to explain human behavior. These insects evolve through parthenogenesis. He has a very difficult time finding a comparable species to explain eusociality through non-kin selection, such as birds. All of the species he mentions, especially birds, can be explained through kin selection. I'm not saying he is wrong, but I agree with Richard Dawkins; Mr. Wilson is far too confident in his ideas, which have not been accepted by the majority of evolutionary biologists.
Yeah, it worries me that by his description, Trump and fellow kleptocrats are the “ruling caste”. There’s a lot of difficulty in extrapolating from the robotic behavior of insects to the huge number of conflicting motives in primates.
Interesting of his
Interesting, but this is a typical perspective of sociologists, that is, an emphasis on the collective, particularly as driven by instincts or genetics. The flaw in most sociological explanations is the near total minimization of the intelligence, rationality, and choice-making individuals--which is putting the cart before the horse.
***** it s not one or the other, they work together just as he described the dynamic of the individuals creating civilizations and societies using the characteristics you describe in combination with their environment. it is a dynamic that incorporates all of these elements..
Turtle?? Anyone???
There is no knockout gene just like there is no gay gene, the epi-genome places tags on certain genes to turn them on or off and scientist do it in the same exact way
Fucking brilliant.
I wish he could speak better. He is always cluttering his sentences with unnecessary details, therefore pushing his point to next sentence, therefore pushing your patience
E o Wilson, what about mole rats? They are mammals and they are eusocial
probably they don't have as big of prefrontal cortex along with as much dreaming.
@fastrally I don’t remember when I made this comment, my guess is that I might have tried to reply to someone? I remember learning about E.O.Wilson and his work on ant colonies and kin selection
หลับดีกว่า
I read 'Knockout Game', I thought you were going to talk about something interesting that affects all white people in America.
No we were created by god, wake up people.
So, is he saying that caring for your young is the key to specialization and that's why we "dominate" as a species? If that's the case, am I the only one noticing that there are soooo many other intelligent animals of varying sizes that care for their young and haven't created societal specializations? I mean, I have to be missing something right? He couldn't have made that much of a misstep.
He suffered a stroke in the past, didn't he?
Drarack Right. When he made the video.
Rants just like my grandpa, Just get to the point!!!
I love science but this man sounds so boring no matter what he says.