9 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Vin Bhalerao's avatar

I have often wondered if the word "social" really applies to human beings, given, as you have noted, that we are quite a bit less social than truly social animals like ants.

Maybe we should use the term "coalitional" for humans instead of social? (Or is there another term for it?) At least I find it a lot more appropriate and even sets my expectations more correctly.

Thanks for a very informative article.

Expand full comment
Steven C.'s avatar

The social insects are more akin to human families since most of the members of a colony or hive are unable to reproduce and, if they leave, unable to survive on their own or join another colony/hive. We can create a society of families but the social insects cannot do the equivalent; all ant colonies or beehives are in competition, or war, with each other.

Expand full comment
Lionel Page's avatar

Hi Vin,

I think social is fine when understanding it as meaning that our lives are inscribed in social settings and social interactions. "Communal" would be too strong and characterise the life of ants better.

Expand full comment
Vin Bhalerao's avatar

I see, so on the ant-robbin continuum, we would say: communal (ants) >> social (humans) >> individualistic (robbins)? Just trying to understand the common terminology.

Expand full comment
Lionel Page's avatar

It is not a common terminology (social can take different meanings), but these words would work well.

Expand full comment