"The competence of the ant is not like that of man.It is devoted to the welfare of the species rather than to that of the individual,which is,as it were,sacrificed or specialized for the benefit of the community."
--The obvious implication,--that any social state,in which the improvement of the individual is sacrificed to the common welfare,leaves much to be desired,--is probably correct,from the actual human standpoint.For man is yet imperfectly evolved;and human society has much to gain from his further individualization.But in regard to social insects the implied criticism is open to question."The improvement of the individual,"says Herbert Spencer,"consists in the better fitting of him for social cooperation;and this,being conducive to social prosperity,is conducive to the maintenance of the race."In other words,the value of the individual can be only in relation to the society;and this granted,whether the sacrifice of the individual for the sake of that society be good or evil must depend upon what the society might gain or lose through a further individualization of its members...But as we shall presently see,the conditions of ant-society that most deserve our attention are the ethical conditions;and these are beyond human criticism,since they realize that ideal of moral evolution described by Mr.Spencer as "a state in which egoism and altruism are so conciliated that the one merges into the other."That is to say,a state in which the only possible pleasure is the pleasure of unselfish action.Or,again to quote Mr.Spencer,the activities of the insect-society are "activities which postpone individual well-being so completely to the well-being of the community that individual life appears to be attended to only just so far as is necessary to make possible due attention to social life,...the individual taking only just such food and just such rest as are needful to maintain its vigor."
III
I hope my reader is aware that ants practise horticulture and agriculture;that they are skillful in the cultivation of mushrooms;that they have domesticated (according to present knowledge)five hundred and eighty-four different kinds of animals;that they make tunnels through solid rock;that they know how to provide against atmospheric changes which might endanger the health of their children;and that,for insects,their longevity is exceptional,--members of the more highly evolved species living for a considerable number of years.
But it is not especially of these matters that I wish to speak.What I want to talk about is the awful propriety,the terrible morality,of the ant [1].Our most appalling ideals of conduct fall short of the ethics of the ant,--as progress is reckoned in time,--by nothing less than millions of years!...When I say "the ant,"I mean the highest type of ant,--not,of course,the entire ant-family.About two thousand species of ants are already known;and these exhibit,in their social organizations,widely varying degrees of evolution.Certain social phenomena of the greatest biological importance,and of no less importance in their strange relation to the subject of ethics,can be studied to advantage only in the existence of the most highly evolved societies of ants.
After all that has been written of late years about the probable value of relative experience in the long life of the ant,I suppose that few persons would venture to deny individual character to the ant.The intelligence of the little creature in meeting and overcoming difficulties of a totally new kind,and in adapting itself to conditions entirely foreign to its experience,proves a considerable power of independent thinking.But this at least is certain:that the ant has no individuality capable of being exercised in a purely selfish direction;--I am using the word "selfish"in its ordinary acceptation.A greedy ant,a sensual ant,an ant capable of any one of the seven deadly sins,or even of a small venial sin,is unimaginable.Equally unimaginable,of course,a romantic ant,an ideological ant,a poetical ant,or an ant inclined to metaphysical speculations.No human mind could attain to the absolute matter-of-fact quality of the ant-mind;--no human being,as now constituted,could cultivate a mental habit so impeccably practical as that of the ant.But this superlatively practical mind is incapable of moral error.It would be difficult,perhaps,to prove that the ant has no religious ideas.But it is certain that such ideas could not be of any use to it.The being incapable of moral weakness is beyond the need of "spiritual guidance."
Only in a vague way can we conceive the character of ant-society,and the nature of ant-morality;and to do even this we must try to imagine some yet impossible state of human society and human morals.Let us,then,imagine a world full of people incessantly and furiously working,--all of whom seem to be women.No one of these women could be persuaded or deluded into taking a single atom of food more than is needful to maintain her strength;and no one of them ever sleeps a second longer than is necessary to keep her nervous system in good working-order.And all of them are so peculiarly constituted that the least unnecessary indulgence would result in some derangement of function.
