86 replies to this topic

[ANTdrew]

To derail this thread even further: what about naked mole rats??

[TheMicroPlanet]

We do not speak of those insults to eusociality.

 

(sarcasm)

Edited by TheMicroPlanet, March 24 2020 - 5:06 AM.

[ANTdrew]

The Smithsonian National Zoo has a big colony of them living in a series of boxes and clear tubes. It’s the coolest thing in the whole place.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Sounds cool (despite the fact that naked mole rats look like infant demons)

Edited by TheMicroPlanet, March 24 2020 - 5:21 AM.

[ponerinecat]

naked mole rats are mammals that decided being deformed and degenerative as well as giving up tens of thousands of years of evolution was a good survival tactic.

[TheMicroPlanet]

They do have decently sized populations, so maybe it wasn't such a bad choice.

[ANTdrew]

naked mole rats are mammals that decided being deformed and degenerative as well as giving up tens of thousands of years of evolution was a good survival tactic.

Yikes. I didn’t expect the anti-mole rat sentiment. I think they’re awesome despite their ugliness.

[TheMicroPlanet]

On a realistic note, some organisms are ugly because that's what works best in their environment.

[AntsDakota]

They are what they are. What we think of them will have no effect on how their appearance influences their lives.

[TheMicroPlanet]

People often think of the ugly things in nature as disturbing, disguisting, unnecessary, or even evil, but it's really the precise and virtually unparalelled efficiency of nature in action.

[ponerinecat]

I like them, i just think their evolutionary path was strange.

[ponerinecat]

Mammals spent all that time developing fur, high reflexes, amazing eyesight, and other things to help them survive. Naked mole rats decided to burn all that progress and their ability to individually reproduce and live underground as blind root eating hermits. And it worked.

[TheMicroPlanet]

However, they wouldn't have gotten that far if it wasn't for the fur, reflexes, and eyesight. Think of it as a disposable part or something that you use to get to a certain point and then decomission it for something new.

 

Evolution is essentially undirected anyway. It's not like they were predetermined to have fur, quick reflexes, or accurate eyesight. In theory, they would've developed whatever was needed in accordance to the dynamics of the ecosystem.

Edited by TheMicroPlanet, March 24 2020 - 11:37 AM.

[TheMicroPlanet]

Things like superorganisms really make you wonder what counts as an individual. What are you guys's thoughts?

[AntsDakota]

I wonder if a solitary intelligent life form would see us as a defective superorganism that is rejecting many of its own tissues.........

[TheMicroPlanet]

Do you mean "us" as the entire human species or a single human body?

[AntsDakota]

Species.

[TheMicroPlanet]

In that case, yes definitely. 

[ponerinecat]

Unlikely. I know I already stated this multiple times, but a collection of organisms working together is not a superorganism.

[TheMicroPlanet]

But a defective superorganism isn't really a superorgnism to begin with, no?