For the same reason that it is considered wicked, in sundry circles, to
speak of a non-Christian people having produced a civilization
ethically superior to our own, certain persons will not be pleased by
what I am going to say about ants. But there are men, incomparably
wiser than I can ever hope to be, who think about insects and
civilizations independently of the blessings of Christianity; and I
find encouragement in the new _Cambridge Natural History_, which
contains the following remarks by Professor David Sharp, concerning
ants:—
“Observation has revealed the most remarkable phenomena in the lives of
these insects. Indeed we can scarcely avoid the conclusion that they
have acquired, in many respects, the art of living together in
societies more perfectly than our own species has; and that they have
anticipated us in the acquisition of some of the industries and arts
that greatly facilitate social life.”
I suppose that a few well-informed persons will dispute this plain
statement by a trained specialist. The contemporary man of science is
not apt to become sentimental about ants or bees; but he will not
hesitate to acknowledge that, in regard to social evolution, these
insects appear to have advanced “beyond man.” Mr. Herbert Spencer, whom
nobody will charge with romantic tendencies, goes considerably further
than Professor Sharp; showing us that ants are, in a very real sense,
_ethically_ as well as economically in advance of humanity,—their lives
being entirely devoted to altruistic ends. Indeed, Professor Sharp
somewhat needlessly qualifies his praise of the ant with this cautious
observation:—
“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.”