Termites are 1-2 cm in size, but they live in mud towers that can grow to five meters tall. The scale, between termite and tower, is comparable to that between a human and a skyscraper. When their life style, which seems chaotic from the outside, is investigated, one finds that termites maintain social lives within perfect urban communities. These wondrous mini cities feature air conditioning and ventilation systems, in addition to a queen chamber, and rooms for incubation and juveniles.

An instinctual sense of solidarity that has been ingrained among living organisms also plays an important role among termites. They display an amazing form of cooperation in matters like foraging and defense. As termites live in colonies, they follow a particular arrangement of duties. The queen is in charge of new generations; workers meet the nest’s needs, and soldiers are responsible for its defense. When necessary, workers also participate in defensive tasks. One of the termite’s defense mechanisms, which amazed scientists, was recently discovered in June 2012.

Jan Sobotnik, with the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, and Thomas Bourguignon, of Université Libre de Bruxelles at French Guiana, discovered an unseen feature of the termite species Neocapritermes taracua. The workers of this species are, in a sense, enlisted to military duty when they “retire” due to old age and an inability to forage due to weakened mouths. They serve the defense of the nest as something of a chemical weapon specialist. When the colony is under attack, these veterans blow up a droplet-size balloon filled with a type of chemical generated in between segments of their neck and dorsal region.

When worker termites get older, blue crystal chambers, which resemble backpacks, grow on their two shoulder blades on their back. These crystals are a kind of protein called hemocyanin that contains copper, and they join together with saliva when under threat. This fusion causes a chemical reaction. The end product is a sticky liquid, like a gel, that is compressed to expand and then burst. This can fatally injure a predator. The poisonous substance that is dispersed causes rotting upon contact. The chemical formula of this blue crystal substance, along with its reactions, are still unknown.

Researchers from Oregon University (USA) reported that the mouth of an ant is worn down by age. When this occurs, these senior individuals, which used to cut leaves, now take on different jobs, like carrying the leaves. Leaf cutter ants, which are also known as the ranchers of the animal kingdom for their ability to cultivate fungi in their nests, can cut and carry leaves whose weight can be up to 50 times their body weight.

The leaves that are transported to the nest comprise the main ingredient required for the growth of fungi in a suitable environment regulated for the right temperature and humidity. This fungi is ultimately used to feed the colony. This is a fine example of senior members of a community staying active in a new role. And this is not just unique to termites: research shows that members of animal societies adapt to changes in their lives, and continue serving their colonies even if they lose some dexterity.

Our universe seems to be set up this way. As mentioned in the above examples, there is a change of occupation instead of just retirement. Just as there is no termite that stops working, there is no bird that says “I do not want to fly anymore because I am old,” or no tree that says, “I will retire and stop giving fruit because of my old age.” Organisms adapt to new conditions and find new ways to provide for our planet.

Our aging planet will continue rotating and the sun will keep smiling on us with its heat and light until the end of such organism’s lifetimes.

When it comes to humans, continuing with occupation and business as much as they can should be the desired effort. Especially for charity work, no one should mention retirement or leave of a duty, and receding to one’s quarters. Let us renew our intentions now, and review our senior living plans.

That morning, however, was unusual for one of the ants, Sayhon. He was intrigued by the noises coming from all directions. He had recorded and investigated the noise generated by bugs when carrying chips of wood, the sound a fly makes when landing on a dry leaf, the clamor of the creeks as they hit the rocks, and so on. But regardless of the cacophony of the sounds, Sayhon was always able to filter out a background noise that showed up consistently. It was as if something or someone was omnipresent in every occurrence, making itself heard. After realizing this, the poor ant found himself in seclusion to concentrate on this subtle message. After a while, not able to figure out the source of this constant noise, nor able to come up with an explanation about its meaning, Sayhon spiraled down into an endless depression. In hard times like these, he always took refuge in the warm friendship of Nurson.

Nurson also conducted his own research, modeling the dynamic geometry of the forest. By formulating the variations in the locations of the fruits on the ground or those on the branch, he benefited the worker ants in establishing the optimum routes for collection. Even more challenging was Nurson’s interest in predicting the time and place of the birth of a new fruit. It was so demanding, this prediction effort, that it shook his antennas wildly. During his research, Nurson had come to the conclusion that, existing or newborn, all the fruits were moving apart from each other. This effect was more evident in the observation of a fruit at large distances.

One day when it was raining, Sayhon was observing how the raindrops splashed on the water, how they created a blasting sound. At the same spot Nurson was studying the expansion of the waves in the puddles made by raindrops. After some gloomy moments, Sayhon wanted to open a conversation.

“Hey dude! Do you hear any noise generated by those waves?”

“YES!” replied Nurson hysterically.

Sayhon was not expecting this kind of a “YES” to his question. Rather, it sounded like an answer to something else. This, in fact, was the case, because Nurson had had an epiphany with Sayhon’s question: “The noise you are detecting everywhere is due to the expansion of the forest.”

Sayhon was startled by the answer he had received for his teasing. Nevertheless, he was eager to continue this conversation: “Hey! Easy now, easy.”

“Look! The noise you are detecting everywhere points to an entity or occurrence that is omnipresent. To date, we don’t know an entity everywhere, but we do know an occurrence that is everywhere: the moving apart phenomenon. So, the only thing that can create this noise you are so curious about is the expansion of the forest. Every fruit, every branch-tip in this forest is moving apart from each other, while leaving behind a signature in the form of sound. Now everything makes sense.”

Enlightenment suddenly seized them both with a shiver throughout their bodies. When they came back to their senses, they couldn’t help but smile; it didn’t take long before Sayhon and Nurson started squealing in joy.

Soon, the entire ant colony was in a tumult about the discovery of the expansion of the forest, but with some subsequent thoughts. For example, an ant suggested that the omnipresent noise must be propagating through some unseen but all-pervading substance; but the experiments to verify this suggestion failed. Another thought was about the size of the forest. Some claimed that it was not possible to know the size of the forest, while others said it was finite, since otherwise it would result in an infinitely intertwined forest. A third item in this list of hot discussions was the age of the forest. According to the expansion theory, if the forest is expanding now, and if you rewind this process long enough, you end up with a single tree, and eventually a single seed, out of which this endless forest has formed. They called this unimaginable start the “big germination.” Based on the big germination theory, some ants suggested billions of years of age for the forest; but some others claimed an age on the order of thousands based on interpretation of their ancient texts.

In the fresh vibrations of these findings, the discussions of the ants about the start of the forest eventually became a discussion of their own existence. What was the origin of life in the forest? How had the living beings come to their current states, each with an optimum design for the survival of their own species and for the well-being of the entire habitat? Were they merely fallen off a tree as a result of a coincidence?

As the founders of the big germination theory, Sayhon and Nurson were invited to speak in huge assemblies where thousands of curious ants were gathered. They had given several interviews, and participated in many events on the subject of the origin of life. The two friends had differing points of views on this matter, but their discussion was as respectful as it was rational.

Sayhon held the view that the living beings had come to existence through a chain of events that are not yet readily known to the ants, but can be discovered with advancements in science. As his initial hypothesis, he proposed a common ancestor to all kinds of animals in the forest, like the start of the forest from a single seed. He supported his theory of a common ancestor with the observations of common traits among different organisms. But eventually, he admitted that his hypothesis is only tentative, and needed further scrutiny. He was open to change his views with new findings and observations, and never suggested that his hypothesis be used as the criterion to judge the veracity of new perspectives.

Nurson, on the other side, claimed that the origin of life in the forest was by the hand of the Creator, just like He was the one who had created the forest in the scenario of the big germination. In the same context, he thought that the scientific studies must be aimed at learning how the Creator was making different kinds of animals in the forest. Nurson said that his view did not essentially differ from Sayhon’s views in terms of scientific foundations or implications, but he positioned himself against unscientific interpretations of scientific findings. For example, he requested that, as he admitted his belief in the Creator is an unscientific presumption, Sayhon must admit his claims about a common ancestor is unscientific, since there was no absolute proof to it. Nurson also expressed his resentment about the ants who inferred the absence of the Creator in the scientific texts as a rejection of Him, since such inference was clearly irrational as well. Overall, Nurson neither tried to alienate Sayhon nor curse his views, he merely requested that both parties characterize their views properly, which was wholeheartedly approved by Sayhon.

In return to the request of Nurson, Sayhon invited him to admit that they don’t have a complete understanding of how creation occurs, and that interpretation of implicit information in the ancient texts cannot be binding. Nurson humbly agreed.

Despite the friendly opposition between Sayhon and Nurson, the ant colony was severely divided into two groups: some siding with Sayhon and others agreeing with Nurson. Each group projected their own view as the ultimate truth, unlike the two friends’ admittance of the unscientific parts in their views. Although Sayhon and Nurson both admitted the tentative and immature level of science in the matter, the public preferred to embrace them as complete and unchangeable. Thus, these two groups socially expelled each other, and showed intellectual hostility. Rejecting the other’s views in their entirety, they mutually evolved into antagonists.

Strange enough, as the tension between these groups increased, the climate in the forest started to change dramatically. Rain became more abundant, yet the weather also warmed up incredibly. They had yet to discover the significance of these drastic changes, but this threat to the entire colony acted as a uniting agent among the ants, and mitigated the divisions on the origin of life.

In one of those hot days, the ants noticed large cracks forming in their nests, which eventually evolved into large channels, through which a violent stream came and flooded the forest. Many of the ants were saved by embarking on the leaves. Now everything was underwater, and would be until it soaked completely into the soil, which was unlikely to occur in their lifetimes. Facing extinction, the big germination and the subsequent expansion of the forest felt like meaningless topics in their hopeless state. Yet, the origin of life was of the highest attention. Even the most bigoted ants who denied the Creator wanted to believe in a higher Hand that could penetrate the doom they were facing and deliver them to salvation.

The flood did not return the ants back home but carried them to another one. By the time they arrived at this new forest, the flood had faded to a nice stream, and the ants could safely disembark from their leaves. But with nothing in their possession, everything had to be reconstructed: a home, a safe environment, and most importantly, the hope for restoration.

Sayhon and Nurson were among these survivors. Seeing that their home forest actually had an end had shocked them. In light of this fact, they had to reconsider all their thoughts from scratch. This was not to be done publicly, because the colony was struggling for survival. Amidst this new land of uncertainties, everyone was in need of a certainty to cling to, and the suppositions of Sayhon and Nurson were the last thing they looked for.

As the colony’s efforts for reconstruction and the internal quests of these two ants continued, they came across the most unexpected thing: another ant colony just like them. It was as shocking to the native ants as it was to themselves. And as their relationship deepened, it was a subtle, mind-altering experience for all of them to see that they both had religious texts telling the same brief story about the origin of life.

Ants and Ecosystem³

The abundance of ants on earth is legendary. They live almost everywhere except very cold places such as Antarctica and Greenland. A worker is less than one-millionth the size of a human being, yet ants taken collectively rival people as dominant organisms on the land. Lean against a tree almost anywhere and the first creature that crawls on you will probably be an ant. Stroll down a suburban sidewalk with your eyes fixed on the ground, counting the different kinds of animals you see. The ants will win hands down. The British entomologist⁴ C. B. Williams once calculated that the number of insects alive on earth at a given moment is one million trillion, 1018. If, to take a conservative figure, one percent of this host is ants, their total population is ten thousand trillion. Individual workers weigh on average between one to five milligrams, according to the species. When combined, all ants in the world taken together weigh about as much as all human beings. But being so finely divided into tiny individuals, this biomass⁵ saturates the terrestrial environment.⁶

Ants absolutely dominate in rainforests, which are the most biologically diverse ecosystems on earth. Rainforests are so diverse that in a single leguminous tree (a relative to beans and peas) in Peru, 43 species of ants belonging to 26 genera⁷ were found, about equal to the ant fauna⁸ of the British Isles. In a single square mile of tropical forest in Peru or Brazil, there may be 1,500 or more species of butterflies-twice the total number found in the United States and Canada combined.⁹ In Amazon rainforests ants and termites together compose nearly a third of the animal biomass. In other words, when all kinds of animals, large and small, from jaguars to monkeys down to roundworms and mites, are weighed, nearly a third of the weight consists of the flesh of ants and termites.

All of the ants, composing in formal taxonomic classification the family Formicidae of the order Hymenoptera, contain about 9,500 species known to science and at least twice that number of species remaining to be discovered, most of which are confined to the tropics. The total number of species of social insects is about 13,500 out of a grand total of 750,000 insect species that have been recognized to date by biologists. These numbers show that social insects seem to constitute 2 percent of all insects yet, in terms of biomass, social insects are half or more of all insects. Why are ants and other social insects so successful in the terrestrial environment? Their strength comes from their social organization.¹⁰ In addition to the question of why ants and other highly social insect species have been so successful, it is also important to understand how such a large collection of individuals maintains order and collectively accomplishes tasks without producing chaos. With potentially thousands of individual ants to coordinate, how do they make decisions regarding who does what and when, especially critical decisions regarding reproduction?¹¹ These questions become even more intriguing when you realize that ants have quite limited sensory devices to experience the world. They also have relatively simple nervous systems that process only a limited number of stimuli and are aware of only a few minutes to a few hours into the past.¹²

What is Collective Intelligence?¹³

Intelligence can be defined simply as the ability to solve problems. One system is more intelligent than another system if in a given time interval it can solve more problems, or find better solutions to the same problems. A group can then be said to exhibit collective intelligence if it can find more or better solutions than the whole of all solutions that would be found by its members working individually.

All organizations, whether they are firms, institutions or sporting teams, are created on the assumption that their members can do more together than they could do alone. Yet, most organizations have a hierarchical structure, with one individual at the top directing the activities of the other individuals at the levels below. Although no president, chief executive or general can oversee or control all the tasks performed by different individuals in a complex organization, one might still suspect that the intelligence of the organization is somehow merely a reflection or extension of the intelligence of its hierarchical head. This is no longer the case in small, closely interacting groups such as soccer or football teams, where the “captain” rarely gives orders to the other team members. The movements and tactics that emerge during a soccer match are not controlled by a single individual, but result from complex sequences of interactions. Still, they are simple enough for an individual to comprehend, and since soccer players are intrinsically intelligent individuals, it may appear that the team is not really more intelligent than its members.

With the growing interest in complex adaptive systems, artificial life, swarms, and simulated societies, the concept of “collective intelligence” is coming more and more to the fore. The basic idea is that a group of individuals (e.g. people, insects, robots etc.) can be smart in a way that none of its members is. Complex, apparently intelligent behavior may emerge from the synergy created by simple interactions between individuals that follow simple rules.

How do ants succeed?

Now we have lots of questions to ask about the success of ants as a group. How do they govern? Who is the ruler? How do they foresee the future? How do they elaborate plans and preserve equilibrium? These, indeed, are puzzling questions. Every single ant in a colony seems to have its own agenda, and yet an insect colony looks so organized. The seamless integration of all individual activities does not seem to require a supervisor. For example, leaf-cutter ants cut leaves from plants and trees to grow fungi. Workers forage for leaves hundreds of meters away from the nest, literally organizing highways to and from their foraging sites. Weaver ant workers form chains of their own bodies, allowing them to cross wide gaps and pull stiff leaf edges together to form a nest. Several chains can join to form a bigger one over which workers run back and forth. In their moving phase, army ants organize impressive hunting raids, involving up to 200,000 workers, during which they collect thousands of prey.¹⁴

A harvester ant colony performs many tasks: It must collect and distribute food, build a nest, and care for the eggs, larvae, and pupae. It lives in a changing world to which it must respond. When there is a windfall of food, more foragers are needed. When the nest is damaged, extra effort is required for quick repairs. Task allocation is the process that results in certain workers engaged in specific tasks, in numbers appropriate to the current situation. Task allocation is a solution to a dynamic problem and thus it is a process of continual adjustment. It operates without any central or hierarchical control to direct individual ants into particular tasks. Although “queen” is a term that reminds us of human political systems, the queen is not an authority figure. She lays eggs and is fed and cared for by the workers. She does not decide which worker does what. In a harvester ant colony, many feet of intricate tunnels and chambers and thousands of ants separate the queen, surrounded by interior workers, from the ants working outside the nest and using only the chambers near the surface. It would be physically impossible for the queen to direct every worker’s decision about which task to perform and when. Consider the commercially available ant farms being sold. Since it’s forbidden to transfer ant queens, in the US ant farms are sold with only worker ants. Still they work in harmony. They build their nest, they build bridges, they collect food and they defend their colony. They do all these things without a queen. The absence of central control may seem counterintuitive, because we are accustomed to hierarchically organized social groups in many aspects of human societies, including universities, businesses, governments, orchestras and armies. This mystery underlies the ancient and pervading fascination of social insect colonies.

No ant is able to assess the global needs of the colony, or to count how many workers are engaged in each task and decide how many should be allocated differently. The capacity of an individual is limited. It cannot make complicated assessments. It probably cannot remember anything for very long. Its behavior is based on what it perceives in its immediate environment. Each worker needs to make only fairly simple decisions. There is abundant evidence, throughout physics, the social sciences and biology that such simple behavior by individuals can lead to predictable patterns in the behavior of the group. It should be possible to explain task allocation in a similar way, as the consequence of simple decisions by individuals.

Though ant colonies must respond to changing conditions, the response does not have to be perfect. It is not like clockwork, or an army, each unit snapping into place so the whole system ticks on without a hitch. There must be enough ants to collect food, often enough for the colony to survive and grow. The appropriate range of numbers should be allocated over a set of similar occasions. If the colony did not get enough food today, perhaps it will tomorrow. The process results in more or less the right number of ants engaged in the appropriate task, often enough for the colony to carry on.

Maximizing the number of ants that perform each task may not always be best for the colony. A task allocation problem for a human city is how to get the right number of firefighters to the scene of a fire. It may be a waste to have too many firefighters on the city payroll. Too many ants allocated to each task may be expensive for a colony if the excess ants could be doing something more useful than waiting around when they are not needed.

The most difficult thing to grasp about task allocation is that it is not a deterministic process even at the individual level. An ant does not respond the same way every time to the same stimulus; nor do colonies. Some events influence the probabilities that certain ants will perform certain tasks, and this regularity leads to predictable tendencies rather than perfectly deterministic outcomes. The ant is jostled in a stream of events that send it sometimes into one task, sometimes another. Task allocation is not a system in which each ant awaits the crucial event that defines its status forever. Like a twig in a turbulent river, an ant may tend to go in one direction, but there are many places it could get washed ashore, to be picked up and then swept in another direction altogether.

Stories about totalitarian societies, inexorable armies, and voracious monsters are often told as stories about ants. But ants have no dictators, no generals and no evil masterminds. In fact, there are no leaders at all.

In short, the basic mystery about ant colonies is that there is no management. A functioning organization with no one in charge is so unlike the way humans operate as to be virtually inconceivable. There is no central control. No insect issues commands to another or instructs it to do things in a certain way. No individual is aware of what must be done to complete any colony task. Each ant scratches and prods its way through the tiny world of its immediate surroundings. Ants meet each other, separate, go about their business. Somehow these small events create a pattern that drives the coordinated behavior of colonies.¹⁵

Elements of Collective Intelligence¹⁶

More is different. This old slogan of complexity theory actually has two meanings that are relevant to our ant colonies. First, the statistical nature of ant interaction demands that there is a critical mass of ants for the colony to make intelligent assessments of its global state. Ten ants roaming across the desert floor will not be able to accurately judge the overall need for foragers or nest-builders, but two thousand will do the job admirably. Individual ants do not know that they are prioritizing pathways between different food sources when they lay down a pheromone¹⁷ gradient near a pile of nutritious seeds. In fact, if we only studied individual ants in isolation, we’d have no way of knowing that those chemical secretions were part of an overall effort to create a mass distribution line, carrying comparatively huge quantities of food back to the nest. It is only by observing the entire system at work that the global behavior becomes apparent.

Ignorance is usually useful for ants. The simplicity of the ant language-and the relative stupidity of the individual ants-is, as the computer programmers say, a feature but not a bug. Emergent systems can grow unwieldy when their component parts become excessively complicated. Better to build a densely interconnected system with simple elements, and let the more sophisticated behavior trickle up. That is why an ant does not respond to all stimuli around her, namely she ignores until she decides that the stimulus is strong enough to be responded to.

Encourage random encounters. Decentralized systems such as ant colonies rely heavily on the random interactions of ants exploring a given space without any predefined orders. Their encounters with other ants are individually arbitrary, but because there are so many individuals in the system, those encounters eventually allow individuals to gauge and alter the state of the colony itself. Without those haphazard encounters, the colony would not be capable of stumbling across new food sources or of adapting to new environmental conditions.

Look for patterns in the signs. While the ants do not need an extensive vocabulary and are capable of syntactical formulations, they do rely heavily on patterns in the semiochemicals they detect. A gradient in a pheromone trail leads them toward a food source, while encountering a high ratio of nest-builders to foragers encourages them to switch tasks. This knack for pattern detection allows meta-information to circulate through the colony mind: signs about signs. Smelling the pheromones of a single forager ant means little, but smelling the pheromones of fifty foragers imparts information about the global state of the colony.

Pay attention to your neighbors. This may well be the most important lesson that the ants have to give us, and the one with the most far-reaching consequences. You can restate it as “Local information can lead to global wisdom.” The primary mechanism of swarm logic is the interaction between neighboring ants in the field: ants stumbling across each other, or each other’s pheromone trails, while patrolling the area around the nest. Adding ants to the overall system will generate more interactions between neighbors and will consequently enable the colony to solve problems and regulate itself more effectively. Without neighboring ants stumbling across one another, colonies would be just a senseless assemblage of individual organisms-a swarm without logic.

Conclusion

Ants, first of all, have something to teach us about how nature works. Any system whose behavior arises from the interactions of its components has something in common with ant colonies. Using ants and other social insects as models, computer scientists have developed software agents that cooperate to solve complex problems, such as the rerouting of traffic in a busy telecom network or internet. Another example, the famous traveling salesman problem, in which a salesman tries to find the shortest and fastest route between many cities, is almost impossible to solve definitively. But with the methods inspired by ants the problem can be solved at least approximately, because ants are very good at finding the shortest path between the food and the nest collectively. Collective robotics borrowed from collective intelligence in ant colonies is being used to manage systems composed of lots of robots in synchronization.

Nature is a book to be read by the people who approach it to live in harmony, not to dominate. We are not the owners of the beautiful things around us, but observers searching for signs which reveal the wisdom behind them.

Footnotes

1. Haskins C.P., Of Ants and Men, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1939.
2. Huxley J., Ants, AMS Press, 1969.
3. An ecosystem is a grouping of plants, animals, and other organisms interacting with each other and with the environment in such a way as to perpetuate the grouping more or less indefinitely.
4. The scientific discipline in which ants are studied is called myrmecology and it is one of the branches of the study of insects, entomology.
5. Biomass is the total weight of all living organisms in a biological environment.
6. Holldobler B. and Wilson E.O., Journey to the Ants, Harvard University Press, 1994.
7. The word Genera is the plural of genus. Genus is a taxonomic category ranking below a family and above a species and generally consisting of a group of species exhibiting similar characteristics.
8. Fauna (Flora) is the animals (plants) of a particular region or period, considered as a group.
9. http://www.savenature.org/images/pdfs/ecoandinsects.pdf
10. Holldobler and Wilson, ibid.
11. Bonabeau E., Dorigo M., and Theraulaz G., Swarm Intelligence: From Natural to Artificial System, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, Oxford University Press, NY:1999.
12. Holldobler and Wilson, ibid.
13. Heylighen, F. “Collective Intelligence and its Implementation on the Web: Algorithms to Develop a Collective Mental Map,” Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory. 1999, Vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 253-280.
14. Bonabeau et al, ibid.
15. Gordon D., Ants at Work, W. W. Norton. 1999.
16. Johnson S., Emergence Simon & Schuster. 2001.
17. The pheromone is the semiotic chemical ants use to communicate with each other and with other colonies. Every colony has its own odor. That is why ants can recognize their sisters from the same colony easily.