5 ms·

I agree that humans aren't simple unitary individuals, but calling us "superorganisms" kinda devalues the word. If we're superorgansisms then so are cats, dogs,

I agree that humans aren't simple unitary individuals, but calling us "superorganisms" kinda devalues the word. If we're superorgansisms then so are cats, dogs, mice, birds, and anything else that relies on bacteria for digestion or has reproductive complexities like chimerism. This would probably include ants... making an ant colony a superorganism of superorganisms, so we'd need a new word for that. How about we figure out which species are unitary individuals and give them a word? Mono-organisms or something.

dvanduzer 11y ago
The fact that we don't know whether to consider a virus as "alive" or "non-living dynamic thingamabob" pretty much shreds that notion of atomic organisms. There is no Platonic ideal of the word "superorganism" to worry about here. There's Aspens[0] and Ants[1] alike, and plenty in between. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggers
- adrianN 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the accepted definition of "alive" includes having a metabolism, which viruses don't.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
No species are unitary individuals. No, really, there's no such thing. Everything alive is part of one ecosystem, and the only thing that really evolves is the ecosystem itself. Don't agree? Completely disconnect any apparently unitary individual from the planetary ecosystem and see how long it survives. This has practical implications, especially for extended space flight. It turns out to be extraordinarily difficult to build a functioning and stable micro-ecosystem. Thinking at the species level is almost no help at all, because what actually happens is that chemicals, energy, and information propagate through the system space, and modify each other. We don't have good models to describe what happens at that level, which makes it very hard to build or maintain systems that are stable. The Origin of the Species was a huge improvement on biblical creationism, but it would be disappointing if it was the last word on biological systems.
- mikro2nd 11y ago
  > No species are unitary individuals. Well,... excepting unicellular ones, no? ;)
  - jcromartie 11y ago
    No, even then, the constituent parts (organelles) of single-celled organism likely began as a symbiosis of separate organisms. The history of life is more complex and fantastic than we can possibly imagine.
    - rtl49 11y ago
      This isn't true. Prokaryotes do not have membrane-bound organelles resulting from an ancestral symbiotic relationship. (You might be able to found some weird exception to the rule out here. This is a generalization -- nothing in biology shocks me anymore.) Even for unicellular eukaryotes, it would be incorrect to claim they're separate organisms from their membrane-bound organelles just because of the organelle's evolutionary origin. Unicellular organisms really are "unitary." Edit: A biologist should always be humble. I just thinking of lichens, which are "composite organisms" consisting of fungi, bacteria, and algae, which can be an instance of what you're getting at. Still, some organisms really are "unitary."
eveningcoffee 11y ago
but calling us "superorganisms" kinda devalues the word. If we're superorgansisms then so are cats Do you think that the author was writing this to somehow elevate your self-esteem? :) But you are raising a good point. When talking about such concepts we should not forget that there are other animals that would also share it. We are still animals, only with a little smarter brains.

dvanduzer 11y ago

The fact that we don't know whether to consider a virus as "alive" or "non-living dynamic thingamabob" pretty much shreds that notion of atomic organisms. There is no Platonic ideal of the word "superorganism" to worry about here. There's Aspens[0] and Ants[1] alike, and plenty in between. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buggers

adrianN 11y ago
I'm pretty sure that the accepted definition of "alive" includes having a metabolism, which viruses don't.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago

No species are unitary individuals. No, really, there's no such thing. Everything alive is part of one ecosystem, and the only thing that really evolves is the ecosystem itself. Don't agree? Completely disconnect any apparently unitary individual from the planetary ecosystem and see how long it survives. This has practical implications, especially for extended space flight. It turns out to be extraordinarily difficult to build a functioning and stable micro-ecosystem. Thinking at the species level is almost no help at all, because what actually happens is that chemicals, energy, and information propagate through the system space, and modify each other. We don't have good models to describe what happens at that level, which makes it very hard to build or maintain systems that are stable. The Origin of the Species was a huge improvement on biblical creationism, but it would be disappointing if it was the last word on biological systems.

mikro2nd 11y ago
> No species are unitary individuals. Well,... excepting unicellular ones, no? ;)
- jcromartie 11y ago
  No, even then, the constituent parts (organelles) of single-celled organism likely began as a symbiosis of separate organisms. The history of life is more complex and fantastic than we can possibly imagine.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    This isn't true. Prokaryotes do not have membrane-bound organelles resulting from an ancestral symbiotic relationship. (You might be able to found some weird exception to the rule out here. This is a generalization -- nothing in biology shocks me anymore.) Even for unicellular eukaryotes, it would be incorrect to claim they're separate organisms from their membrane-bound organelles just because of the organelle's evolutionary origin. Unicellular organisms really are "unitary." Edit: A biologist should always be humble. I just thinking of lichens, which are "composite organisms" consisting of fungi, bacteria, and algae, which can be an instance of what you're getting at. Still, some organisms really are "unitary."

eveningcoffee 11y ago

but calling us "superorganisms" kinda devalues the word. If we're superorgansisms then so are cats Do you think that the author was writing this to somehow elevate your self-esteem? :) But you are raising a good point. When talking about such concepts we should not forget that there are other animals that would also share it. We are still animals, only with a little smarter brains.