"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