Could cockroaches ever evolve into a master race?

Great Debates
1

Assuming a nuclear holocaust or plague wiped out all human life, or all mammals, could another species, liberated from the pressures of predation and territorial encroachment, evolve into a state of human-like intelligence?

Would they need to?

Could whales ever become land-dwelling again?

And are any other species evolving significantly in brain capacity at the moment to the point that they represent a threat to human domination in a few million years?

I put this in GD because it contains several questions, and none that can really be given 100% factually decisive answers.

2

I, for one, welcome our insect Overlords.

3

WAG here (but of course that’s what you’re asking for). I can’t imagine cockroaches, or any other insects, evolving into any sort of master race. Why? Because if they were going to, IMO, they would have done so already. Insects have been around for hundreds of millions of years - virtually unchanged, in the case of the cockroach and others - and have evolved very little in that time. For all the enormous head start they had on mammals, or even vertebrates in general, they apparently did very little with the opportunity.

4

German cockroaches, of course? (Blattella germanica)

5

Uh they already are the master race, second only to bacteria. They’ve been here longer and there are more of them there are of us. They haven’t changed because if it aint broke you don’t fix it. They control us more than we do them.

In terms of “intelligence”, nah, not cockroaches, but there are many who believe that other species actually have more brain processing power per individual and more problem solving ability on salient to the species isues per individual than Man does. “Civilization”, that’s another issue. That’s the issue. Man isn’t great because individuals of our species are so smart, but because we developed civilization. We learn from each other in real time and across generations like no other animal. And we have a very adaptable intelligence. Would another species do that? Maybe some corvids eventually?

6

[QUOTE=istara]
Assuming a nuclear holocaust or plague wiped out all human life, or all mammals, could another species, liberated from the pressures of predation and territorial encroachment, evolve into a state of human-like intelligence?
[/quote]

Of course it could. But it needn’t be “liberated from the pressures of predation and territorial encroachment” in order to do so. Why would you assume that would be necessary? And, btw, that wouldn’t make it a “master race”. A race is a subspecies, not just an intelligent species.

Would they need to what?

Of course they could. Why not? It would probably be easier for them to do so than for fish to have evolved into land animals. Whales probably still have dormant genes (genes that are “shut off”, but still present) for some characteristics that its ancestor speices had in common with other land mammals.

Nothing is evolving “at the moment”, except in the sense that every species is subject to evolution by natural selection. You seem to be implying that evolution has some sort of momentum and that you can extrapolate future physiological changes from past trends. That is a common misunderstanding about how evolution works. But the other great apes certainly have the capacity to evolve in a way that would produce human-like intelligence.

And no one has made a reference to Bush or Cheney yet? :slight_smile:

7

[QUOTE=DSeid]
Uh they already are the master race, second only to bacteria. They’ve been here longer and there are more of them there are of us. They haven’t changed because if it aint broke you don’t fix it. They control us more than we do them.
[/QUOTE]

Could you give us a cite for this claim, or at least some kind of argument?

And bacteria is not really a “race” or “species” but a domain, which means many different species.

8

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Of course it could. But it needn’t be “liberated from the pressures of predation and territorial encroachment” in order to do so. Why would you assume that would be necessary?
[/QUOTE]

In fact I think that would be a disadvantage. There is more evolutionary gain from developing intelligence, if it can help protect against predators.

9

Cockroaches would have trouble developing the same kinds of technology that we have; imagine the cockroach equivalent of Edison, inventing the incandescent lamp, then scurrying under the table as soon as he switched it on. Wouldn’t work.

Ok, actually, any insects would have trouble developing the kinds of technologies we have, because their physiology prevents them from growing very big. That is a problem if you want to manipulate fire and smelt metals, because those processes don’t scale down uniformly; really tiny fires don’t get hot enough to smelt metals and even if the insects were given a head start - say, they find a steel paperclip left over from the extinct humans and want to beat it into a sword, it will be almost impossible to heat to a malleable state in a tiny fire; if you succeed, it will still only stay hot for a couple of seconds and hitting it with a tiny little hammer will barely deform it at all.

And that’s without considering the neurological limitations of insect physiology.

If cockroaches were to rule the world, they would be forced to do so in a way almost unrecognisably different from humans; perhaps that seems obvious anyway.

10

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
In fact I think that would be a disadvantage. There is more evolutionary gain from developing intelligence, if it can help protect against predators.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Species that are not under some sort of environmental pressure tend to have large numbers of individuals and remain fairly stable (phenotypically speaking) over long periods of time.

11

Relevant issues discussed previously in this thread.

12

Just to add to insect biology preventing a similar form of intelligence, there’s also something they share with most fish; breeding habits. If you look at amount of offspring versus lifespan over the entire animal kingdom, you’ll see that generally those creatures which live for longer have less offspring in each pregnancy. It makes sense, really; it’s a lot harder to pass on your genes as an insect than it is a human, since we have much more time to do so in.

Anyway, the effect this has on intelligence is that, since they’re short-lived, there isn’t time to teach offspring how to, well, be an insect successfully. So creatures with shorter lifespans generally have a simpler intelligence that’s based more on instinct than learned behaviour. I can’t see a civilisation arising from instinct (although that may just be a limitation of my own learned behaviour).

Could insects be a master race? There’s a couple of ways I can picture it. One is a very sci-fi route; a species of parasites/symbiotes which eventually evolve from influencing to controlling their hosts. A more likely scenario is a species of insect with an incredibly lethal poison; one that they can administer and kill any potential predator. If no appropriate countermeasure evolves in predators, that could very well leave them “in control”.

13

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Just to add to insect biology preventing a similar form of intelligence, there’s also something they share with most fish; breeding habits. If you look at amount of offspring versus lifespan over the entire animal kingdom, you’ll see that generally those creatures which live for longer have less offspring in each pregnancy. It makes sense, really; it’s a lot harder to pass on your genes as an insect than it is a human, since we have much more time to do so in.
[/QUOTE]

Having more offspring does not make it harder to pass on your genes.

Also, there is no reason that insects couldn’t evolve in to species that produce fewer offspring per generation. But that isn’t really a matter that affects intelligence anyway. Octopi and squid are highly intelligent mollusks that produce large numbers of eggs every generation.

14

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
If cockroaches were to rule the world, they would be forced to do so in a way almost unrecognisably different from humans; perhaps that seems obvious anyway.
[/QUOTE]
For all we know, roaches think they ARE ruling the world. They go anywhere and always seem to thrive there; what else is there, if you’re a roach? It’s not like they have a culture or anything.

15

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Having more offspring does not make it harder to pass on your genes.
[/quote]
I meant rather that it’s harder to pass on your genes if you’ve got a short lifespan because, well, there’s not much time to do it in. Having more offspring obviously makes it much easier. I was just pointing out that in general the two are inversely correlated; more kids, shorter lifespan, and vice versa.

There is reason for them not to evolve that way; they’d much more easily die out. If you’re taking about a change in evolutionary pressures to the point where more = bad, then yes, they could.

As for octupi and squid; I agree. But this also agrees with what i’m saying; short lifespans generally mean more kids. Both octupi and squid have lifespans that are short (but between insects and humans) and large numbers of offspring (again, between insects and humans). Their intelligence can be predicted as being between humans and insects also from these two pieces of data; and that’s actually the case. Their intelligence is higher than what you’d predict, but I am talking generalities; there are clearly many evolutionary pressures to take into affect; for example, octupi die soon after mating, and so only get one shot at passing on their genes. I’m merely saying that, in general, shorter lifespans = more kids = less “human-style” intelligence.

16

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If you look at amount of offspring versus lifespan over the entire animal kingdom, you’ll see that generally those creatures which live for longer have less offspring in each pregnancy. It makes sense, really; it’s a lot harder to pass on your genes as an insect than it is a human, since we have much more time to do so in.
[/QUOTE]

And there’s another reason: They’re so small.

Gary Larson cartoon: Mother insect addressing her horde of offspring. “Of course, long before you reach maturity, most of you will be eaten.”

17

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
If you look at amount of offspring versus lifespan over the entire animal kingdom, you’ll see that generally those creatures which live for longer have less offspring in each pregnancy.
[/quote]

That simply isn’t true. It might apply to closely relate species, but it is in no way true for the animal kingdom as a whole. Some of the more obvious counterexamples:

Sponges are essentially immortal yet generally produce millions of offspring each season.

Many parasitic flatworms live for decades an d produce thousands of eggs each day

Many fishes live for centuries yet produces hundreds or thousands of eggs each season.

Many reptiles, notably chelonians, live for centuries yet lay dozens or hundreds of eggs each year.

Many molluscs will live for decades or centuries and produce thousands of eggs each season.

Many parrots live for decades yet produce 6 or more eggs each year.

Macropods have an average lifespan of less than 5 years yet produce just single young.

I really can’t see any justification whatsoever in a claim that for the animal kingdom as a whole fecundity if correlated to lifespan.

That quite clearly isn’t true. If it were true there would be fewer insects genome than human genomes. In fact the exact opposite is true.

Once again, I can’t see any way this could be justified. Sponges are not more intelligent than robins. Fish are not more intelligent than rats. Lifespan really has no effect on intelligence.

Well no, it wouldn’t, since disease and competition are the primary determinants of population size and species success, not predation. A species with no natural predators would very likely end up like the kakapo or dodo: rare, slow to reproduce and extremely dull witted. Far less in control then close relatives that have numerous predators.

18

Fair enough; I withdraw…pretty much everything I said. Oh well, at least I’ve learned.

19

From one of my favorite classic columns:

“Before we continue with this discussion of “vermin,” I feel obliged to remind you, in fairness to the little buggers, that cockroaches are among the most primitive insects known to science–they beat you to the planet a good 300,000,000 years ago. Thus we might reasonably inquire who is infesting whom.”

20

[QUOTE=mr. jp]
Could you give us a cite for this claim, or at least some kind of argument?

And bacteria is not really a “race” or “species” but a domain, which means many different species.
[/QUOTE]
Ya’know, I doubt that the op meant race in either the strict biologic taxonomic meaning nor the typical sociologic one. What part do you want a cite for? Numbers of organisms? Or the logic that they control us more than we do them?

And yeah BG that thread does cover it pretty well, but anymore about the ME and I’ll vomit. I’ll rehash this!

My point jp is basic: there has never been an Age of Man or an Age of the Dinosaurs. Bacteria and bugs have always ruled. The only way to claim that we rule is to define success as being like us. Intelligence is overrated. It costs a lot to maintain and rarely is worth the cost. The vast majority of the time life has existed on this planet it has existed without organisms all that bright. Civilization is just a flash in the pan. And may very well show itself to be an evolutionary dead end before long on a plantary time scale. Bacteria and bugs have been here with the same basic successful design before us and will exist without us. In many cases we cannot exist without them but they rarely need us. We carry them places. We create new niches for them to exploit.

They rule. We serve.