Thaindian discusses new findings that indicate Brazilian (Forelius pusillus) ants may have a form of self-sacrifice to ensure the general welfare of their colony:
The authors said that given the typical nest populations of 100,000, the sacrifice of up to eight workers a night is worth paying for the security of the nest.
Tofilski said that the ants are probably older workers approaching death who are more dispensable than their younger nest mates, and so are programmed to perform riskier tasks as they age.
The OCRegister.com has a nicely written opinion piece on California’s Proposition 8:
The state Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental individual right that must be provided equally to all people desiring to marry. Allowing same-sex couples to share in this right does not denigrate or degrade the marriages of the vast majority of people who enter into the traditional man-woman form of marriage. It strikes us as simple fairness.
[…]
In an ideal world, the state would have little or no role in defining or regulating so intimate a relationship as marriage. However, the state has inserted itself into all too many aspects of our private lives. Given that it has done so, it is only fair that it afford equal protection to all who choose to make loving lifelong commitments to one another. We recommend a “no” vote on Prop. 8.
They raise a good point. Interesting to see such a notoriously “conservative” community paper take a stand for progress. Given that, why should a regulatory body be asked to deny equal-protection by constitution? What harm, or risk, is being addressed by Proposition 8? The Proposition seems like a colossal waste of time and energy, to me, especially compared with more pressing issues of real economic and social consequence like privacy, health care and education.
Just like corporations have come to assume rights like people under law, The Guardian reports Ecuadorians are facing a vote on whether to assign similar rights to natural-entities:
The South American republic of Ecuador will next week consider what many countries in the world would say is unthinkable. People will be asked to vote on Sunday on a new constitution that would give Ecuador’s tropical forests, islands, rivers and air similar legal rights to those normally granted to humans. If they vote yes – and polls show that 56% are for and only 23% are against – then an already approved bill of rights for nature will be introduced, and new laws will change the legal status of nature from being simply property to being a right-bearing entity.
Note, legal rights are granted to corporations as well and not just granted to humans. This appears to me the foundation for this action. Apparently the impact of pollution by multi-national corporations is such that Ecuador is looking for a way to offset and recoup the national security budget.