The term was literally coined in an analysis of human social interaction by Herbert Spencer in his book “Principles of Sociology”. The term was created to describe humanity.
You’re carrying out a similar fallacy by claiming use of the term in its original field is illigitimate in this argument. On top of that, right on the wikipedia page for Eusociality, it states that biologists such as E.O. Wilson have previously argued that humans are weakly eusocial, weakening your whole argument in the first place.
The concept of humans as super-organisms is explored in both sociology and biology, and i’d argue that that means humans fit the bill. Whatever no-true-Scotsman version you’ve been gate keeping with doesn’t even fully agree with the field you’re supposedly arguing on the behalf of.
No collective of humans is a superorganism by a longshot.
The term was literally coined in an analysis of human social interaction by Herbert Spencer in his book “Principles of Sociology”. The term was created to describe humanity.
From the 19th century, who coined term super-organic.
It has practically nothing to do with the biological concept involving eusociality. So, no, humans aren’t eusocial creatures: etymological fallacy.
You’re carrying out a similar fallacy by claiming use of the term in its original field is illigitimate in this argument. On top of that, right on the wikipedia page for Eusociality, it states that biologists such as E.O. Wilson have previously argued that humans are weakly eusocial, weakening your whole argument in the first place.
The concept of humans as super-organisms is explored in both sociology and biology, and i’d argue that that means humans fit the bill. Whatever no-true-Scotsman version you’ve been gate keeping with doesn’t even fully agree with the field you’re supposedly arguing on the behalf of.