this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
35 points (94.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
1013 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whatever the equivalent word would be. Leader, chief, boss, it doesn't really matter.
As long as the concept of a single leader existed, it would have been applied to something like bees. Wouldn't need monarchies to recognize a central focus of an insect group, and pick the closest word for that.
You could maybe argue that there might be some alien species that had no concept of ever needing a decision maker, and they would have to coin a new word for the main reproductive entity of a hive. Something like mother might be used, if the aliens had that concept at all. Perhaps "generator" would be a close enough equivalent that the imaginary aliens would be almost certain to have a similar enough concept.
But humans had a concept of needing someone to make decisions about things way back. So I don't think it's a realistic enough idea to say that in the absence of monarchy that we wouldn't have some kind of term for a person in charge.