Symbiotic relationships among species are a bit rarer. That is, a truly symbiotic relationship in which two species have adapted their interaction behavior such that both benefit from the relationship is not terribly common. Certain species of ants, for example, will maintain farms of aphids. The ants provide food and protection for the aphids, and the aphids in turn produce an excess of sugar laced honeydew that the ants gather for food. In this relationship, both species derive a direct benefit from the others’ behavior; one species is not a direct predator of the other.

Parasitic interactions connect different species through relationships in which one species derives some essential benefit from the other species without providing a reciprocal benefit in return. In many instances, a parasite may well be detrimental to its host species, but perhaps not to the extent of causing the death of the host. Thus, the relationship can last over multiple generations of the two species. Large vertebrate species carry invertebrate parasites within their digestive or cardiac circulatory systems.

Finally, we come to the predatory relationships that define much of our conceptualization of nature. Many ecosystems have evolved complex food chains that encompass the interaction types that we are discussing. Throughout such food chains we might well observe a variety of predatory relationships and their subsequent interaction types. We’re well aware of the predatory nature of large carnivores given the innate fear that most members of the human species have for them; “Lions and tigers and bears; Oh my!” But, predators and prey exist at all levels within ecosystems, as the poem, usually attributed to Jonathan Swift, says:

Big bugs have little bugs
Upon their backs to bit’em.
And little bugs have littler bugs,
And so ad infinitum.

Within a physical ecosystem, success of a species may be measured by the number of members of that species found. To achieve that number, there are no a priori limits on the actions or behavior of members of any specific species in their interactions with members of other species. Eat or be eaten is probably a pretty good catch phrase for operating within such an ecosystem. However, the interactions among species and within species are replete with examples of sacrifice and behavior that we view as altruistic when we give it an anthropomorphic guise.

A mother bear will challenge much larger male bears if she feels they are threatening her cubs. Male penguins sit for months without eating in order to incubate an egg in the frozen reaches of Antarctica. And birds, both mothers and fathers, will work incessantly to forage for food to feed their nestlings. However, such higher-order behaviors are subject to the satisfaction of lower-order needs. A mother gazelle may abandon her young if it is unable, perhaps due to injury or illness, to keep up with the movement of the herd from which the mother derives protection and support. Many other counter examples to apparent altruistic behavior exist as well. Some species will actually eat their young if they encounter them following their birth. Male bears are known to attack cubs in some instances. And, sometimes birds will abandon their nests for yet unknown reasons. Such examples serve to illustrate that full understanding of inter- and intra-species interactions is not warranted; however, a variety of models have been suggested for various species. Since the primary objects of our interest are humans, computers, their groupings and their interactions, we will concentrate our discussion in these areas.

Book available at Midori Press (regular)
Book available at Midori Press (signed)
Book available at Amazon (regular)