At least two of the authors are also avid chiropterologists, with an understood penchant for bunkers and other such spaces.
One summer in my late teens I sat with two of them in an urban park in NW Poland drinking beer, watching bats getting caught in a net half-submerged in water near a bridge and engaging in impromptu comedy with passers-by asking questions like "good catch? any fish?". Good times.
Engaging in field research is a wonderfully rewarding experience, a great way to spend time, meet people and do something meaningful at the same time. If you've never done it - do it. There are plenty of volunteering opportunities - you don't need to be a scientist. Birding, insects, marine life, whatever. Citizen science is also great, but if you get a chance to work alongside scientists, it gets even better. 10/10 good walk, unspoilt.
It's how I grew up. Both of my parents are naturalists and our home often served as a base camp for assorted weirdos counting, collecting or surveying things and I would have probably done the same if it wasn't for what this guy Torvalds unleashed in the 90s.
Nature clubs, in germany the BUND for instance. They organize guided tours and introductions, are full of enthusiasts and are happy for any newcomer to tell them all about the various ways to participate.
(This is also where ecology academics do networking)
The amount of potential food in the bunker, suitable for wood ants, is not known, but the smaller arthropods living there could hardly be enough to allow the workers both temperature regulation of the mound and feeding of offspring.
Certainly, but not in any meaningfully sustainable sense. Entropy rules all. Only a fraction of energy and nutrients are recoverable from food. And once an organism spends energy, it's gone forever.
Without a continuous external supply of food, the colony will starve in short order.
I suppose over time the mass of dead ants will start to decompose into a fertile medium providing energy for other species, which in turn might be foraged by the ants?
I wish the scientists had left a plank or a string leading to the ventilation hole, so the ants could get out, at least to forage for more food. But then again, it would have spoiled this "natural" experiment.
They can't climb all surfaces. They especially can't climb on dirty and dusty surfaces or crumbling paint.
But more than that, they fell into the hole without leaving a pheromone trail to follow back to the nest. Without that, they have no way of navigating. Only random exploration could get them back out, and that would only help one ant at a time.
A unique accumulation of workers (‘colony’) of the wood ant Formica polyctena Först., trapped within an old bunker for storing nuclear weapons, is described. The source of the ‘colony’ is a large colony nesting outdoors, on top of the bunker. Individuals that have fallen down through a ventilation pipe are not able to find their way back to the mother nest.
The dictatorship of proletariat but for ants, and inside a Soviet bunker of course. Sometimes I see why people find the idea that there's no God incredulous.
> Two underground two-level ammunition bunkers, 300 metres apart (26 m × 42 m each), which constituted the core of the base and where nuclear weapons were kept, have survived (Sadowski 2011, Rutko 2015).
Interestingly this is a "Soviet" bunker in western Poland. A Warsaw Pact bunker?
Also, I didn't think that Soviet policy was to store nuclear weapons in Poland - not sure if this quote is accurate or if this was just more common than I had thought?
It was likely similar to the warhead storage bunkers in Czech Republic (or Czechoslovaki back then), most likely intended for tactical nuclear weapons, like Scuds or maybe for aircraft as well:
Of course the Soviets (who were exclusively running and guarding those bunkers back then) never confirmed what they were used to or if they contained live nuclear weapons. But it is clear that this was the intended use case, given the storage conditions, the expens to build & run those as well as how heavily they were guarded.
Successful military spending always appears to be "wasted" if you think the point is to use weapons. War means that your defense strategy has failed, peace means that it has succeeded. Never having to use what was stored in those bunkers means that they served their purpose.
By this logic people can justify almost anything. I can say that we should’ve sent dinosaur clones to the moon because otherwise something bad is going to happen. Then we send the dinosaurs to the moon and nothing bad happens, and it justifies the action.
It’s the same insanity gun owners use justifying bringing weapons everywhere they go.
I simply don’t buy the argument, though I do see your point about deterrence
Might you have heard the old saw "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands"?
Military spending is similar - you want security at the minimum cost.
Unfortunately, military conflicts (real and potential) have vastly more complexity and uncertainty than the gravity, wind, traffic loads, etc. that a bridge has to withstand. And even a nation's best experts (generally its senior military officers) generally have motives at odds with minimum-cost security for their nation.
People think of Warsaw Pact as an alliance akin to NATO but opposite. In reality it was essentially Soviet Army padded with national units of subjugated countries. For instance there is NATO HQ as everyone knows but Warsaw Pact headquarters never existed: the chain of command started in Ministry of Defense in Moscow.
And yes tactical nukes were forward deployed to most Pact countries.
By "nuclear weapon" most people think of a bomb, but it can also mean the non-bomb portions of nuclear delivery systems such as rocket/missile bodies and aircraft. In times of rising conflict they could "forward-deploy" the warheads from Russia to be mated to rockets and such already in the field. So the peacetime "no nukes in Poland" policy can be true even though "nuclear weapons" were already waiting in bunkers there.
The west did basically the same thing. Not every "nuclear weapon bunker" at every American base actually held warheads.
In the Czechoslovak case those bunkers were definitely for the warheads - far too small for a whole Scud missile, air conditioned, etc. The delivery mechanisms were notionally conventional & are documented as stationed elsewhere.
It was in those bunkers where the warheads would be (were ?) stored in the time of crisis as a forward deployment.
What does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" have to do with a bunch of ants falling through a hole in the ground? Is it because worker ants are called "worker" ants? Is a dictatorship when you fall down a hole and are left without a queen or any resources?
God could be imagined illustrating why we need queens and resources in a Soviet bunker because the Soviets believed there shouldn't be queens, or resources? Did the Soviets actually believe that there shouldn't be any natural resources? Are human "queens" our only source of reproduction?
This is really supposed to be an instructive metaphor for what happens when people who work are left to their own devices in a barren place, and that's supposed to make us reflect on the Soviet Union?
Don't worry, I know the answer: They're called "workers" and the situation is bad. The Soviets said that they were a society of "workers" and the Soviets were bad. Deep.
Maybe eventually the earthen mound they have constructed will reach the level of the hole they're falling through, and they'll be able to rejoin the main colony?
Flat parts of the earthen mound and the floor of the adjacent spaces were carpeted with bodies of dead ants. Locally the deposits were a few centimetres thick. (...) the number of dead Formica polyctena workers probably amounted to about two million. The cemeteries comprised also remnants of other insects, most probably those caught by foragers of the free-living upper colony that had fallen down. Of other ants, only a head of the Leptothorax sp. worker was found.
"Ah yes, that small speck of chitin among 2 million other corpses is obviously a head of the Leptothorax sp. worker."
I also found this part hilarious. It’s not even a needle in a haystack, more like one specific needle in a…big pile of needles, I guess. Except the needles are microscopic, fragile and fragmentary.
Human looks around office. Single access-controlled door. Windows obscured by blinds. Suspended ceiling with lighting panels. Short sightlines due to desk partitions.
Shudders and turns back to the screens and the work. Can't leave yet.
I too was thinking of how we’ve also lost our way and seem to be completely in the dark and unable to even realize what’s wrong and how to solve the problems. We are just continuing to build the mound because that’s supposed to be our job.
Well I'll be.
At least two of the authors are also avid chiropterologists, with an understood penchant for bunkers and other such spaces.
One summer in my late teens I sat with two of them in an urban park in NW Poland drinking beer, watching bats getting caught in a net half-submerged in water near a bridge and engaging in impromptu comedy with passers-by asking questions like "good catch? any fish?". Good times.
Engaging in field research is a wonderfully rewarding experience, a great way to spend time, meet people and do something meaningful at the same time. If you've never done it - do it. There are plenty of volunteering opportunities - you don't need to be a scientist. Birding, insects, marine life, whatever. Citizen science is also great, but if you get a chance to work alongside scientists, it gets even better. 10/10 good walk, unspoilt.
I love this!
> A ‘colony’ of Formica polyctena was found in January 2013, during winter counts of hibernating bats in the underground bunker.
And all makes sense
How did you get involved with field-working scientists, what initiated the social connection or desire to do so?
It's how I grew up. Both of my parents are naturalists and our home often served as a base camp for assorted weirdos counting, collecting or surveying things and I would have probably done the same if it wasn't for what this guy Torvalds unleashed in the 90s.
Where might one get started with citizen science as an outsider?
Nature clubs, in germany the BUND for instance. They organize guided tours and introductions, are full of enthusiasts and are happy for any newcomer to tell them all about the various ways to participate.
(This is also where ecology academics do networking)
> The ‘colony’ has evidently produced no offspring, which is due to low (though relatively stable) temperatures and scanty food in the bunker.
Isn't it due to the lack of the queen? Colony of worker ants is a dead end
They mentioned that a queen or brood ant might fall into the bunker occasionally but the low temperatures would prevent breeding in that case.
I think some acrobat ant colonies have more than one queen.
The amount of potential food in the bunker, suitable for wood ants, is not known, but the smaller arthropods living there could hardly be enough to allow the workers both temperature regulation of the mound and feeding of offspring.
Is cannibalism a possibility?
Certainly, but not in any meaningfully sustainable sense. Entropy rules all. Only a fraction of energy and nutrients are recoverable from food. And once an organism spends energy, it's gone forever.
Without a continuous external supply of food, the colony will starve in short order.
But there's a continuous external supply of new ants, hence a food supply, if I understand parent comment correctly.
I suppose over time the mass of dead ants will start to decompose into a fertile medium providing energy for other species, which in turn might be foraged by the ants?
This article keeps coming to the front page every few years; and every few years I keep opening it to look at the pictures.
It's just that fascinating!
I wish the scientists had left a plank or a string leading to the ventilation hole, so the ants could get out, at least to forage for more food. But then again, it would have spoiled this "natural" experiment.
Perhaps entomologists have a Prime Directive.
Yes. The prime directive is not to obstruct the system that is a source of research papers ;-)
I still wonder why they don't just leave? I mean, aren't ants capable of walking on the ceiling and up the pipe? What keeps them?
They can't climb all surfaces. They especially can't climb on dirty and dusty surfaces or crumbling paint.
But more than that, they fell into the hole without leaving a pheromone trail to follow back to the nest. Without that, they have no way of navigating. Only random exploration could get them back out, and that would only help one ant at a time.
Picture of the bunker where the ants live: https://jhr.pensoft.net/article/9096/zoom/fig/11/
I'm glad I don't think that ants have self-awareness, because this sounds like hell.
I'm sorry[0].
0 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50312658
A unique accumulation of workers (‘colony’) of the wood ant Formica polyctena Först., trapped within an old bunker for storing nuclear weapons, is described. The source of the ‘colony’ is a large colony nesting outdoors, on top of the bunker. Individuals that have fallen down through a ventilation pipe are not able to find their way back to the mother nest.
The dictatorship of proletariat but for ants, and inside a Soviet bunker of course. Sometimes I see why people find the idea that there's no God incredulous.
> Two underground two-level ammunition bunkers, 300 metres apart (26 m × 42 m each), which constituted the core of the base and where nuclear weapons were kept, have survived (Sadowski 2011, Rutko 2015).
Interestingly this is a "Soviet" bunker in western Poland. A Warsaw Pact bunker?
Also, I didn't think that Soviet policy was to store nuclear weapons in Poland - not sure if this quote is accurate or if this was just more common than I had thought?
It was likely similar to the warhead storage bunkers in Czech Republic (or Czechoslovaki back then), most likely intended for tactical nuclear weapons, like Scuds or maybe for aircraft as well:
https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/top-secret-cold-war...
https://www.rferl.org/a/24993733.html
https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/18/czech-cold-war-depot-for...
Of course the Soviets (who were exclusively running and guarding those bunkers back then) never confirmed what they were used to or if they contained live nuclear weapons. But it is clear that this was the intended use case, given the storage conditions, the expens to build & run those as well as how heavily they were guarded.
Same in Hungary: https://worldwidepanorama.org/wwp1208/BanfalvyZoltan-5060.ht...
"This is a special storage facility, type Granit 2 (or 3), designed for A-bombs."
Not sure if it's true, but the article says these nukes were meant for Italy.
I find these bunkers fascinating. I've always wanted to explore one.
Amazing how much money was wasted on these only to be staffed for years and then abandoned.
Successful military spending always appears to be "wasted" if you think the point is to use weapons. War means that your defense strategy has failed, peace means that it has succeeded. Never having to use what was stored in those bunkers means that they served their purpose.
By this logic people can justify almost anything. I can say that we should’ve sent dinosaur clones to the moon because otherwise something bad is going to happen. Then we send the dinosaurs to the moon and nothing bad happens, and it justifies the action.
It’s the same insanity gun owners use justifying bringing weapons everywhere they go.
I simply don’t buy the argument, though I do see your point about deterrence
Might you have heard the old saw "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands"?
Military spending is similar - you want security at the minimum cost.
Unfortunately, military conflicts (real and potential) have vastly more complexity and uncertainty than the gravity, wind, traffic loads, etc. that a bridge has to withstand. And even a nation's best experts (generally its senior military officers) generally have motives at odds with minimum-cost security for their nation.
Si vis pacem para bellum.
No snark intended, but if you see his point then you do seem to buy his argument
I have a rock that cures cancer.
People think of Warsaw Pact as an alliance akin to NATO but opposite. In reality it was essentially Soviet Army padded with national units of subjugated countries. For instance there is NATO HQ as everyone knows but Warsaw Pact headquarters never existed: the chain of command started in Ministry of Defense in Moscow.
And yes tactical nukes were forward deployed to most Pact countries.
By "nuclear weapon" most people think of a bomb, but it can also mean the non-bomb portions of nuclear delivery systems such as rocket/missile bodies and aircraft. In times of rising conflict they could "forward-deploy" the warheads from Russia to be mated to rockets and such already in the field. So the peacetime "no nukes in Poland" policy can be true even though "nuclear weapons" were already waiting in bunkers there.
The west did basically the same thing. Not every "nuclear weapon bunker" at every American base actually held warheads.
In the Czechoslovak case those bunkers were definitely for the warheads - far too small for a whole Scud missile, air conditioned, etc. The delivery mechanisms were notionally conventional & are documented as stationed elsewhere.
It was in those bunkers where the warheads would be (were ?) stored in the time of crisis as a forward deployment.
The ants are two weeks away from going nuclear.
Ant expert E.O.Wilson once said of communism: "Great idea. Wrong species"
Funny you say that when literally a few stories away on HN first page, you have this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50388122
What does the "dictatorship of the proletariat" have to do with a bunch of ants falling through a hole in the ground? Is it because worker ants are called "worker" ants? Is a dictatorship when you fall down a hole and are left without a queen or any resources?
God could be imagined illustrating why we need queens and resources in a Soviet bunker because the Soviets believed there shouldn't be queens, or resources? Did the Soviets actually believe that there shouldn't be any natural resources? Are human "queens" our only source of reproduction?
This is really supposed to be an instructive metaphor for what happens when people who work are left to their own devices in a barren place, and that's supposed to make us reflect on the Soviet Union?
Don't worry, I know the answer: They're called "workers" and the situation is bad. The Soviets said that they were a society of "workers" and the Soviets were bad. Deep.
I grew up in the Soviet Union so am entitled to whatever dab on communism can come up with.
name checks out
Maybe eventually the earthen mound they have constructed will reach the level of the hole they're falling through, and they'll be able to rejoin the main colony?
Flat parts of the earthen mound and the floor of the adjacent spaces were carpeted with bodies of dead ants. Locally the deposits were a few centimetres thick. (...) the number of dead Formica polyctena workers probably amounted to about two million. The cemeteries comprised also remnants of other insects, most probably those caught by foragers of the free-living upper colony that had fallen down. Of other ants, only a head of the Leptothorax sp. worker was found.
"Ah yes, that small speck of chitin among 2 million other corpses is obviously a head of the Leptothorax sp. worker."
I also found this part hilarious. It’s not even a needle in a haystack, more like one specific needle in a…big pile of needles, I guess. Except the needles are microscopic, fragile and fragmentary.
Presumably entomologists are good at accurately identifying small bits of ants.
[narrator] This was not a story about ants.
It’s definitely a metaphor for something, but I don’t know what.
Human looks around office. Single access-controlled door. Windows obscured by blinds. Suspended ceiling with lighting panels. Short sightlines due to desk partitions.
Shudders and turns back to the screens and the work. Can't leave yet.
I too was thinking of how we’ve also lost our way and seem to be completely in the dark and unable to even realize what’s wrong and how to solve the problems. We are just continuing to build the mound because that’s supposed to be our job.
116 comments back in 2019 -
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21481852
Wow, life will find its way
Needless sensationalism: I didnt find the term “cannibalistic” on the source page.
"Living beyond the limits of survival" is certainly dramatic enough, and there's no hyperbole in it.