Thank you for this rich contribution and insight into the many ant species and their activities.

When I once went on holiday on Mallorca, we were well advised not to leave any open food lying around in our holiday home. After we hadn't even thought about it for the first day and came back to the house, there were many ant roads on the ground that ran up the kitchen counter to collect the crumbs. We quickly agreed that we didn't like to share the room with the ants and locked everything edible and swept the floor clean when we left. Afterwards not a single ant was to be seen any more, although they were of course nevertheless somewhere outside of our view. Their presence didn't bother me much. In such an environment the ants educate one to cleanliness, so much was certain.

The usefulness and harmfulness of ants depends, it seems, on how much useful and harmful things they find for themselves. When the biosphere is in balance and its natural enemies and friends are present, no ant is a problem. So I wonder which of their natural enemies are not present in the territories they conquered. Which in turn raises the question of whose food an environment does not provide. The less the food chain is maintained, the less organisms stand between us and the ants. Did your research provide any information about the natural enemies that kept the ant population in check in a relevant way? And here it becomes clear once again that the gross intervention and exposure of predators by humans can only create a new imbalance if it is not based on a permacultural thought that not only has the animals in view, but also the plants.

It seems to be of the greatest difficulty to artificially create such a balance and this is probably the human tragedy that we as creators of our environment have dared to venture so far out that we are no longer accustomed to sharing our habitat with animals and plants, since if nature gets too close to us, we have to reckon with all possible diseases and dangers. But of course, nothing that man does makes him really safe. And where a danger is eliminated, a new one is created by man himself on himself.

Your Youtube example, which shows how ants defend their habitat against elephants, shows once again that basically any species - whether mammal, cold-blooded animal, insect or plant - can become dangerous.

For me this raises the question whether humans, like all other living creatures, simply try to dominate their habitat and behave like ants and elephants. Which at the same time leaves us wondering: Which living being actually keeps humans in check? We also know the creepy answer: the smallest of all: viruses and bacteria.

Well then: I have been walking on earth for almost fifty years. How can I claim that my death or that of many others due to an infectious disease does not contribute to the natural balance? This may sound macabre, but this way of seeing it may not be the worst. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I think it would be good if my loved ones or myself had to suffer. Intervention is necessary and meaningful, but assault is less so.