Biology

September 13, 2026 Lead Investigator: Simon Frye

What if ants had human-like intellect?

Who would prevail in a war—ants or humans? It all comes down to which has greater important in war: manpower or amount of men.

Field explored: Biology, mathematics, military science, philosophy

But before we explore

MAKE YOUR PREDICTION.

Will humans…

A.) Lose to the ants?

B.) Win against the ants?

C.) Make peace with the ants

D.) Do something else?

Our predictions

“The ants would win because humanity would fail to unite against them.”

“The humans would win because we overestimate our own intelligence, were not that smart.”

THE RULES

1.) Ants will stay the same size.

2.) The ants will want to attack humans for world domination.

3.) The change will happen instantly.

4.) The mechanism that could do this will be ignored.

WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW FIRST

Global Population of Ants

Population = 20 quadrillion

That is 20,000,000,000,000,000 ants. With a human population of roughly 8 billion people, that is 2.5 million ants per person.

Human Military Capabilities

27,000,000 active duty soldiers

Alongside this vast amount of soldiers, we spend almost 3 trillion dollars per year as a species on military expenditures. Will that be enough for the ants?

So…What happens?

This is majorly conceptual because there is no real way of telling exactly what would happen, but based on my research I have a decent guess. I do not believe that ants would emerge victorious in this battle. In fact, I don’t think it would reach a conclusion. There is no real feasible way ants could cause real, widespread damage to humans, and there is no real way for us to kill 20 quadrillion ants without killing ourselves in the process.

Ants would have no real way of harming us on a large scale directly, no matter how smart they are. If given enough time, they could develop the technology needed to do so, but that took us humans thousands of years to do. Just because they are as smart as us does not mean they could understand our language or much less our writing, so it is not like they could learn from our existing technology through writing or communication. 2.5 million ants per person sounds like quite the large amount, but it really isn’t. That mass of ants would weigh about 15 pounds, and take up the space of a watermelon on the larger side. Now they could certainly kill a human, as ants have been known to attack the sensory organs of their opponents. They would likely target the eyes of humans, and it would be incredibly coordinated through their increased intelligence. But humans could an incredibly large amount of ants very quickly without weapons, and a simple can of bug spray would deal even more damage to an army.

Ants do not have a real way of harming us indirectly, either. At first I thought they would simply target our food supply and starve us to death, but that would take far too much time before we would retaliate. See, the average ant eats around 1mg of food a day, but we produce over 10 trillion kilograms of food globally. In other words, it would take ants hundreds, or even thousands of years to eat this amount of food. Their more serious threat would therefore be disrupting food production and distribution rather than literally eating humanity’s food. That said, insecticides could be produced on a global scale once we become aware of what is occurring, and I predict that their plan would likely be shut down moderately quickly. But then I thought they could infiltrate our digital system. They may get inside computers, radio system, or possibly even sabotage power grids. But even if assuming they could figure out what those were and how they work, this would not spell the end for our species. We are fully capable of surviving on an analog system, though it would be incredibly inconvenient and likely devastating to the economy. Even then, we would likely develop countermeasures to these attacks by ants, which we technically already have. Some ants are already attracted to electromagnetic fields, so this is an existing problem today that we have developed solutions for via chemical-infused plastic compounding, which is basically insect repellant on the hardware.

Now, on to why it would be a stalemate. Humans would be capable of causing mass destruction to the ants. We would likely develop much more powerful insecticides, especially aerosol cans like existing bug sprays. Perhaps we would even use flamethrowers, but that may do more harm than good. Regardless, we don’t have a way to combat them underground. It has been suggested that a large amount of ants live underground, likely much more than the estimated population we have now. We have bombs or chemicals that could kill them, but that would destroy our lands and likely our food supply too because that is where many of them would be likely to live. Then there is just the sheer number of them. They quite literally cover the Earth, living in every continent except Antarctica. They could live in the very walls of our homes and we would have no idea. The point is, any technology we could develop to deal damage to these ants or even completely eradicate them would do considerable damage to us, too. Also another factor we must consider is the change in mindset these ants are going to have. With human intelligence, we can only assume that these ants are going to be conscious and in turn capable of thinking for themselves. Would they even want to risk trillions of lives just for world domination? Human intelligence does not guarantee human morality with it, and it is very possible for the ants to retain their “protect the colony at all costs” mindset that they have suggested to posses. This scenario only works if we assume that is what they want, the protect the hive. But in a real scenario, it is entirely possible for the ants to fear death just as much as we do now. Under the assumptions of this scenario, a prolonged stalemate appears more plausible than total victory by either species. There is no gain from either side in waging war, because the losses outweigh the benefits on very large scales. Maybe this would even cause world peace for humans, because we could start hating another species instead of each other. But then maybe we become friends with the ants. Like I said, there really is no way of telling what would truly happen.

What surprised us?

I had originally thought that there would simply be too many ants for each person to handle, yet 2.5 million ants is much smaller than I anticipated—being about the size of a large watermelon. Even if they were fully spread out they would only be about the size of an average bedroom (15m²). I was imagining a tidal wave of ants every human on Earth would have to deal with.

WEIRD QUESTIONS TO REAL RESEARCH

Scientists actually study…

The behaviors of different ant species

Ants’ attraction to electrical fields

Superorganisms and eusociology

Pheromones that ants are attracted to

Swarm intelligence

Want to keep exploring?

RELATED CONCEPTS

  • Sociology

  • Military Science

  • Evolutionary Trade-offs

  • Strength in Numbers

  • Anthropocentrism

You might also like…

WHAT IF HUMANS COULD PHOTOSYNTHESIZE?

Could you sit on your windowsill and skip breakfast? Biochemistry isn’t the problem, but the surface area of humans may be a challenge.

WHAT IF HUMANS’ HANDS AND FEET SWTICHED PLACES?

Would this just be a mild inconvenience, or would the world end?

HAVE A BETTER QUESTION?