Years ago, I believed that humans were the only species capable of deep cruelty—that behaviors like slavery, war, and exploitation were exclusive to our kind. But as I learned more about animal behavior, I discovered that many of the traits we often think of as uniquely human—deception, coercion, even forced labor—also exist in the natural world. What surprised me most was finding real examples of what scientists call animal slavery in nature”, where some species exploit others through instinct-driven strategies that mirror our own systems of control.
This realization doesn’t diminish the historical and moral weight of human slavery, which remains one of the most devastating injustices in our collective past. Rather, it raised questions for me as a natural-born overthinker of the wild:
Are there equivalents to slavery in the animal kingdom? If so, what do they look like—and how do they evolve?
Even in daily life, the lines blur. My husband and I often joke that our pets live like royalty while we serve them—feeding, cleaning, and accommodating their every whim. It’s a light-hearted thought, but it got me wondering more seriously:
In human-animal relationships, who really serves whom? And what counts as enslavement across species lines?
These questions led me to a deep dive into the scientific literature, where I found surprising answers, from slave-making ants to brood-parasitic birds.
This article explores those natural phenomena—always with care to separate biological function from moral comparison. If you’re curious about what animal slavery really means, how it evolves, and how it differs from human systems, this literature-based exploration might surprise you.
Defining Slavery in Human and Animal Contexts
Slavery is defined differently across disciplines:
History & Sociology: Human slavery is a system of forced labor, ownership, and social hierarchy, often upheld by violence and legal structures.
Biology & Ecology: In nature, slavery is called social parasitism, where one species forces another into labor through chemical manipulation, deception, or physical control.
Philosophy & Ethics: Some argue that animal slavery lacks moral agency, as animals do not conceptualize freedom or oppression.
Anthropology & Evolutionary Science: Studies explore how dominance and coercion exist in primates and other animals, though these lack the systemic organization of human slavery.
[1][2][3][4]
How can slavery in the animal kingdom be defined?
Slavery in the animal kingdom is a form of social parasitism where one species coerces, manipulates, or forces individuals of another species (or their own) to perform labor or provide resources. This behavior evolves through natural selection and is driven by mechanisms such as chemical control, aggression, or deception. Unlike human slavery, which is a socio-political construct, animal slavery is purely biological and instinct-driven, arising when it benefits the enslaving species’ survival and reproduction. It often occurs in eusocial insects and parasitic relationships, where the enslaved individuals provide workforce, parental care, or resource collection without benefiting themselves.
[3][5][6]
Are there different forms or levels of slavery in animals?
Yes, slavery in animals varies based on dependency, duration, method of control, and whether it occurs within or between species:
- Intraspecific vs. Interspecific Slavery:
- Intraspecific slavery occurs within the same species, where dominant individuals force subordinates into labor (e.g., some termite colonies).
- Interspecific slavery happens between species, such as in slave-making ants (Polyergus spp.), which raid other ant colonies and force the captured workers to serve them.
- Obligate vs. Facultative Slavery:
- Obligate slave-makers (e.g., Polyergus ants) cannot survive without enslaved workers.
- Facultative slave-makers (e.g., Formica sanguinea) can live independently but benefit from enslaving others.
- Permanent vs. Temporary Slavery:
- Some species enslave individuals for life (e.g., ants).
- Others, like brood parasites (Cuculus canorus), practice temporary slavery, where hosts care for parasite offspring until independence.
- Physical vs. Chemical Control:
- Some species use force (e.g., raiding ants), while others manipulate captives through chemical signals that suppress resistance.
[5][6][7].
Why do scientists use terms like “enslavement,” “social parasitism,” or “coerced labor” instead of “slavery”?
Scientists prefer these alternative terms to avoid the anthropocentric connotations and moral implications associated with the word “slavery.” These alternative terms emphasize the biological and ecological aspects of the relationships observed in nature, focusing on the mechanisms of exploitation and dependency without invoking the historical and ethical baggage tied to human slavery. “Social parasitism,” for instance, highlights the exploitative relationship where one species benefits at the expense of another, while “coerced labor” describes the forced contributions of the enslaved individuals without the moral judgment that “slavery” entails. This linguistic choice allows scientists to maintain objectivity and clarity in their research, facilitating a more accurate understanding of complex interactions in animal societies.
[2][8].
How do researchers determine whether a behavior qualifies as slavery rather than another form of social dependence (e.g., symbiosis, mutualism, or dominance hierarchies)?
They analyze specific criteria that distinguish it from other forms of social dependence. Key factors include:
- Coercion: Slavery involves the forced labor of one species by another, often through aggressive or deceptive means, whereas mutualism and symbiosis typically involve voluntary interactions that benefit both parties.
- Dependency: In slavery, the enslaving species relies on the enslaved individuals for essential tasks, while in mutualistic relationships, both species benefit and can often survive independently.
- Lack of Reciprocity: Slavery is characterized by an absence of reciprocal benefits; the enslaved individuals do not gain advantages from their labor, unlike in mutualistic relationships where both parties provide benefits to each other.
- Behavioral Evidence: Researchers observe specific behaviors, such as raiding, capture, and integration of enslaved individuals into the colony, which are indicative of slavery rather than other social structures.
These criteria help clarify the nature of the interactions and categorize them appropriately within the broader context of animal behavior.
[2][9].
Enslavement Strategies Across the Animal Kingdom
Animal species that exhibit slavery-like behaviors primarily include certain ant species. Notably, the phenomenon known as dulosis involves “slave-making ants” that raid neighboring colonies to capture pupae and larvae. These captured individuals, upon maturation, become workers for the raiding colony, performing tasks such as foraging and nest maintenance. This behavior has been documented in several genera, including Leptothorax, Formica, and Polyergus. The enslaved ants do not reproduce, necessitating continuous raids to maintain the workforce of the slave-making species.To see these behaviors in action, check out this Kurzgesagt video on the horror of slaver ants and Deep Look’s stunning footage of kidnapper ants brainwashing their captives—both offer visual insight into just how complex and eerie these interactions can be.
In addition to ants, other animal species exhibit slavery-like behaviors. For example, certain wasp species engage in similar practices, where they capture and utilize the labor of other wasps. Additionally, some species of bees, particularly those in the genus Apis, can exploit the resources and labor of other colonies. Furthermore, certain primates, such as chimpanzees, have been noted to engage in coercive behaviors that can resemble slavery, particularly in social hierarchies and resource control. These behaviors highlight the complexity of social interactions and the varying degrees of exploitation present in the animal kingdom.
[10][11][12][13].
Which species practice enslavement within their own species, and how do they do it?
Intraspecific slavery occurs when dominant individuals within a species coerce subordinates into labor through force, chemical signaling, or hierarchical control. These systems often involve reproductive suppression and aggressive dominance to maintain order and extract labor:
- Termites (Macrotermes & Reticulitermes spp.): Royal castes manipulate sterile workers to maintain the colony through grooming, foraging, and nest maintenance.
- Naked Mole Rats (Heterocephalus glaber): A single breeding queen uses pheromones and aggression to suppress worker reproduction, compelling others to dig tunnels and care for offspring.
- Cichlid Fish (Neolamprologus pulcher): Subordinate fish perform tasks like nest cleaning and defending offspring. Dominants may punish non-cooperative helpers, reinforcing task compliance .
[14][15][16].
Which species enslave individuals from different species, and how do they do it?
Interspecific slavery occurs when one species exploits another for labor or parental care through raiding, deception, chemical manipulation, or induced dependency. This often includes sophisticated strategies to neutralize resistance and ensure compliance:
- Slave-Making Ants (Polyergus spp., Formica sanguinea): Invade host colonies, kill or drive out defenders, and steal pupae. Enslaved ants emerge and perform tasks like foraging and brood care. Some species use chemical cues (e.g., Strongylognathus testaceus) to suppress host aggression and escape recognition.
- Brood-Parasitic Birds (e.g., Cuculus canorus, Molothrus spp.): Lay mimetic eggs in host nests to trick birds into raising their chicks. Parasite chicks may eject or outcompete host offspring.
- Cuckoo Wasps (Chrysididae) & Bees (Nomadinae): Invade host nests, destroy larvae, and manipulate hosts into feeding only the parasite’s offspring—a form of induced dependency.
[5][6][7][17].
Do all enslaving species lose the ability to survive without slaves?
No, not all of them. Some can survive without them, while others cannot.
- Obligate Slave-Makers: Species like Polyergus breviceps have completely lost the ability to forage or care for their young, making them fully dependent on enslaved workers.
- Facultative Slave-Makers: Ants like Formica sanguinea can live independently, but enslaving other ants increases their colony’s efficiency .
- Brood Parasites: Some cuckoo bird species (Cuculus canorus) switch between parasitism and parental care depending on environmental conditions.
- Kleptoparasites: Certain spiders (Argyrodes) steal food but can also hunt if necessary, showing partial dependency on their hosts.
[5][18][19][20].
Does human use of animals for labor or resources qualify as interspecies enslavement?
The answer depends on the perspective used: biological evolution vs. ethical and sociological frameworks.
- Biological Perspective (Not Enslavement):
In nature, enslavement evolves through instinct-driven mechanisms, like chemical control or forced integration, as seen in slave-making ants.Human-animal relationships, however, involve domestication, selective breeding, and mutual dependence, meaning animals are not biologically enslaved but adapted for co-existence. Farthermore Many domesticated species cannot survive without human care, making them partners rather than enslaved captives. - Ethical & Sociological Perspective (Comparable to Enslavement):
Some argue that human control over animals mirrors human slavery, as animals are forcibly bred, worked, and deprived of autonomy, often in exploitative ways.Historical and modern uses of animals in agriculture, entertainment, and research suggest a power imbalance where humans prioritize their own benefit over animal welfare. But unlike mutualistic domestication, industrial farming and forced labor resemble coercion, making it reasonable to view animal use as a form of interspecies enslavement.
[5][21][22][23][24][25].
If humans care for pets, feeding and sheltering them while receiving little in return, could this be considered a form of reverse enslavement?
From a biological and evolutionary perspective, this situation is not considered enslavement but rather a form of mutualism or emotional companionship, even if the tangible benefits are unequal.
- No Coercion or Manipulation: Pets do not intentionally manipulate humans to serve them. Their behaviors—such as affection or dependency—are results of domestication and co-evolution, not strategies for exploitation.
- Mutual Emotional Benefits: While pets may not perform labor, humans often gain emotional support, stress reduction, and companionship, making the relationship reciprocally beneficial in non-material terms.
- Human Agency: Humans voluntarily choose to care for pets, without being chemically or behaviorally coerced as in natural examples of slavery.
So, while the dynamic may appear one-sided, it lacks the asymmetry of power, exploitation, and evolutionary coercion that define animal slavery.
[21][26].
Has slavery evolved multiple times independently in nature?
Yes, it has evolved across a variety of animal taxa, demonstrating a clear case of convergent evolution—where similar traits arise in unrelated groups due to similar ecological pressures.
- Ants (Dulosis): Slave-making behavior has evolved independently in at least five ant lineages, including Polyergus, Formica, and Strongylognathus, each developing unique raiding strategies.
- Birds (Brood Parasitism): It has evolved independently in seven bird families, including cuckoos (Cuculidae), cowbirds (Icteridae), and honeyguides (Indicatoridae).
- Bees and Wasps: Multiple lineages of cuckoo bees (Nomadinae) and parasitic wasps have independently evolved to infiltrate the nests of other species, offloading parental care onto their hosts.
These independent origins underscore that enslavement-like strategies are highly advantageous under certain ecological conditions, and natural selection has repeatedly favored them.
[5][6][17].
Can studying animal slavery help us understand broader evolutionary principles, such as the evolution of dominance, cooperation, or deception?
Absolutely—animal slavery offers a powerful lens through which to explore core evolutionary themes, including:
- Dominance and Social Control: Slave-making ants and brood parasites show how hierarchies and control systems can evolve without cognition, revealing how dominance can emerge from innate behavioral scripts.
- Cooperation vs. Exploitation: These systems highlight the fine line between mutual aid and manipulation, offering insight into how cooperation evolves—and how it can be hijacked by exploiters.
- Deception and Mimicry: Brood parasites like cuckoos evolve visual and behavioral mimicry to deceive hosts, making them prime models for studying adaptive deception in evolution.
- Arms Races and Coevolution: Studying enslaved species’ resistance strategies and their parasites’ counter-adaptations offers real-time examples of coevolutionary feedback loops.
Thus, animal slavery helps us understand how natural selection shapes complex social systems, often without intelligence or morality—just through evolutionary cost-benefit dynamics.
[2][6][27].
Traits That Enable Enslavement in Nature
Species capable of enslaving others share a suite of evolved traits—social, behavioral, and sensory—that support coercion and exploitation, but these do not require conscious intent.
Complex Social Organization: Eusocial insects like ants and termites have structured colonies with division of labor and caste systems, enabling them to raid other colonies and integrate foreign individuals into specific roles .
Specialized Aggressive or Deceptive Behavior: Slave-making ants evolve instinctive raiding behaviors and often use chemical cues to suppress host resistance and recognition.
Sensory and Mimetic Adaptations: Brood parasites such as cuckoos exhibit precise egg mimicry, strategic timing, and sensory adaptations to deceive host parents without triggering defense mechanisms.
Behavioral Plasticity and Evolutionary Efficiency: These species benefit from outsourcing parental care or labor, which enhances survival and reproduction—natural selection thus reinforces traits that support enslavement.
Importantly, these behaviors are shaped by evolutionary pressures, not cognition or planning, distinguishing them from human slavery.
[2][5][6][7[19]
If primates have the cognitive and social abilities required for enslavement, why don’t they engage in it?
Despite their advanced cognition, social structures, and problem-solving skills, primates don’t exhibit slavery-like behaviors as seen in insects or brood-parasitic birds. Several factors explain this:
- Lack of Evolutionary Pressure: Slavery evolves when it provides a clear reproductive or survival advantage. In primate societies, cooperation, kinship, and reciprocal alliances are more adaptive than exploitation.
- Individual Recognition: Primates have strong abilities to recognize individuals and form social bonds, making long-term coercion harder to maintain without disrupting group stability.
- Cognitive Empathy & Social Norms: Some primates show empathy, fairness, and even prosocial punishment, which may suppress exploitative behaviors.
- Ecological Context: Environments that favor mutual aid, coalition-building, and group defense make reciprocal cooperation more successful than enslavement.
[4][32][33].
If humans share the same traits as other primates, why did slavery evolve in human societies?
Slavery in humans likely emerged not despite our primate traits, but because of how those traits evolved under unique social, cultural, and environmental pressures. Key differences set humans apart:
- Symbolic Thinking & Institutionalization: Unlike other primates, humans developed language, abstract thought, and legal systems, which enabled the institutionalization of hierarchy, ownership, and status—crucial for sustaining slavery over generations.
- Agricultural Surplus & Resource Control: The rise of agriculture led to accumulation of surplus resources, allowing elites to consolidate power and use coerced labor to maintain social and economic systems.
- Outgroup Dehumanization: Humans evolved mechanisms to categorize and devalue outsiders, making it psychologically easier to justify enslavement.
- Complex Social Stratification: Human societies developed rigid class systems and political structures that could enforce and justify slavery through ideology and religion—something absent in other primates.
[1][34][35].
Are there environmental factors that encourage or discourage slave-making behavior?
Yes, it does. These factors can either promote or limit the development of slavery-like strategies, depending on their scale and impact:
- Host Density and Colony Proximity: High densities of suitable host colonies in stable environments increase the efficiency of raids and make enslavement more viable, as seen in slave-making ants.
- Resource Competition in Fragmented Habitats: In moderately fragmented environments, where competition is intense and colony encounters frequent, slave-making can be favored as a strategy to gain a competitive edge by outsourcing labor.
- Seasonal Availability of Brood: In some species, like Formica sanguinea, raiding occurs during seasonal windows when host pupae are most abundant, suggesting that temporally variable environments also shape parasitic behavior .
- Severe Environmental Disruption: In contrast, extreme habitat loss or climate shifts may decrease host availability, colony stability, or raiding success, ultimately discouraging or collapsing slave-making strategies.
Thus, slave-making behavior is most likely to evolve and persist in environments that offer access to exploitable hosts, but it becomes fragile when ecological stability is lost.
[2][5][18][31]
Is slavery in animals comparable to human societies where slavery appeared?
Slavery in animals and humans share structural similarities—such as coercion and exploitation—but differ profoundly in origin, intent, and complexity.
- Instinct vs. Ideology: Animal slavery arises from instinctual behaviors shaped by natural selection, while human slavery is constructed through cultural, economic, and ideological systems.
- Lack of Moral Awareness in Animals: Animals do not possess conscious intent or moral reasoning; their enslavement behaviors are not guided by concepts of dominance, justice, or economics.
- Systemic Organization in Humans: Human slavery involved legal codes, social hierarchies, and economic institutions, unlike the biological opportunism seen in ants or cuckoos.
- Complex Social Norms: Human societies developed religious, racial, or class-based justifications for slavery, which have no analogue in animal systems.
Thus, while parallels exist in function, the mechanisms and meanings are fundamentally different.
[1][4][34].
Do species that enslave others exhibit signs of intelligence, or are their behaviors purely instinctual?
This question can be viewed from two complementary scientific perspectives—one focused on behavioral function, the other on cognitive mechanisms.
Functional Perspective: Some enslaving species exhibit behaviors that appear intelligent, such as adaptive raiding strategies, assessing rival strength, or integrating captives. For example, Formica sanguinea ants adjust their tactics based on colony strength, suggesting a form of environmental assessment and behavioral flexibility. These ants also coordinate complex raids and manipulate enslaved workers, behaviors that functionally resemble social intelligence and cooperative manipulation.
Cognitive Perspective: Despite these sophisticated behaviors, most evidence suggests they are instinct-driven, not products of conscious problem-solving or planning. Slave-making ants and brood parasites like cuckoos do not demonstrate learning, intentional deception, or individual recognition—hallmarks of advanced cognition seen in species like primates or corvids. Their behaviors are evolutionarily fixed and arise from selective pressures, not mental flexibility.
So, enslaving species show evolutionarily refined behaviors that may mimic intelligence, but the underlying mechanisms are typically innate, not cognitive. The appearance of intelligence does not always indicate the presence of high-level mental processes—a key distinction in behavioral biology.
[2][7][29].
Resistance, Vulnerability, and the Experience of the Enslaved in Animal Species
Species are more likely to become victims of enslavement when they possess behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary traits that make them susceptible to manipulation or takeover by parasitic species.
Close Evolutionary Relatedness: Host species are often closely related to their parasites (e.g., in ant slavery), making it easier for enslavers to integrate into their social systems and avoid detection.
Weak Colony Defense or Recognition Systems: Species with poor nest defense, limited aggression, or imprecise recognition cues are more likely to be infiltrated or manipulated by parasites.
High Brood Production: Host species that produce many offspring (e.g., certain Formica ants or reed warblers) offer abundant resources, making them attractive targets for slave-making or brood parasites.
Stable and Predictable Nesting Sites: Species that nest in consistent locations are easier for parasites to locate and exploit, as seen in many brood-parasitic birds.
Lack of Co-evolved Defenses: Vulnerable species often lack adaptations to detect or resist enslavement, especially when parasites are newly introduced into their range.
[6][19][27][30][31].
Can we compare the traits that make animal species vulnerable to enslavement with those that made certain human societies or groups more susceptible to slavery?
Yes, there are partial parallels, but the comparison must be made carefully. While animal vulnerability to slavery is rooted in instinctual traits and ecological factors, human vulnerability to slavery has been shaped by historical, geopolitical, and socio-economic dynamics—involving power, technology, and ideology.
- Lack of Effective Defense or Resistance Mechanisms:
- In animals: Species with weak nest defense or poor enemy recognition are easier targets.
- In humans: Societies lacking military strength, political alliances, or centralized governance were more easily colonized or enslaved.
- Resource Richness:
- In animals: High brood output or resource density attracts parasites.
- In humans: Societies rich in natural resources or strategic geography were often targeted by imperial powers for exploitation and labor.
- Isolation or Lack of Exposure to Slave-Making Threats:
- In animals: Lack of co-evolved defenses makes species vulnerable.
- In humans: Some populations, especially indigenous or tribal groups, were unfamiliar with large-scale warfare or foreign ideologies and thus unprepared for enslavement pressures.
- Social Fragmentation or Internal Conflict:
- In animals: Fragmented or small colonies are more easily overpowered.
- In humans: Societies facing civil strife or inter-group conflict (e.g., during African internal wars) were more susceptible to being raided or selling others into slavery.
Unlike animals, humans possess culture, moral systems, and historical memory. Slavery in human societies is not a biologically inevitable outcome but a socially constructed institution, often justified by ideology (race, religion, class), not instinct.
[1][36][37][38].
Does slavery provide any benefits to the enslaved individuals or their species?
In most cases, no—enslaved animals lose reproductive potential and autonomy, offering no direct benefit. However, rare cases show indirect, species-level resistance, such as enslaved ants evolving to kill parasite brood, slightly improving survival for their species over time.
[28].
Do enslaved species evolve defenses against enslavement, and how do individuals resist or adapt to their condition?
Yes, enslaved species have evolved a variety of defensive strategies, both at the individual and evolutionary levels, to resist exploitation. These responses range from subtle behavioral adaptations to full-fledged evolutionary countermeasures.
- Individual Resistance:
- Enslaved ant workers, such as those of Temnothorax longispinosus, have been observed killing the brood of their social parasites (Protomognathus americanus), reducing the parasite’s reproductive success and indirectly protecting nearby host colonies (Achenbach & Foitzik, 2009).
- Some individuals also engage in sabotage-like behaviors, such as neglecting parasite broods or failing to perform essential tasks, though this is less documented.
- Species-Level Defenses:
- Host species evolve traits like enhanced aggression, improved nest defense, or better recognition of intruders, making slave raids more difficult (Buschinger, 2009).
- In birds, hosts like reed warblers develop egg-discrimination abilities to detect and eject parasitic eggs, countering brood parasitism by cuckoos (Davies, 2011).
- Ongoing Evolutionary Arms Race:
- These defenses often trigger counter-adaptations in the enslaving species (e.g., better mimicry, stronger chemical suppression), leading to a dynamic coevolutionary cycle. While some defenses can be temporarily effective, no strategy remains successful indefinitely.
[5][28].
Are there examples of enslaved species successfully eliminating their enslavers over evolutionary time?
No, enslaved species have not entirely eliminated their enslavers, but some have evolved effective resistance that leads to local declines or reduced parasitism success.
For example, Temnothorax longispinosus ants kill parasite brood, and some bird species reject cuckoo eggs, forcing parasites to shift to other hosts. These strategies create an evolutionary arms race, but not full elimination.
[28].
Is there any evidence that animals experience suffering in a way comparable to humans as a result of being enslaved?
There’s little evidence that enslaved animals suffer in ways comparable to humans, mainly because most known cases involve species with limited cognitive capacity. Enslaved ants, for example, show no signs of distress, as their behavior is chemically driven and instinctual. Host birds manipulated by brood parasites may show agitation but not psychological trauma. Enslavement-like dynamics are rare in intelligent species like primates, where human-like emotional suffering might be expected.
[2][6].
📖 Sources:
- Patterson, O. (1982). Slavery and Social Death. Harvard University Press.
- Hölldobler, B., & Wilson, E. O. (1990). The Ants. Harvard University Press.
- Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
- De Waal, F. (1996). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Harvard University Press.
- Buschinger, A. (2009). “Social parasitism among ants: a review.” Myrmecological News, 12, 219–235.
- Davies, N. B. (2011). Cuckoo: Cheating by Nature. Bloomsbury Publishing.
- Lenoir, A., D’Ettorre, P., Errard, C., & Hefetz, A. (2001). “Chemical ecology and social parasitism in ants.” Annual Review of Entomology, 46, 573–599.
- Boulton, A. M., & Hölldobler, B. (2006). “The Evolution of Social Parasitism in Ants.” Biological Reviews, 81(2), 1–20.
- Kronauer, D. J. C., & Boomsma, J. J. (2003). “Genetic evidence for intra– and interspecific slavery in honey ants.” Molecular Ecology, 12(8), 2177–2185.
- Wilson, E. O. (1975). “LEPTOTHORAX DULOTICUS AND THE BEGINNINGS OF SLAVERY IN ANTS.” American Naturalist, 109(965), 1–12.
- Herbers, J. M. (2007). “Watch Your Language! Racially Loaded Metaphors in Scientific Research.” American Entomologist.
- Kendrick, H. (2018). “Autonomy, Slavery, and Companion Animals.” Between the Species, 22(1), 237–240.
- Minella, G. (2019). “The Enslaved Ants and the Peculiar Institution.”
- Thorne, B. L. (1997). “Evolution of eusociality in termites.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28(1), 27–54.
- Faulkes, C. G., & Bennett, N. C. (2001). “Family values: group dynamics and social control of reproduction in African mole-rats.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16(4), 184–190.
- Bruintjes, R., & Taborsky, M. (2011). “Size-dependent task specialization in a cooperative cichlid.” Animal Behaviour, 81(2), 387–394.
- Lhomme, P., & Hines, H. M. (2019). “Ecological and evolutionary perspectives on cuckoo bees.” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 112(3), 165–182.
- Trager, J. C. (2013). “Global revision of the dulotic ant genus Polyergus.” ZooKeys, 335, 83–118.
- Soler, M. (2014). Avian Brood Parasitism. Springer.
- Whitehouse, M. E. A., & Lubin, Y. (2005). “The functions of kleptoparasitism in social and solitary spiders.” Behavioral Ecology, 16(3), 689–697.
- Zeder, M. A. (2012). “The domestication of animals.” Journal of Anthropological Research, 68(2), 161–190.
- Clutton-Brock, J. (1999). A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. Cambridge University Press.
- Merskin, D. (2021). “Circle of Responsibility: Animals as Stakeholders.”
- Fair, J. (2024). “Labor, violence and the unfamiliar.” Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 7(1).
- Christensen, T. (2024). “Human–animal entanglements in the early medieval European slave trade.” Historical Research.
- Serpell, J. (1996). In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships. Cambridge University Press.
- Foitzik, S., Fischer, B., & Heinze, J. (2001). “Arms races between social parasites and their hosts.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 50(3), 239–246.
- Achenbach, A., & Foitzik, S. (2009). “First evidence for slave rebellion.” Evolution, 63(4), 1068–1075.
- Van Wilgenburg, E., & Elgar, M. A. (2007). “The Evolution of Slave-Making in Ants.” Biological Reviews, 82(3), 399–414.
- D’Ettorre, P., & Heinze, J. (2001). “Sociobiology of slave-making ants.” Acta Ethologica, 3(2), 67–82.
- Brandt, M., Foitzik, S., Fischer-Blass, B., & Heinze, J. (2005). “The coevolutionary dynamics of obligate ant social parasite systems.” Biological Reviews, 80(2), 251–267.
- Silk, J. B. (2007). “The adaptive value of sociality in mammalian groups.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362(1480), 539–559.
- Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. M. (2003). “Monkeys reject unequal pay.” Nature, 425(6955), 297–299.
- Scott, J. C. (2017). Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States. Yale University Press.
- Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). “Race as biology is fiction…” American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26.
- Eltis, D., & Engerman, S. L. (2000). “The importance of slavery…” The Journal of Economic History, 60(1), 123–144.
- Scott, J. C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed. Yale University Press.
- Lovejoy, P. E. (2000). Transformations in Slavery. Cambridge University Press.
