To be honest, this description is leaning heavily on the associations we have with individual words used. Ant "architecture" isn't like our architecture. Ant "plumbing" and "ventilation" have little in common with the kind of plumbing and ventilation we use in buildings. "Nurseries", "rearing the young", that's just stretching the analogy to the point of breaking. "Agriculture", "animal husbandry" - I don't even know how to comment on that. "Social stratification" is literally a chemical feedback loop - ant larvae can be influenced by certain pheromones to develop into different types of ants, which happen to emit pheromones suppressing development of larvae into more ants of that type. Etc.

I could go on and on. Point being, analogies are fun and sometimes illuminating, but they're just that. There's a vast difference in complexity between what ants do, and what humans do.

Nobody is saying that an ant might be the next Frank Lloyd Wright.

They're saying they accomplish incredible things for the size of their brain, which is absolutely and unequivocally true.

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise".

What I'm saying is that, Bible parables notwithstanding, it's not the individual ant that achieves these incredible things. The bulk of computational/cognitive work is done by the colony as a system. This means that there's little sense in comparing brainpower of an ant with that of a human. A more informative comparison is that between an ant colony and human society - here, humans may come out badly, but that's arguably because our societies are overcomplicated in order to compensate for individual humans having too much brainpower :).

> There's a vast difference in complexity between what ants do, and what humans do.

Interesting parallell with intelligence/sentience/sapience. Despite the means, isn't the end result what you have to judge? The end result looks like a rudimentary civilization. How much back in time would we have to go back to find more sophistication in ant societies than humans?

> Despite the means, isn't the end result what you have to judge? The end result looks like a rudimentary civilization.

I'm indeed talking about the ends. The operative phrase here is "it looks like". It looks like a civilization, there are even some structural similarities to be found - but it is not a civilization, anymore than a Lego brick with a computer sticker on it is a PC.

This is not to deny that ants are awesome and very much worth studying - my point is to avoid following flawed analogies too far. "Ant colonies look like rudimentary civilization, and civilization is/does X, therefore..." is going to be a nonsense statements for most of possible values of X.

You could say the same in reverse. Humans can't lift fifty times their own weight. Humans can't communicate in real-time with pheromones alone. Most humans do not know how to build their own home. An ant might well consider us backwards, not advanced.

> Humans can't lift fifty times their own weight.

Ants can do it as a consequence of their size. Relative lifting strength drops fast with increased size. Conversely, an ant scaled to human size would collapse under its own weight and cook itself to death - waste heat generation scales with volume (~ size³), while waste heat rejection scales with surface area (~ size²).

And it ain't a cognitive achievement anyway.

> Humans can't communicate in real-time with pheromones alone.

Yes. Because it's not as useful at our scale, nor is it real-time - chemical communication works better for small organisms and small volumes of living, as the travel speed and dissipation rate of pheromones is independent of organisms emitting them. Meanwhile, we have multiple ways of communicating real-time, some of which work at light speed which is the definition of "real time" (light speed in vacuum being the speed of causality itself).

> Most humans do not know how to build their own home.

Neither do ants.

> An ant might well consider us backwards, not advanced.

An ant can't consider us anything. The point I'm trying to get across is, just because the ant colony is capable of surprisingly high sophistication, doesn't mean the individual ants are.

As a counterpoint that's actually cognitive in nature: AFAIK individuals of many (most?) ant species can be easily tricked into following each other in a circle, and they will continue to do so until they start dying from starvation. This is because the ant isn't making a decision following a complex thought process - it's executing a simple algorithm, that works well in nature because nature is chaotic enough that stable ant circles are unlikely to form (and when they do, they're unlikely to be left undisturbed for long).

> "Agriculture", "animal husbandry" - I don't even know how to comment on that.

To give some examples of ant agriculture and animal husbandry, they cut and feed leaves to a fungus they farm for food. The fungus even communicates to the ants to switch to a different plant when the plant produces toxins in defense to cutting.

Ants herd aphids, protecting them from predators (ladybugs), secrete pheromones that direct and pacify them, and massage their abdomens to milk sugar dew.

I think you can call ant societies civilizations, but the same time you can call a multi cellular organism a civilization, too. Usually, those also come from the same genetic seed similar to (most) ant colonies. But more importantly, you have various types of cooperation and specialization in multi cellular life.

Do termites count as well then? Bees? I'm not being facetious, but these insects seem similar.

Perhaps an important point here is that ants pass the mirror test, which, to my knowledge, no other insects (that we know of) do.