Ok, I can see the evolution of new species under those conditions. Did similar condtions cause a species like ants to specialize?

This is similar to a discussion that occured many months ago. I think in some ways, Adam Smith must be wrong. When the division of labor occurred, it probably did not have to do with who was best at a specific task. I say that because it seems pretty clear, that once it happened, migration of people between different tasks did not take place often, if at all. The children of blacksmiths became blacksmith's and the children of kings became princes. So, it seems in some ways, an inefficient choice unless the process is mimicking (?sp?) speciation (speciesization?) and it's just not that effective within the human species. It's only recently that the division of labor has resulted in people with skills in a certain area actually working in that area where their skills are instead of doing what their parents did. Even today, lots of people want women to raise kids even if a specific woman's life would be better spent as an engineer.

Does it make sense to think that evolution produced different species under conditions of population growth until it reach the level of humans with their complex abilities to think and use tools. Now evolution no longer needed another species since humans could accomplish the same result within the species itself?
This might account for the alienation of labor that Marx talked about. Other species don't experience alienation because they evolve into their precise niche.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13