Jump to content

Interfere in "Nature"


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

The perfect example of an animal that should never have been domesticated.

Cats are weird. They domesticated themselves.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Exomancer said:

Cats are weird. They domesticated themselves.

They fooled us all.¬†ūüėļ

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

What does the natural order say about sentiment? Emotional connection? Does nature rule psychology and instinct out?

 

16 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

Since when is sentiment a weak argument? Emotional bonds between species is pretty strong to me.

The power to connect with only bodily language and instinct.

Never said it was a weak argument. I said it was your only one. If you were not attached to that octopus but rather an observer, saving it would make you a hypocrite in some sense. A predator denying another predator it's food. Some could frame you an empathetic hero for extending a wild animals life. Others would criticize you for interfering with something and costing another animal it's meal. I think of a human interfering with a pack of wolves hunting a deer or elk. They prevent the starving wolves from bringing home food to their family. I think of some empathetic human stopping another human from hunting a poor, defenseless animal. It'd be an annoyance for me but for some it'd be a deep loss. Some people rely on hunting (First Nations) to feed their families. Sentiment is an understandable reason to interfere or perhaps stopping someone cruel (human) from hurting an animal unnecessarily. Anything else is none of your business.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Exomancer said:

Cats are weird. They domesticated themselves.

Agrees, they're the only "domesticated" species that we didn't domesticate ourselves 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GingerRose said:

How do we play into the food chain? The top? Is the top not part of the chain? 

Yes, we are the top which means you are responsible for the stability below it.
 

4 hours ago, GingerRose said:

What does the natural order say about sentiment? Emotional connection? Does nature rule psychology and instinct out?

There is no sentiment. When animals get hungry they feed. Human beings have to let these things happen so the ecosystem retains its balance. 

 

5 hours ago, GingerRose said:

I'm just another animal looking out for an animal I have befriended.

 

My friend and I are hiking, a mountain lion attempts to attack my friend. Who am I to cost the lion a meal?

 

 

The only difference is that we remove ourselves from nature because we think that our intelligence is far more than any other animal.

So the more intelligent are worth saving and interfering to save, than another species.

No, the only difference here is that mountain lions don’t ordinarily feed on humans. You aren’t interfering with the natural order here, you’re telling the mountain lion to stick to deer, coyotes, raccoons and whatever else it normally feeds on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't put humans on the top of the food chain, at least not if we don't have access to any powerful weapons or protection. Without that most of us, especially nowadays, are quite vulnerable. Idk if we've ever been on the "normal" menu of any predatory animal but that doesn't really matter to me tbh... there are several species with no natural enemies because of a lack in large enough predators in their area.

 

To the example given in the OP: I would've helped the octopus. We are part of nature, so why not act on my instinct that tells me to take care of a friend. Same as with helping an animal that got hurt. Other species do that as well so why not. Doesn't mean you have to, but if you want then fine by me :)

 

What I do have a problem with is all the severe "artificial" interference we've done as a species, destroying the habitat of other species, exploiting them and natural resources, pollution, denying (esp. predators that "get in our way" like bears or wolfs) the right to exist ecc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Quasar.w said:

I wouldn't put humans on the top of the food chain, at least not if we don't have access to any powerful weapons or protection.

The reason we are top is because we created those weapons. I'm personally relieved that grizzly bears haven't figured out how to make crossbows. :P

 

17 minutes ago, Quasar.w said:

What I do have a problem with is all the severe "artificial" interference we've done as a species, destroying the habitat of other species, exploiting them and natural resources, pollution, denying (esp. predators that "get in our way" like bears or wolfs) the right to exist ecc.

I have a massive problem with this too. It's disgusting how we hunt animals just to sell their tusks to other humans.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Moonman said:

The reason we are top is because we created those weapons. I'm personally relieved that grizzly bears haven't figured out how to make crossbows. :P

Still wouldn't call it "being on top of the food chain", highly skilled and inventive yes, but lost without those weapons in many cases (wih weapons I mean everything that has to be made first, like knifes, guns ecc. Not sticks or stones)

 

36 minutes ago, Moonman said:

I have a massive problem with this too. It's disgusting how we hunt animals just to sell their tusks to other humans.

Yeah... we've been doing some really unnessesary and cruel things to other species (and our own)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Moonman said:

I'm personally relieved that grizzly bears haven't figured out how to make crossbows. :P

That’s a scary thought!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quasar.w said:

Still wouldn't call it "being on top of the food chain", highly skilled and inventive yes, but lost without those weapons in many cases (wih weapons I mean everything that has to be made first, like knifes, guns ecc. Not sticks or stones)

 

Yeah... we've been doing some really unnessesary and cruel things to other species (and our own)

Well, we're top by proxy because nothing is above us. Nothing out there feeds primarily on humans, as far as I know... apart from other humans maybe...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moonman said:

ou are responsible

Am I? Is that moral responsibility or high ground instinct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moonman said:

sentiment. When animals get hungry they feed.

We are part of the ecosystem. We feed but we also have sentiment for our own species and others.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Moonman said:

Yes, we are the top which means you are responsible for the stability below it.
 

There is no sentiment. When animals get hungry they feed. Human beings have to let these things happen so the ecosystem retains its balance. 

 

No, the only difference here is that mountain lions don’t ordinarily feed on humans. You aren’t interfering with the natural order here, you’re telling the mountain lion to stick to deer, coyotes, raccoons and whatever else it normally feeds on. 

Would they, if we were readily available and unarmed?

Does being at the top of the food chain completely throw us out of the web?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moonman said:

hunt animals just to sell their tusks to other humans.

I'm against trophy hunting.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

Am I? Is that moral responsibility or high ground instinct?

38 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

Does being at the top of the food chain completely throw us out of the web?

You answered these two questions yourself with the following...

 

40 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

We are part of the ecosystem. We feed but we also have sentiment for our own species and others.

 

41 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

Would they, if we were readily available and unarmed?

Are you asking me if a hungry mountain lion would eat a human? I would assume so... I'm not in any rush to find out though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't there some evidence that the domestication of dogs was a mutual thing? That dogs and people were both active in the process?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, daveb said:

Isn't there some evidence that the domestication of dogs was a mutual thing? That dogs and people were both active in the process?

If you can me an article, I'd love to read it.

Wolves and dogs were domesticated and bred to behave and look certain ways that would benefit humanity. (herding, sporting, companionship...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, GingerRose said:

If you can me an article, I'd love to read it.

Wolves and dogs were domesticated and bred to behave and look certain ways that would benefit humanity. (herding, sporting, companionship...)

Here's one: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-really-became-dogs-180970014/

Not hard to find more. Seems like there are multiple theories and speculations and it's probably some combination of events and possibly origins.

 

Breeding is a separate issue. Once humans had domesticated dogs they were then able to choose selective breeding to produce dogs suited for various tasks (and later, for various aesthetics apart from utility).

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2020 at 4:02 PM, GingerRose said:

Do we need ownership or scholarly cause to befriend something of another species?

Befriending? The obvious answer is no, but that might not be the correct answer. The other species involved, such as the octopus, had not much say in whether it was a friend or not. Perhaps the octopus thought his self-proclaimed friend was stalking him. It is impossible to assert friend-status with non-tamed, non-domesticated species with any claim of certainty. It is also possible that, for their own protection, certain groups of living things (including humans -- e.g. North Sentinel Islanders) should perhaps be left to their own devices. Now scholarly cause, which is a good term and one I wish I had used, would override the argument made in the previous sentence, but it seems this human had none of that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Alawyn-Aebt said:

friend or not.

I don't think it may have that concept, more than just curiosity and enjoyment spent with the other being, is our concept of friendship given to the octopus.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Alawyn-Aebt said:

this human had none of that.

Yes, he his sole interest was to be closer to the ocean, and what was within. Only after he met the octopus and had he visited her often, did his scholarly interest grow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GingerRose said:

I don't think it may have that concept, more than just curiosity and enjoyment spent with the other being, is our concept of friendship given to the octopus.

Yes I saw it like that too.

Besides, other species can form what we'd call friendships with members of their own or other species. We can't ask them obviously but it's a concept that does explain certain observed behaviour

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2020 at 9:40 PM, GingerRose said:

I don't think it may have that concept, more than just curiosity and enjoyment spent with the other being, is our concept of friendship given to the octopus.

Perhaps, not being the octopus I cannot refute that. Determining exactly what animals think is difficult and fraught with glaring possibilities for scientific failure. My only point was that it might be excessive to describe this friendship as mutual. Perhaps it was, perhaps it was not. If the octopus had done something unique which would indicate its good-feelings towards Mx. Octopus then it would be easy to answer. I just do not think that the moment a human claims friendship with an animal, especially a non-tamed, non-domesticated animal that we should assume the animal feels similarly. (Yes I am operating under the assumption animals have emotions, perhaps not all animals but the scientific consensus seems to support that at least some animals feel emotions; since the octopus is often called an intelligent animal then I am giving it the benefit of the doubt and assuming it experiences some level of some sort of emotion.)

On 11/28/2020 at 9:42 PM, GingerRose said:

Yes, he his sole interest was to be closer to the ocean, and what was within. Only after he met the octopus and had he visited her often, did his scholarly interest grow.

That exactly was what I was saying, when he initiated interaction he lacked scholarly curiosity. If he developed scholarly curiosity over time then I would probably say the interaction was justified since scholarly curiosity would override my objections.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alawyn-Aebt said:

That exactly was what I was saying,

I know, I was agreeing with you.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Neon Green Packing Peanut

The octopus has millions (billions?) of years of evolution to help it survive those situations - and it did. I don't have any desire to approach a shark in a blood frenzy, so I would have left for my own sake. Not because I was "interfering in nature" (which I'm not so sure is real), but because I like my blood and internal organs inside my body.

 

(I am not a biologist. The following is purely conjecture) The man was interacting with the ecosystem frequently. He formed a symbiotic relationship with that octopus. Other animals clearly also got used to his prescence (sharks generally avoid humans). Therefore, any actions would not be interference, but interaction with an ecosystem he had grown a part of.

 

Also, by that logic is it not interfering in nature to shoo a fly out but kill spiders in your house?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...