[GlendaleViper]

I'm a weird guy, so I think about weird things. I thought it might be fun to post some of the more bizarre things that capture our imagination. Some, I'm sure, simply don't have an answer; others might and they just haven't been found yet.

For those uninterested in reading my not atypical novella of a post, a singular summary sentence: What questions do you ponder, perhaps stay up at night thinking about, but (at least as yet) cannot answer?

Here's one of mine:

Watching Planet Earth the other day, there was a scene in the freshwater episode about the Smooth-Coated Otter of Southeast Asia. Curious to this sub-species is that their environment accommodates for group living; Otters are normally solitary once they mature. At one point in the sequence, the filmmakers managed to capture some fascinating behaviour: When threatened by a freshwater crocodile, the otters ganged up on the would-be predator and successfully deterred it's attack!

This dug up an old question of mine: Why don't prey species fight back? I'm thinking specifically of herd grazers here, where not only are the individuals themselves typically larger than their predators, but also vastly outnumber them?

Take for instance the Caribou, which has the Arctic Wolf as an enemy. Caribou, like other hoofed mammals, engage in one of the most dramatic displays of raw power in the animal kingdom via their bullfights. We're talking about an animal which, in the case of a male, weighs an average of 350-400 pounds, has a massive pair of horns and a set of legs that could send a human being flying (likely with a caved-in ribcage). Now consider that a group of these nomadic grazers will often herd in the hundreds of thousands.

The Arctic Wolf is no slouch. It knows it's overpowered and outnumbered and as such has adapted its strategies to hunt successfully. Against a Caribou, it attacks head on, knowing the herd will flee, and then singles out a weak or juvenile individual once they break away from the main group for a better chance at a meal.

But why do the Caribou flee? A charging individual would make for one hell of a threat to the wolf, let alone a stampede! Instinct is a powerful thing indeed, but surely after thousands of generations - and constant adaptations to ever changing surroundings, they could have figured out that they can take this thing?

This has led my thoughts to the idea of pacifism in diet. The defiant Otters are, of course, voracious carnivores - fish-eaters, mainly. But this doesn't hold up. Also shown in the Planet Earth series is another bizarre bit of behaviour: A herd of Walrus under attack from a desperate Polar Bear. Walrus are also carnivores; their diet consists mainly of clams and other invertebrates, but they've been known to eat Seal and even scavenge on Whale carcasses. Their immediate response was to flee into the water. This is an animal which, while not exactly predatory, is indeed a flesh-eater (to be fair, they did take a few jabs at the bear with their tusks although I expect they wouldn't have even done this much if they weren't so immobile on land), so this thought holds no water. On the other end, primates like Gorillas, while classified as omnivores - insects can make up 1-2% of their diet, are fiercely territorial. Hell, I've seen vegans handily pound the steak and potatoes out of an opponent!

I could go on and on with conflicting examples (more so than I already have), but what it comes down to is a question without an answer. I don't know that I even care to find one - the idea of sentience, group mentality and individualism among species is enough to capture my imagination, whatever the tactic or behaviour. But there are infinite questions like these. I have a million of them, we all have them, whatever they may be.

So what are yours? A song's effect on an individual's "soul"? What came before the Big Bang? Why is a rice cake, impossibly dry and tasteless, still tasty?

Let's keep in mind the forum rules.

 

[Lazarus Short]

It's late, I'm tired. I have no energy for an extended essay, however I would guess on the Caribou that they have yet to reach critical mass in the way they act as a group [a la 100 Monkeys [not 12]]. If people went up there and used the usual methods to shape the way they acted toward the wolf threat, it just might change the arctic. But a wolf's got to eat, too.

Things I wonder about:

did anyone go/not go to the Moon?

why so many lone gunmen?

did Atlantis exist, and if so, where?

what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa, Ambrose Bierce, Judge Crater?

crop circles - What?

Mothman - What??

I could go on all night - there is a whole universe of mysteries, and few [if any] answers...and some are so controversial I could well be banned for merely mentioning them.

Laz

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif what really happened to ... Ambrose Bierce, ...?

Still around, didn't you know? Even today, there are legends in the Southwest about the "old gringo" who wanders the desert.

 

[kydsid]

As stated abouve the wolf has to eat too. But here is my take on that:

Biologically predator/prey relationships are a result of evolution. If a species evolved to fight off an attack and survived in greater and greater numbers then the fight response would be the dominant trait and therefore said animal might evolve into a predator. Conversely if the flight response is the better evolutionary response then that is the inherited trait/response, as in caribou. Everything also depends on the evolved food source.

Food niches, and almost any other niche that leads to the success of a species is going to be exploited by some species at some point. Case in point Girafes. Girafes evolved with longer and longer necks to exploit vegitation that was out of reach to any other species; elephants, gazelle, buffalo, hippos. In fact they all eat vegetation at their own level.

So the basis of all this is that if any species becomes succesful enough they represent a food niche in an of themselves. Eventually, through evolution another species is going to find this niche and exploit it.

Some say that prostitution is exploitation and it makes sense exploitation is the oldest profession.

 

[Steve_72]

Heh, heh I got a kick out of that when I saw that scene too. Check out this footage for another example where prey retailiates.

YouTube - Battle at Kruger

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlendaleViper /img/forum/go_quote.gif This dug up an old question of mine: Why don't prey species fight back? I'm thinking specifically of herd grazers here, where not only are the individuals themselves typically larger than their predators, but also vastly outnumber them?

Pragmatic answer: Because doing so radically reduces your fitness.

For caribou, there is very little incentive for individual healthy caribou to fight a predator. It's purely a personal cost benefit thing. Running away pretty much ensures that a healthy caribou herd member will survive. Staying back and fighting incurs a significant survival penalty. While a healthy caribou can defeat a wolf, it stands a high chance of receiving a wound that will dramatically lower it's fitness and thus odds of survival and mating possibilities. For group survival, this also works. It keeps the healthiest individuals away from crippling injury; weeds out the genetics of the lame, weak, and sickly; and increases the amount of forage available for each remaining healthy herd member.

The same exact behavior is displayed during mass school shootings by the unarmed masses, with the occasional exception (see: Kip Kinkel). Resistance significantly increases group survival odds, but also dramatically reduces individual survival odds.

 

[Marados]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Pragmatic answer: Because doing so radically reduces your fitness. For caribou, there is very little incentive for individual healthy caribou to fight a predator. It's purely a personal cost benefit thing. Running away pretty much ensures that a healthy caribou herd member will survive. Staying back and fighting incurs a significant survival penalty. While a healthy caribou can defeat a wolf, it stands a high chance of receiving a wound that will dramatically lower it's fitness and thus odds of survival and mating possibilities. For group survival, this also works. It keeps the healthiest individuals away from crippling injury; weeds out the genetics of the lame, weak, and sickly; and increases the amount of forage available for each remaining healthy herd member.

Well put.

Animals aren't concerned about the survival of their species as a whole, but specifically about themselves and their ability to pass on their genes. If a weaker, slower animal is killed, as long as it isn't "you" (or your offspring/mate), then it is, from the animal's point of view, a good thing to have happened for a variety of reasons.

It's easy to talk about the conflict in the viewpoint of a strategist concerned about the survival as a whole, but it simply doesn't match up to the actual evolutionary counterpoint.

And also, Glendale, about that rice cake thing, I think it'd be tasty simply because it's pure carbs, and that's what we've evolved to like, so to speak. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I'm not exactly learned in that area.

As for my question, I've always wondered what a neutron star tastes like =p I know it's a ridiculous, inane question, but the whole idea of tasting pure neutrons (the split second you're pulped by the gravity of the star, of course) simply keeps me awake at night. Pathetic, isn't it.

 

[tylernol]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marados /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well put. Animals aren't concerned about the survival of their species as a whole, but specifically about themselves and their ability to pass on their genes. If a weaker, slower animal is killed, as long as it isn't "you" (or your offspring/mate), then it is, from the animal's point of view, a good thing to have happened for a variety of reasons.

My question is, are humans animals? The answer is YES. Now, are the "elite" at the top of the "food chain" who run this show, immune to the quoted type of thinking? IE are they not greedy? How come people think that the people at the top are "saviors", that they are their in "divine right", and that business and government is NOT connected? How come people are allowing for a rapid degradation of our founding principles which are defined in the Constitution? How come we're "trained" to consume, and to not think? (generally speaking: ) Why is it a one-way relationship between us, knowledge, product, and understanding?

-- Here's food for thought. What does the words "sexual intercourse" and "making love" have in common? They MEAN the same thing. Now, some have labeled a lot of what goes on in society that they don't understand as "conspiracy". Now, what else could the term mean? (One example: ) Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.(dictionary.com). What else could it mean? It could mean what it actually is, yet un-labeled. Devoid of articulated meaning. If this is done, we are left with the idea and concept of what is actually happening. How are these ideas/concepts explained? Well, the EASIEST explanation to digest is that it's a conspiracy and that it's false. Uh, but the act in question still happened or is happening, so that is obviously not correct. So what then?

Quote:

It's easy to talk about the conflict in the viewpoint of a strategist concerned about the survival as a whole, but it simply doesn't match up to the actual evolutionary counterpoint.

Aaaaah. I say bring on what's going to happen to the world in the next decade. I am fearful at the same time, however. Because money leads down into the garbage disposal, not to salvation.

Quote:

And also, Glendale, about that rice cake thing, I think it'd be tasty simply because it's pure carbs, and that's what we've evolved to like, so to speak. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, though, because I'm not exactly learned in that area.

I didn't read the post about the rice cake, but since your quote is in my reply box.... taste or "tasty" is a subjective term. Glendale needs to answer his question himself. I think they are rather bland. They taste like rice to me. I'll eat one, and I did today, but tasty isn't a word I'd use to describe a rice cake.

Quote:

As for my question, I've always wondered what a neutron star tastes like =p I know it's a ridiculous, inane question, but the whole idea of tasting pure neutrons (the split second you're pulped by the gravity of the star, of course) simply keeps me awake at night. Pathetic, isn't it.

I'm not picking on you, I just quoted only you. Don't think you're special.

Neutron: an elementary particle having no charge, mass slightly greater than that of a proton, and spin of 1/2 : a constituent of the nuclei of all atoms except those of hydrogen. Symbol: n

I wasn't familiar with stars made of these. Sounds interesting. Can you point me to a direction on the internet that discusses these in more detail? Would YOU like to discuss them in more detail? If so, I'll ponder a bit, then make some unanswered questions up

[size=xx-large]Are all questions unanswered?[/size]

Tyler

 

[GlendaleViper]

You make good, scientifically sound points, guys... but I'm not satisfied.

If I looked at it strictly in the sense of survival of the fittest, then I could leave it be and let Nature do its thing. But I can't, and the video linked (just awesome, by the way, thanks for that!) illustrates why.

Let's use Marvin's point as an example, ignoring the human parallel for a moment. I'm also going to ignore the old, injured and weak. If we're to assume that a human concept like egocentricity can be applied to other animals, then we can assume that at least a few of the males in a herd have a superiority complex. This is clearly displayed during mating rituals where the dominant males are identified in battle, but is also seen in their subsequent selection of a female. Remember that with many species, including Caribou, the males are vastly outnumbered by females (further survival tactic, I know) and consider that, while those allowed to mate have multiple partners and therefore better chances at producing strong offspring, the male often has a preferred female (this is particularly apparent in primates, but we'll stick to the Caribou). So, we have an animal which could have some degree of cognizance as to their own superiority which has been proven through competition, a preferred mate (surely based on his own observations of her health and fitness), and perhaps an animal form of "logic" dictating that their offspring - that particular golden child, is therefore most precious. Is that offspring not worth protecting, even at risk of personal injury - for the good of the herd?

Now consider that quite often the lesser males will still procreate, sometimes in "secret". In the series prior to Planet Earth, Blue Planet, "defeated" Elephant Seals are captured sneaking around, finding willing females to accept their advances while the alpha male is (hopefully) not looking. We can see, then, that even the individuals who have been proven the weaker links in the chain still have the desire to procreate. This is interesting to me, because it displays a kind of rebelliousness that seems to go against instinct as much as it runs with it.

What I'm getting at here is that the herd mentality does not always seem to correlate with individual drive (I refer you to Marvin's school shooting example, uncomfortable though it may be, as a behavioural reference point). Aside from the outcome of competition, there is little to say which examples of the group should proliferate and it seems possible to me that if an animal in such an environment is willing to go against the "rules" like this, then it might just indicate something more than good genes are at play. Selfishness? Ego? Subjectivity, perhaps? If a weaker male still holds himself in high enough regard to procreate, his offspring (theoretically inferior though it may be) is also worthy of protecting.

Now, I know I'm humanizing things to a very heavy degree here and I'm using rare and bizarre behaviour as an example, but my fascination with the animal kingdom begins in large part after evolutionary biology. Instances of odd behaviour as seen in the video above illustrate just how unpredictable the animal kingdom can be. If we are to believe in animal sentience (which I do), then it might just suggest that there's more to the natural order of things than meets the eye.

To an expert, this is probably layman ignorance and bona-fide crackpottery. But, embarrassingly pretentious though it may be, it's a question nonetheless and one which - even as it applies to humanity, has yet to be fully explained.

But what can I say, I'm a romantic!

 

[kydsid]

Evolution is not merely survival of the fittest. Sometimes there are just things that work one way of the other.

 

[braillediver]

It really breaks down to volume or technique.

Herd animals have no technique so they need mass volume to survive. Where a wolf has cunning etc so it has superior technique and less numbers.

The prey's just not smart enough to fight back.


Mitch

 

[dkjohnso]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braillediver /img/forum/go_quote.gif The prey's just not smart enough to fight back.

YouTube - Battle at Kruger

Sometimes they are.

 

[ecclesand]

Why do men have nipples? What purpose do they serve other than to break up the space between our neck and belly button?

 

[GlendaleViper]

Ah, the male nipple. Reminder we belong to the mammalian class? Proof of our confused sexual beginnings? Pathetic and oft hairy little mongrels standing in contrast to our female counterparts' superior, awe-inspiring and, above all, functional faucets.

Thought this article was fun: Salon Health & Body | Why do men have nipples?

 

[acidbasement]

What's even more interesting is that under certain conditions, men can lactate.

My favourite question is related to free will. Given the laws of thermodynamics, if all energy and matter was produced and set in motion by the Big Bang, then how can any of us have free will? Isn't everything that happens in the Universe an inevitable, however unlikely, consequence of that initial explosion of energy and matter? It's all just fallout, atoms bouncing off one another, however many billion years later.