@smaakjeks I beg to differ. I have never observed an animal destroy another animal of its own species for any reason except a fight over resources (food, reproduction possibilites, etc.). Never.
"I have never observed an animal destroy another animal of its own species for any reason except a fight over resources (food, reproduction possibilites, etc.). Never."
Sure. But for the struggle over reproductive fitness, animals will do pretty much everything we think is awful, including siblicide, infanticide, cannibalism and rape.
"Humans do that all the time."
I may disagree with you on that, depending on which examples do you have in mind.
Also bear in mind that murderous tendencies are independent of altruism, which as I said, is hyperactive in humans. We are almost too fair towards one another. We aid those in need and punish the non-reciprocators to a large extent. Given the non-falsifiability of reciprocation models it's hard to test whether animals are as altruistic as us, but kin selection explains a great deal of altruism in animals. Not so much in humans (though that is probably the ultimate explanation).
Altruism and Savagery are both present in humans, and because of our great range of capabilities, receive far greater expression than in more limited animals. Altruism is a product of pack thinking, and we are largely pack animals. Coincidentally, so is excessive barbarism, as solitary species fight only when necessary, but pack animals practice it and have much more honed aggressive tendancies as they must fight not just for themselves but for the entire pack.
"receive far greater expression than in more limited animals"
It's all ultimately for increased reproductive success, though.
"as solitary species fight only when necessary, but pack animals practice it and have much more honed aggressive tendancies (...)"
All animals (including humans) avoid outright fighting as much as possible, because it's extremely costly. I'm not aware of any generally positive relationship between species sociability and aggressiveness.
@smaakjeks Essentially it has to do with a reduced need to flee when faced with a fight/flight situation.
Finding territory that is suitable for a group is harder than finding it for an individual. Also the group is bound to it's weaker and slower members, meaning that fight is more often chosen than flight when danger comes calling.
The level of aggressiveness within the group does fall but with external agents it increases as the required territory and resources required force more conflicts
"Finding territory that is suitable for a group is harder than finding it for an individual."
Is it? I would think that the population of animals (group or more solitary) spread to the carrying capacity anyway. How does one test for what you say?
"fight is more often chosen than flight when danger comes calling."
You're talking about mobbing, and that's easier in a group. But weren't we talking about conspecific aggression? Also, a lot of mobbing is non-physical as well.
'Is it? I would think that the population of animals (group or more solitary) spread to the carrying capacity anyway.'
Yes it is. A group has a bigger resource requirement than an individual so an individual can survive in a sparser territory than a group, but is not limited to such. Thus, suitable territory is rarer and thus harder to find.
From the conversation thus far I can't see any real distinction about the type of aggression being discussed.
"A group has a bigger resource requirement than an individual"
Yes, but this just affects the total carrying capacity. Can you provide some references that show that it's easier for solitary species to establish new territory than group living species?
"From the conversation thus far I can't see any real distinction about the type of aggression being discussed."
Well, I don't think anyone thinks humans are more aggressive towards heterospecifics than other animals.
You keep asserting that the only effect on resources by larger demand is larger carrying capacity, but for a residential or partially nomadic species that is a very limited factor.
And frankly I don't think I could find sources for something as demonstrably obvious as this. That said no one else has backed up their opinion in this discussion with any sources so I fail to see why I should bother.
However if you don't think humans are more aggressive towards other species, I think
... you are woefully mistaken. We hunt for sport, we claim and use vast amounts of land exclussively for our benefit driving out almost all other species except those that have specifically adapted to hiding amongst us like rats or mice, or our domesticated animals.
Our very position as dominant species on this planet and our sprawling footprint makes life far more dangerous for almost all other species we share it with.
So do animals (e.g. Killer Whales, cats, dogs and probably more if I search the literature)
"we claim and use vast amounts of land exclussively for our benefit"
Animals do not limit themselves at all. If you know your population dynamics, the more the resource requirements of two species overlap, the larger the probability of high inter-species conflict, and thus one species will drive the other to extinction. We're just extremely good at it.
"I don't think I could find sources for something as demonstrably obvious as this."
The point you were making was that it was harder for a social species to re-establish territory. Not whether resources limit possible ranges for groups vs solitary species. The claim involves several factors that emerge from costs and benefits of being social vs. solitary. I'm not sure it's that obvious.
"First line of your first comment made a positive claim."
Okay, sure. I thought you meant about territory replacement specifically. Sure, every positive claim in this comment section I can back up. So, an example from the literature of the extreme degree of human altruism:
Boyd, R et al. (2003): "The evolution of altruistic punishment". Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. USA. Vol 100, No 6, p: 3531-3535.
I normally like your videos, and I'm sure I would like this as well, if my damn headset would do what it's supposed to do. Have no idea what you're talking about. And that's why my focus shifted a bit from the content. Anyways, just wanted to ask about the heavy filter usage. Why not just give us a clean video? In my opinion, these filters doesn't do anything but distract... :)
Nonsense. Humans are hyper-altruistic. Just because animals don't have guns doesn't mean they are less savage. They are no better than us.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I beg to differ. I have never observed an animal destroy another animal of its own species for any reason except a fight over resources (food, reproduction possibilites, etc.). Never.
Humans do that all the time.
NeoDolph1n 1 year ago
@NeoDolph1n
"I have never observed an animal destroy another animal of its own species for any reason except a fight over resources (food, reproduction possibilites, etc.). Never."
Sure. But for the struggle over reproductive fitness, animals will do pretty much everything we think is awful, including siblicide, infanticide, cannibalism and rape.
"Humans do that all the time."
I may disagree with you on that, depending on which examples do you have in mind.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@NeoDolph1n
Also bear in mind that murderous tendencies are independent of altruism, which as I said, is hyperactive in humans. We are almost too fair towards one another. We aid those in need and punish the non-reciprocators to a large extent. Given the non-falsifiability of reciprocation models it's hard to test whether animals are as altruistic as us, but kin selection explains a great deal of altruism in animals. Not so much in humans (though that is probably the ultimate explanation).
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks
Altruism and Savagery are both present in humans, and because of our great range of capabilities, receive far greater expression than in more limited animals. Altruism is a product of pack thinking, and we are largely pack animals. Coincidentally, so is excessive barbarism, as solitary species fight only when necessary, but pack animals practice it and have much more honed aggressive tendancies as they must fight not just for themselves but for the entire pack.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
@AnonEyeMouse
"receive far greater expression than in more limited animals"
It's all ultimately for increased reproductive success, though.
"as solitary species fight only when necessary, but pack animals practice it and have much more honed aggressive tendancies (...)"
All animals (including humans) avoid outright fighting as much as possible, because it's extremely costly. I'm not aware of any generally positive relationship between species sociability and aggressiveness.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Essentially it has to do with a reduced need to flee when faced with a fight/flight situation.
Finding territory that is suitable for a group is harder than finding it for an individual. Also the group is bound to it's weaker and slower members, meaning that fight is more often chosen than flight when danger comes calling.
The level of aggressiveness within the group does fall but with external agents it increases as the required territory and resources required force more conflicts
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
@AnonEyeMouse
"Finding territory that is suitable for a group is harder than finding it for an individual."
Is it? I would think that the population of animals (group or more solitary) spread to the carrying capacity anyway. How does one test for what you say?
"fight is more often chosen than flight when danger comes calling."
You're talking about mobbing, and that's easier in a group. But weren't we talking about conspecific aggression? Also, a lot of mobbing is non-physical as well.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks
'Is it? I would think that the population of animals (group or more solitary) spread to the carrying capacity anyway.'
Yes it is. A group has a bigger resource requirement than an individual so an individual can survive in a sparser territory than a group, but is not limited to such. Thus, suitable territory is rarer and thus harder to find.
From the conversation thus far I can't see any real distinction about the type of aggression being discussed.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
@AnonEyeMouse
"A group has a bigger resource requirement than an individual"
Yes, but this just affects the total carrying capacity. Can you provide some references that show that it's easier for solitary species to establish new territory than group living species?
"From the conversation thus far I can't see any real distinction about the type of aggression being discussed."
Well, I don't think anyone thinks humans are more aggressive towards heterospecifics than other animals.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks
You keep asserting that the only effect on resources by larger demand is larger carrying capacity, but for a residential or partially nomadic species that is a very limited factor.
And frankly I don't think I could find sources for something as demonstrably obvious as this. That said no one else has backed up their opinion in this discussion with any sources so I fail to see why I should bother.
However if you don't think humans are more aggressive towards other species, I think
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
... you are woefully mistaken. We hunt for sport, we claim and use vast amounts of land exclussively for our benefit driving out almost all other species except those that have specifically adapted to hiding amongst us like rats or mice, or our domesticated animals.
Our very position as dominant species on this planet and our sprawling footprint makes life far more dangerous for almost all other species we share it with.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
@AnonEyeMouse
"We hunt for sport"
So do animals (e.g. Killer Whales, cats, dogs and probably more if I search the literature)
"we claim and use vast amounts of land exclussively for our benefit"
Animals do not limit themselves at all. If you know your population dynamics, the more the resource requirements of two species overlap, the larger the probability of high inter-species conflict, and thus one species will drive the other to extinction. We're just extremely good at it.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@AnonEyeMouse
"I don't think I could find sources for something as demonstrably obvious as this."
The point you were making was that it was harder for a social species to re-establish territory. Not whether resources limit possible ranges for groups vs solitary species. The claim involves several factors that emerge from costs and benefits of being social vs. solitary. I'm not sure it's that obvious.
"no one else has backed up their opinion"
You're making the positive claim, not me.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks 'Nonsense. Humans are hyper-altruistic. '
First line of your first comment made a positive claim. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
AnonEyeMouse 1 year ago
@AnonEyeMouse
"First line of your first comment made a positive claim."
Okay, sure. I thought you meant about territory replacement specifically. Sure, every positive claim in this comment section I can back up. So, an example from the literature of the extreme degree of human altruism:
Boyd, R et al. (2003): "The evolution of altruistic punishment". Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. USA. Vol 100, No 6, p: 3531-3535.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
I normally like your videos, and I'm sure I would like this as well, if my damn headset would do what it's supposed to do. Have no idea what you're talking about. And that's why my focus shifted a bit from the content. Anyways, just wanted to ask about the heavy filter usage. Why not just give us a clean video? In my opinion, these filters doesn't do anything but distract... :)
Hej fra Danmark...
HKragh 1 year ago
@HKragh I will, if I can get my girlfriend to agree to that. We'll see.
NeoDolph1n 1 year ago
@Kcaa1 Yup. You got something constructive to say, or you just trollin'?
NeoDolph1n 1 year ago
Actually a beast is any animal OTHER than human.
prodigyat9 1 year ago