Quick comment on my previous video

Just a quick response to some of the comments I received on my previous video.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• evolution
• school
• shootings
• NeoDolph1n
• CapnOrdinary
• Harun
• Yahya
• creationism
• is
• stupid

[smaakjeks]

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.

[NeoDolph1n]

@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.

[HKragh]

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...

[NeoDolph1n]

@HKragh I will, if I can get my girlfriend to agree to that. We'll see.

[smaakjeks]

@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]

@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.

[AnonEyeMouse]

@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.

[smaakjeks]

@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.

[AnonEyeMouse]

... 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]

@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

[smaakjeks]

@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.

[AnonEyeMouse]

@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.

[smaakjeks]

@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.

[AnonEyeMouse]

@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