Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

bioone.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 269 posts

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#181

Post by [deleted] »

JackFr wrote: post #146
krapp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. To simply state that humans are best adapted at certain traits is true, but humans have tended to think of themselves as "special" in that "we're not even animals, but beings made in the image of God and given divine right to conquer Nature and do with it what we will." That anthropo…

> That anthropocentric bias has led to a multitude of evils How about we're the only species which we hold to a moral standard? Unless you're going to hold other species to that standard, you have to admit that we're special.

[deleted]

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#182

Post by Momquist »

rtpg wrote: post #86
meri_dian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In each of those categories we're far and away the best. I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. I think among some people that are frustrated with the human world for whatever - either personal or abstract - reason, there's a feeling of misanthropy that colors their thinking, and so they try to belittle humanity.

I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.

I think another point to add is that raising animals for food can be seen as a symbiotic relationship.

If not for the development of animal husbandry, would pigs, chickens, and such be as successful (from a total population pov)? I think not. Many animals have the chance to be alive, only because they are supported by humans. This relationship is not only one-way: they are protected from predators, sheltered, and fed.

Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place.

By the way, even animal husbandry is not specific to humans. Ants for example, have "farmed" aphids for millions of years. They milk them for honeydew and eventually eat them.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#183

Post by nine_k »

dorfsmay wrote: post #177
nine_k wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Widely eaten animals are those easy to farm. This limits them mostly to land herbivores, like cows, and water herbi/omnivores, like shrimp or tilapia. The level of intelligence plays little role, as long as the animals don't use it to actively try to fight back or escape. E.g. pigs are no less smart than dogs.

I'll argue it is more complicated. Horse meat for example is eaten in continental Europe and Asia but taboo in the UK and U.S. And on your point about pig vs dogs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

Indeed!

I just think thad dog meat can't be anything but an expensive delicacy, because to produce one unit of dog meat you already need many more units of other meat, to feed the dog.

This helps dogs and cats stay pets, largely protected from eating by human emotional attachment, while cows or pigs get pushed to the cattle sector, emotionally detached for food purposes.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#184

Post by vasilipupkin »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #178
vasilipupkin wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.

Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.

it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#185

Post by jonnycomputer »

brlewis wrote: post #91
duncan_bayne wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may be a personal failing on my part - argument from personal incredulity as Dawkins puts it - but the idea of a bird intentionally carrying fire instead of fleeing it seems a bit odd. See also http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-03/smart-bushfire-birds/7... : > Mr Gosford said he had never actually seen a bird at a fire front, intentionally spreading the fire. > So he said he decided to appeal to people to come…

the idea of a bird intentionally carrying fire instead of fleeing it seems a bit odd Small prey flees fire -> raptor associates fire with food -> raptor is attracted to fire -> raptor picks up stick with fire -> raptor drops stick since it isn't actually food -> small prey flees new fire -> raptor associates dropping fire stick with food.

technically, raptors don't need to intend anything in this instance. they merely need to be attracted to burning sticks long enough to carry them some distance away. in that case, no adaptive justification is really required (aside from that pertaining to the attraction itself (curiosity, or whatever).

still, one can come up with at least a few stories that might "explain" it. outing prey to where they can be caught might be one.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#186

Post by dorfsmay »

hnaccy wrote: post #145
dorfsmay wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process. Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monke…

>Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... I'd say it's rather simple, the issue is most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to live morally. Given their clear intelligence and ability to suffer the ease with which people deny that animals are moral beings is disgusting.

Plants release pheromones when being collected, cut etc...[1] which some people argue is a way to express suffering and has lead some people to "eat only fallen fruit" [2]. The whole debate of vegetarianism vs vegan, is exploiting animal for food (milk, eggs) ethical? Some people argue that a pure vegetarian lifestyle is unhealthy...

This is why I am saying that one needs to draw a line, and that it isn't necessarily easy. It sounds like you made your choice and that it was easy for you, but that isn't the case for everybody.

[1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#187

Post by _jal »

meri_dian wrote: post #69
taneq wrote: post #7

So we're not the only: - tool-using animal - fire-using animal - language-using animal - animal which domesticates other animals - animal which builds complex structures Aha! I know! We're the only animal which continually comes up with reasons why we're special.

In each of those categories we're far and away the best. I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. I think among some people that are frustrated with the human world for whatever - either personal or abstract - reason, there's a feeling of misanthropy that colors their thinking, and so they try to belittle humanity.

For some reason, humans get testy about this.

Acknowledging both the blindingly obvious point that we are the apex species on this planet and that we do a lot of complicated, interesting things we have yet to observe in others does not mean observing similarities to other species somehow diminishes humanity. On the contrary, telling ourselves just-so stories that appeal to our arrogance and need to be special discourages research and progress. If I "know" that we're the only species that talks (because some other human convinced me that god, some super-researcher or whoever said so), I'm not very likely to go looking for counterexamples.

Drifting into aesthetic/religious/philosophical territory for a second, I personally feel that humans are deeply interesting because of what an odd mishmash of traits we have. If one is prone to anthropomorphizing evolution, one way to still appeal to human vanity is to view it as a pretty risky slow-burn strategy that, after succeeding, made us our own worst predator/environmental risk[1]. If we were just some toy made by $deity for whatever reason, it becomes a lot less interesting of a story.

[1] Of course, evolution doesn't work that way, but it makes a nice story.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#188

Post by z0r »

saguro wrote: post #78
DeusExMachina wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are the only mammal with consciousness, which leads to knowledge of the future and the discerning of good and evil. Despite the fact that we still don’t understand the least about how consciousness arises in our brain, we are nonetheless the only animal that shows this. Even in cases like monkeys recognizing themselves una mirror, no animal seem to go past that and be aware of the future like we do.

> discerning of good and evil Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge changes. Modern humans consider the typical behaviors of past humans as 'evil'. Vikings - rape after conquering is good. People today: that's evil. India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil. Homosexuality - has oscillated many ti…

The notion of what is acceptable and good fluctuating throughout time and cultures doesn't remove the fact that the distinction is made. And your nitpicking criticism that misses the forest for the trees is an excellent example of the capacity to distinguish between good and evil, with its implicit value judgements.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#189

Post by inteleng »

weirdwitch wrote: post #154
yipopov wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this story definitely has a certain WE WUZ feel to it.

Can you explain what this means?

He's referring to the "WE WUZ KANGZ" meme, in that he sees the research as not believable.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#190

Post by lostlogin »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #107
fapjacks wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me when you find another animal that launched itself to the moon.

The vast majority of humanity can't accomplish that. I guess we all get credit for the achievements of any of our species? Are we then also burdened with credit for any individual's atrocities?

> The vast majority of humanity can't accomplish that.

Can any nation or company? I know SpaceX aim to be able but I didn’t think anyone was capable at the moment.

Post reply on HN