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

Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#51

Post by pvaldes »

In the same sense as birds in a flock flee when one of them is attacked and start a distress call. Sperm whales enjoy a very long distance communication that allow them to keep contact at several Km.

> “We” and “us” may be more important than “I” and “me”

Not necessarily. It depends on the species and males and females behave differently. Some whales at least have a strong sense of individuality. They are one of the very few animals known to call other specimens by its individual name. The big sperm whales have a sort of matrilineal culture (Pygmy and dwarf sperm whales are solitary probably. Males definitely only care about themselves).

In any case this would be the common behavior, as seen in many fishes, spiders, mammals or birds.

Talking about societies in many dolphins is justified, and not a new thing. Like elephants or humans, they have grandmas also, that is also an uncommon trait. Grandmas keep mental maps of the territory. This is useful to drive the other members directly to that hidden submarine mount that is plenty of fishes. Grandmas also take care of the young whales in surface playgrounds while their mothers dive deep to hunt.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#52

Post by WalterBright »

cmurf wrote: post #46
WalterBright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me put it another way. In a free market, any group is free to start a commune. In America, many thousands have been created. They all failed. People try it. After a few months, within a couple years, they tire of it and leave, and the commune collapses. What that strongly suggests is communes are just incompatible with human nature.

Nonsense. https://www.ic.org/ Communes predate America. The more likely story is free markets collapse under weight of adversarial greed and need communes to bail them out. Where would American airlines be at right now left up to free markets? We've socialized their losses and privatized their profits like so many ither examples.

It shows 264 communes worldwide. Not a very impressive number out of 7 billion people. I looked at a couple at random, and they were very small.

> Communes predate America.

You're right. Jamestown was a commune. They starved. The Pilgrims' first year was spent as a commune. They starved.

> Where would American airlines be at right now left up to free markets?

They were shut down by the government lockdowns and travel bans. Whether or not the lockdowns are a good idea, the damage they caused are not the fault of free markets. Do you propose that communes thrive under lockdowns?

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#53

Post by WalterBright »

austinjp wrote: post #48
WalterBright wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Bound by communality, sperm-whale culture expresses a collective individuality: “We” and “us” may be more important than “I” and “me”. If that isn’t a lesson for their Homo sapiens cousins, I don’t know what is. For better or worse, people are individuals, not members of a collective. Collectives of people don't work, and it isn't for a lack of trying. People aren't whales or bees in a beehive. That doesn't mean, h…

Collectives are fundamental to human society and always have been. Even hunter gatherers lived and still live in communities. These pre-date the "free market" (no idea why you introduce this) and will outlive it. Certainly, there is room for individuals, but individualism as you describe it is always the exception.

I did not say or describe individualism. I said that people organize and cooperate out of self-interest, and that's what a free market relies on.

> Collectives are fundamental to human society and always have been. Even hunter gatherers lived and still live in communities.

Communities, sure. Collectives, not so sure.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#54

Post by dragonwriter »

WalterBright wrote: post #39
smolder wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you are drawing the line between organization and collective. I don't think there is such a clear separation, or much of a distinction at all. When I get a job at a company, yes I'm doing it in self interest, but I still make sacrifices to that group as part of my participation. Is it an ability to come and go independently and form or be part of different organizations that you think makes those n…

Let me put it another way. In a free market, any group is free to start a commune. In America, many thousands have been created. They all failed. People try it. After a few months, within a couple years, they tire of it and leave, and the commune collapses. What that strongly suggests is communes are just incompatible with human nature.

> In America, many thousands have been created.

> They all failed.

> [...]

> What that strongly suggests is communes are just incompatible with human nature.

All things in the material universe are impermanent, communes exist in the material universe, ergo communes are impermanent.

But many of those started in the US have not yet failed, and some have lasted several decades. So the actual evidence doesn't even show that communes are incompatible with American-style capitalist context, much less “human nature”.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#55

Post by WalterBright »

ganafagol wrote: post #42
WalterBright wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I explicitly said that people still organize. Not as collectives, though. Perhaps you're missing what a collective is - it's an organization where people share equally in the results. It's characterized by self-sacrifice for the collective benefit. The huge majority of organizations are set up for selfish benefit, not collective benefit. Cooperation in mutual self-interest is NOT the same thing as cooperation in self…

Maybe it's you that has a too narrow definition of "collective". It's a cooperative organization. Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice.

> Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice.

Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. That's self-sacrifice, as in if you produce more than the mean, that is taken from you.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#56

Post by coldtea »

WalterBright wrote: post #35
coldtea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are forced collectives You'd be surprised. There are people who would die for their country, and nobody has a gun to their head. Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries.

I know quite a bit about military history. > There are people who would die for their country, We call them heroes and give them a medal and commemorate them with a statue. Because they are rare. > Hell, historically people died to BUILD or FREE their countries. It's pretty rare for people to do it knowing they will die. (People more often will risk death because of the value of the gain they'll get if they don't die…

>We call them heroes and give them a medal and commemorate them with a statue. Because they are rare.

Those are just the most celebrated ones.

They are quite more than those. Especially in popular armies (as opposed to professional military), resistance moements, national revolutions and anti-colonial movements and so on where there's no "draft".

Even in the US, who is not known for that sort of thing, tons of people volunteered e.g. in world war II (~ 39% of those that fought).

>It's pretty rare for people to do it knowing they will die.

It's extremely common for people to do it knowing there's a big chance they'll die, far more than any "extreme sport" today.

>Armies historically execute anyone disobeying orders to advance or show cowardice in the face of the enemy

But that's not the case of armies where people volunteered for the cause (and would have suffered no ill fate if they didn't, probably the contrary), which are plentiful in the examples I have.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#57

Post by coldtea »

WalterBright wrote: post #55
ganafagol wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's you that has a too narrow definition of "collective". It's a cooperative organization. Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice.

> Nothing in that definition demands self-sacrifice. Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally. That's self-sacrifice, as in if you produce more than the mean, that is taken from you.

>Sure it does. In a commune, everything produced is shared equally.

Is this thread about some naive US conception and fear of "socialism" and such?

Heck, not even in USSR "everything produced was shared equally". Not to mention really existing communism is hardly the main example of the idea of a collective (or a good one)...

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#58

Post by WalterBright »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #41
WalterBright wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact they existed at all makes the point that the army discipline was forcibly applied, including executions for cowardice. Even just a few executions gets the point across to the troops.

Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for desertion are very rare in western culture armies. Not that western culture armies couldn't be cruel. Field Punishment No. 1 is culturally engrained in my country: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 That said, you seem to be implying that…

WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US.

> you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow.

There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not allow soldiers to desert. Deserters are imprisoned or shot.

The US military is currently all volunteer. But they're still not allowed to desert. Being in the military is a good career, and there are many benefits making it attractive. But you can bet if we get into a war where they start dying in large numbers, the government will start drafting. After all, all young men are required by law to register for the draft when they turn 18. Even now.

When I was young, I considered joining the Air Force or the Navy. But not to sacrifice myself. I seriously doubt many of those join up, nor would I really want to serve with someone who wanted to sacrifice himself.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#59

Post by dragonwriter »

WalterBright wrote: post #58
EdwardDiego wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but as the link states, they primarily focused on controlling the penal regiments. And that's one example, from one particular culture. Executions for desertion are very rare in western culture armies. Not that western culture armies couldn't be cruel. Field Punishment No. 1 is culturally engrained in my country: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/field-punishment-no-1 That said, you seem to be implying that…

WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US. > you seem to be implying that all armies ever have relied on force to recruit and retain members, which rings hollow. There are exceptions. But by and large, conscription is used. Conscription is force. As for retaining soldiers, all of them I've ever heard of did not all…

> WW1 and WW2 both relied heavily on forced conscription, on all sides. So did the Vietnam War. The draft was an enormous political issue in the US.

Vietnam was the only 20th century war with a fairly limited draft rather than the broad drafts of the World Wars and Korea. That actually played a lot into the political controversy.

Re: Whales in 19th century shared information about ship attacks

#60

Post by WalterBright »

leto_ii wrote: post #47
WalterBright wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> armies We tend to give medals to soldiers who self-sacrifice, because it's unusual. Not many are interested in dying for their country. If you refuse an order to advance on an enemy stronghold, you'll get shot. Remember those Soviet blocking battalions? How does that relate to self-sacrifice for the collective? You overlooked the rest of what I wrote about armies.

> Not many are interested in dying for their country. If you refuse an order to advance on an enemy stronghold, you'll get shot. Actually, what that shows more than anything is that not many people are willing to kill for their country. Killing other humans, even in self-interest, is often very hard to do - this is actually further evidence that people are quite collaborative and non-confrontational by nature.

Talk to a combat veteran. One who has really been in combat and under fire.

You won't find many who are eager to advance under fire.

The 8th AF was suffering 80% casualties when my father was in the air war. He would talk sometimes about the terrible, gut-melting fear, and how it would crush some of the men, and how some of the men dealt with it (like heavy drinking).

They weren't reluctant to kill the enemy - I asked him about it. He said the enemy was doing their damnedest to kill him, and he was trying to survive, not die. If you refused to go on a mission, the threat of execution was there, although they didn't do it. There was surely prison and utter disgrace, though, which many would consider worse than dying.

My father dealt with it by looking at the numbers and resigning himself to death. He figured that while he lasted he'd do his duty and his best. When he signed up, I think he thought of it more as an adventure than a death sentence, like most young men do. Young men imagine themselves to be immortal.

Post reply on HN