61–70 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine wolves weren't to easy domesticate either
Not easy, but much more easy, because wolves are pack animals who accept a leader, which can be a human. Bears not so much and therefore much harder to control. Same with cats, which is why they have been kept around to hunt the mice and rats - but only small cats. Also I believe the first dogs did not came from wolves, but other wild dog breeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not easy, but much more easy, because wolves are pack animals who accept a leader, which can be a human. Bears not so much and therefore much harder to control. Same with cats, which is why they have been kept around to hunt the mice and rats - but only small cats. Also I believe the first dogs did not came from wolves, but other wild dog breeds.
Felines of all sizes have social hierarchies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good point. They've definitely been bred for their ability to communicate with us. I know it's a bit tangential, but I do like the fact we have a kind of sister species in that way. I sometimes wonder what it would be like if our ancestors had instead domesticated another animal to that extent (besides the cat, I suppose). In an alternate universe, maybe we'd have smallish bears as trusted companions :-)
"In an alternate universe, maybe we'd have smallish bears as trusted companions :-)" Some people have even in this universe, but not so many, because they are not easy to handle. And back then having pets, was not so much a hobby - but the dogs were useful for survival. (guarding and hunting)
Hesiod in his Works and Days (c. 700 BC) talks about the behaviour of octopuses, saying that when octopuses get hungry they will eat their own tentacles. Amazingly, Hesiod was right about this behaviour (octopuses do sometimes eat their own tentacles) but it's not because they're hungry, but because they're stressed.
I don't see why this is a surprise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an insane idea that octopuses might not enjoy being stuffed into what amounts to a studio apartment for their entire life.
They are also notorious for finding increasingly cleverer ways of escaping aquariums. Which again adds to the case that an aquarium is not a suitable environment.
When humans are social with humans, are they reaching out or simply reacting?
I changed the title from "Can We Really Be Friends with an Octopus?" to "When octopuses are social with humans, are they reaching out or simply reacting?" (the subtitle, more or less) in the hope of avoiding shallow comments like this. (A comment reacting purely to information, or lack of information, in a title is pretty much shallow by definition.) Since that didn't work, I guess it's time to look for some more rep…
For example, the article correctly claims that we don't really know how an octopus perceives these interactions with humans, as they're of an entirely different non-mammalian intelligence and social behavior. Next, the article strongly affirms they're about as intelligent as a racoon.
These two things directly contradict each other and show shallowness on our behalf. The real answer is that we have no idea at all.
The article continues to state that things like deceit and learning ability are rarely found in invertebrates. Which is plain wrong. They are found in creatures a thousand times smaller than an octopus.
Weak scorpionfly males pretend to be a female so that they get a food gift from a strong male, which they can carry to the actual female. Deceit. Some butterflies strategically place their eggs near ants after which the ants take the pupa (which is evolved to look like an ant pupa) and nourish it to an adult. After which the young adult butterfly goes: thanks for everything, bye now. Deceit. Camouflage. Deceit. Traps. Deceit. Mimicry. Deceit.
Beewolfs (which are wasps) navigate by beacons. Move the beacons and they re-learn the path. Learning ability. The absolute "dumbest" creature showing learning ability: earth worms. We're talking a handful of neurons. They drag leaves into their dens to feed on. By giving them lots of different leafs, they learn which types they want. They also learn to drag them in the right direction, as the other way blocks the den. It actually remembers this and gets better at it over time.
We are incredibly shallow in misunderstanding but above all underestimating the capabilities of animals and overestimating the value of our own definitions.
So the challenge is warranted. Perhaps another species is studying us and concluding that we're not a social species, because we all seem to sit by ourselves looking at some weird bar of bright light all day. Even in mass gatherings (cities) of millions, this weird species does not show actual social behavior. Nobody knows each other and actively ignores others.
"Maybe octopuses don’t regard us so much as friends or associates as giant, elaborate levers they can manipulate for their own benefit. "
Both these statements read as if it's a settled question that human aren't doing the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a critique of My Octopus Teacher as a movie of a self-centered man who projects his issues onto an unsuspecting wild animal: "MY OCTOPUS TEACHER & Environmental Horror, An Analysis" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whb4unrhy44
> a self-centered man Self-centered? I'm assuming you're basing that off of an edited film designed to entertain people and not because you actually know the man. > who projects his issues onto an unsuspecting wild animal Humans tend to project their issues onto unsuspecting things all the time in my experience: partners, co-workers, strangers, pets, etc. And inanimate objects too, if you've ever seen someone slam a…
Another example, is it bad to watch Birth of a Nation? Does it depend on the creator's intent or the broadcaster's intent or the consumer's intent?
In a similar way, we can't help but view other beings from within our own subjective frame. The levels of abstractive difference from that octopus to my comment are dizzying. Each individual applies another coat of paint to the canvas.
I find research papers bland sometimes, but that is the point. Researchers try to hide their perspective and take on some sort of apreferential objective God view. In that attempt, we get a nutritious, unseasoned chunk of raw tofu. I can eat that sometimes. A lot of the times I want a flavorful, multi-modal umami dish. The person who concocts that sort of meal will inevitably "season to taste". I would be remiss to spit out my first bite, "This is not raw tofu!"
I read these articles about octopuses, and then lament the fact that we hunt them down and eat them. Given all of the other sources of nourishment available to us, why eat them?
For the same reason people kill most animals: tradition and they're delicious. I've heard of vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, etc., but it would be interesting if there was another eating style based on some (admittedly challenging) evaluation of the animal's cognition or social behavior.