251–260 of 269 posts
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.
According to the book, "Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind", we are the only animal that utilizes a "shared fiction", ie governmental laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the life-threatening problems we face today both individually and as a species are the result of our science/medicine/engineering.
Can you elaborate on this? This sounds like a Naturalistic Fallacy.
With that out of the way...
Here's a thought experiment. Humans lived for a few million years before developing agriculture and villages starting about ten to fourteen thousand years ago. I'm not an anthropologist, but I think we would be safe to assume that the causes of death during the first period were "natural": disease, predators, fighting, famine... have I missed any?
We can then call the causes of death arising after the advent of agriculture "technological" and add up all the deaths so far from each category and see which number is bigger.
I would reckon the "natural" deaths would be outstripped by the "technological" deaths by a wide margin, with the tipping point sometime in the last few thousand years.
I'm counting wars on the technology side (pretty much since the invention of the atlatl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl )
But this feels like sophistry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...
So, heart disease, infectious and parasitic diseases, cancer, ... Er, um, I think I have to "roll back" my comment...
I was thinking of car accidents, pollution, and the general ecological problems that have developed as unintended consequences of our technology. (We're victims of our own success.)
(There is also the "medical care is the third leading cause of death in America" issue already mentioned by jmulho, which should be a much bigger deal than it is: side-effects and out-right errors kill over 100,000 people in the US a year!)
But really, it's the time-scale that matters: if the ecology tanks and takes us with it then our technology (in hindsight) really is (was) the existential threat, despite the good run we had.
I don't have full-text access so I can only read the abstract. Why would a bird want to spread a forest fire?
I’m in the same boat as you, but in the book Sapiens it’s written that bush fires in Australia are started to force animals out of the forest and to create plains where they can be more effectively hunted in the future. Maybe the birds do this too (or learned it from people?)
1. Fires will force animals out of the forest for hunting. It sounds to me that this is the most likely reason for animals learning to spread fire.
2. While I expect sufficiently fierce fires will create plains, much of Australia's native flora is adapted to bush fires, and use it as an opportunity to regenerate. Many plants have seed pods that will only open after being burned. Thus, while much of Australia's bushland is dry, bushland that has been burned recently tends to be quite green and full of life, and many of the trees remain - however much furrier for their fresh growth of leaves.
3. Australian Aborigines (to my best recollection) were known for cycling parts of their territories as part of their nomadic lifestyle, farming somewhere, burning the land as the left, moving on, then returning again later when the land is restored and more plentiful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love the land, but I have no interest in Australian culture or politics. I think its a real pity that, as guardians of one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, Australians have let it fall into serious disrepair. See, for example, what has happened to the Great Barrier Reef. I learned to travel at a very young age, and don't have any national identity worth defending. I think of Australia as a wonderful co…
I left Australia 17 years ago, for what seems like similar reasons, although I have a hard time articulating them. Perhaps in another 13 years..... However, as time passes, my views are starting to change somewhat. There is a large enough body of literature to lead me to believe that there are more progressive elements of Australian society, that I was not broadly exposed to previously. Perhaps this realisation has c…
This is super cool, if a bit scary. Man Australia has it all though, 8/10 of the deadliest spiders, half the deadliest snakes, crocodiles, rockfish, and now firebirds. Inhabiting Australia is a testament to man's arrogance.
Hmm. The dangerous animals (say the stats) are humans, horses and dogs (in that order). None are particularly special to Australia, though Homo Sapiens Boganus is a unique local variation (often spotted Queensland). The so-called 'deadly' animals (some of which, including a variety of snakes, I come across frequently where I live) barely rate a statistical mention.
For instance, if you throw me in the sea next to a great white in a feeding frenzy, my chances of dying will have nothing to do with the probability of dying from a dog bite.
The statistics for the probability of dying from specific causes can help predict what one is most likely to die from- but not to how likely one is to die from encountering a spider or a snake.
In other words, people are afraid of, say, black widow spiders, because the probability of dying given one is attacked by a black widow is extremely high. And that is perfectly reasonable and a very good statistic to keep in mind if one is in any situation where encountering a black widow is a possibility (even one with a small probability).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. The dangerous animals (say the stats) are humans, horses and dogs (in that order). None are particularly special to Australia, though Homo Sapiens Boganus is a unique local variation (often spotted Queensland). The so-called 'deadly' animals (some of which, including a variety of snakes, I come across frequently where I live) barely rate a statistical mention.
Hang on a minute. Just because more people die from humans, dogs and horses, doesn't mean that snakes, spiders and jellyfish (in Australia) are not dangerous. For instance, if you throw me in the sea next to a great white in a feeding frenzy, my chances of dying will have nothing to do with the probability of dying from a dog bite. The statistics for the probability of dying from specific causes can help predict what…
> Inhabiting Australia is a testament to man's arrogance
.. whereas the stats indicate that the dangers in practice are minimal, and the measures to obviate them are largely obvious, easy to implement and almost universally observed.
Rare's the week I won't come across a brown snake or redback. Never's the week that either is the most significant danger I face.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the idea of a bird intentionally carrying fire instead of fleeing it seems a bit odd. Fire-stick farming has probably been practiced for tens of thousands of years, which gives a lot of time for birds to evolve in response. Most bushfires in the top end attract raptors as-is (especially Wedge-Tailed Eagles), because there are strong thermals to ride and lots of prey is forced to move, making it easier to hunt. > It…
Okay, that's fair - it's more likely to be true than UFOs being aliens ;) Personally, I'd be excited for this to be true for a number of reasons: * I'm Australian. Any advance in the understanding of how fires spread is of material benefit to me and people I care about. * I love animals. It'd be amazing if another species used fire, and may open up whole areas of research. * I'm Australian, which means I take a bizar…
Probably explains why you have a disparaging attitude towards indigenous knowledge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're falling for the assumption the brain's role is generating consciousness. It could also not do so yet still be part of an organism which is conscious. I can say that confidently because I understand how consciousness is generated. I could easily say it here and have in the past. Sure, I'll be downvoted by idiots who do not know whether I do or do not know how consciousness works, but are instead acting on their…
What is consciousness? I don't believe that it's universally accepted that it even exists amongst rsearchers. Even those who believe it exists have trouble defining it.