Speciation

[ubs]

Philboid Studge wrote

Nah, I think nkb is correct here. There is a very robust correlation between education level and zero, or near-zero, population growth societies. It is so robust that sociologists have mostly invoked the c-word to describe it (by which I mean 'causation').

We weren't talking about education, we were talking about food production and desertification. I stand by my position and leave you to do your own google-fu.

[ubs]

Also, for the record Phil, you have it backwards. Education levels go up AFTER birthrates fall. Just sayin'...

[Rhinoqulous]

nkb wrote

Last I checked, the problem is not food shortage, but food delivery (my information may be out of date). We have plenty of farm land, sometimes left to not grow anything. Efforts need to be made to get the food to the people that need it.
Also, efforts to curb human population (through educational means and readily available birth control in all parts of the world) would go a long way.

I've heard the same thing, it's a problem of delivery (and not getting the food stolen in economic-south regions before it can be delivered to those who need it).

Can you explain that one, please?

If I recall correctly, bison were in danger of getting wiped out because it was a sport to see how many you could kill at one sitting. They didn't eat the meat, they just left it to rot (fucking over the Indians in the process).

Bison are making a come-back because they are being raised for meat. Ranchers are making a huge effort to increase the population of bison, as there is a growing demand for the tasty, juicy, low-fat meat they provide (mmmm, bison). You can buy bison at any grocery store up here (not too much more than beef), and many places have bison on the menu.

[Tenspace]

Philboid Studge wrote

I don't know that starvation is correlated at all with overpopulation, except perhaps negatively: fertility goes down in famine years. But I could be wrong.

True, but there is a correlated increase of roughly 17% in fertility during post-famine years. You can use google-fu for additional information.

[Rhinoqulous]

Irreligious wrote

I meant sentient in the most broad sense, as in having consciousness and the ability to feel. This was in the context of humans having great difficulty perceiving an experience that is not a human experience.

A dog's life seems rather simple to me and devoid of the quality of experience of a human life, but is that really objectively accurate?

Some "my bad" for me as well, as I posted too early, and was thinking of the wrong thing (that's what I get for posting before coffee). I was thinking more of "sapience", not "sentience", so I get what you're saying (and don't really have a problem with it).

As for your placing of value on a dogs life, value will always be a subjective distinction, so it is pointless to seek objectivity in that area.

I put de-humanize in quotes to illustrate that we attempt to humanize or anthropomorphize animals when it's convenient and then reverse the process (if you will) when it comes time to, er, put them back in their place, such as on a leash, in a cage or on a serving platter.

I see. Again, I plead posting B.C. (before coffee).

[nkb]

ubs wrote

Actually people have more children when there is starvation because they are calculating that some will die. Birth control doesn't really work. Like Tenspace, you are assuming ignorance.

Can you show us some evidence for this assertion? I'd like to see how it is proven that people calculate attrition in their families to determine how many kids to have.
While you're at it, show where it is proven that low education, religious rules, etc do not play a role.

ubs wrote

No, but we do now, and as the meat is healthier than beef (largely because of legal constraints on how they are to be raised), Bison are making a come back....so eat that Bison Burger and contribute to a great cause.

Huh! So, preserving the bison actually turned out to be a good thing? Go figure!

That kind of argues the point that we should protect endangered species, especially the ones we're trying to eradicate artificially. Because, you never know when they might come in handy (even if it is only as a tasty burger).

Side note: Can we make the same argument for Indians? They tried killing them all off back in the day, but nowadays it's cool to claim some Indian heritage (is it just me, or does everyone claim that? Those Indians must have been randy little horndogs), and how many gambling people who live too far away from Vegas would want the reservation casinos to go away?

Besides that, the fact that animals have intelligence (for example chimps can learn sign language) is not me anthropomorphizing anything.

My point was WHERE THE HELL did these single cells get the intelligence needed to turn into eukaryotic cells that morphed into fish that morphed into land animals that conveniently figured out how to build a LUNG so it could breathe oxygen? Did it have a manual or something?

Sternwallow wrote

Is it acceptable for humans with access a variety of sustaining foods to routinely include endangered animals in that selection of foods? What is intrinsically sacred about a species?

Does the Cougar worry that its Antelope dinner might have been the last of its kind? If there are many different tasty animals around, why should the Cougar care (if it were cognizant)?

Who mourns the passing of the Woolly Mammoth, the giant Sloth and the Saber-toothed Cat?

Really. We all gotta go at some point. Just think, in billions of years the earth will be toast.

[Irreligious]

Ellie Arroway wrote

Regardless of that you're misunderstanding what I mean by intelligence in nature. Animals have intelligence and if they don't then I'm a fucking moron.

Animals clearly do have something that at least approximates what we call "intelligence," but does "nature," as the engine that drives everything we know, have this attribute?

We call it nature, but what exactly is it, this thing that propels us to perpetuate the behaviors that we do, whether we're seemingly sophisticated primates, canines or fleas?

Nature, itself, does not seem to be imbued with consciousness or intelligence. As far as we can tell, it just is.

dogpet wrote

I saw a programme on box jellyfish which were previously thought to be simple floating things. Turns out they can work in groups to chase & coral fish, using palm trees as a bearing to maintain their position.
They have 24 eyes giving 360' vision at all times, & get this, Four brains!
If they are attacked they go into a breeding frenzy & make millions of babies.

That's exactly what I was referring to by intelligence in nature.

ubs wrote

The world's only immortal animal is related to the jellyfish. It can change back and forth from infant to sexual mature adult at will.

Holy cow batman. Then, the jellyfish is god!

Irreligious wrote

Animals clearly do have something that at least approximates what we call "intelligence," but does "nature," as the engine that drives everything we know, have this attribute?

We call it nature, but what exactly is it, this thing that propels us to perpetuate the behaviors that we do, whether we're seemingly sophisticated primates, canines or fleas?

Nature, itself, does not seem to be imbued with consciousness or intelligence. As far as we can tell, it just is.

Meh. I didn't mean nature itself had intelligence. I meant that animals who reside in nature have intelligence. Fucking semantics

[Irreligious]

Ellie Arroway wrote

Meh. I didn't mean nature itself had intelligence. I meant that animals who reside in nature have intelligence. Fucking semantics

Oh. My bad.

Who here is arguing that animals lack intelligence? I might have missed that. I didn't think that was Eva's point.

Perhaps, she can clarify?

Edited: I think that where some of the confusion might have come in was in your seeming assertion that evolution must be driven by a sort of conscious intelligence. It seemed to me that Eva was disputing that.

[Tenspace]

Ellie Arroway wrote

Besides that, the fact that animals have intelligence (for example chimps can learn sign language) is not me anthropomorphizing anything.

My point was WHERE THE HELL did these single cells get the intelligence needed to turn into eukaryotic cells that morphed into fish that morphed into land animals that conveniently figured out how to build a LUNG so it could breathe oxygen? Did it have a manual or something?

I know this thread is rather convoluted; I want to make sure you saw this.

Your one question, "...WHERE THE HELL did these single cells get the intelligence needed to turn into eukaryotic cells that morphed into fish that morphed into land animals that conveniently figured out how to build a LUNG so it could breathe oxygen?", will require one hell of a long answer. You up for it?