Yes, as the owner of a cat, I can say quite comfortably, animals kill for pleasure. As a chicken farmer who lost 10 chickens to a bear who didn't even eat them, I'm pretty sure the phenomenon is not confined to cats nor humans. Weasels seem to take particular glee in killing chickens.Do animals kill for fun?
And your Point?As a chicken farmer who lost 10 chickens to a bear who didn't even eat them
So will mankind.your pet will consume your flesh if it is starving and you are dead
Why would you? The most intimate example of natural animal behavior with insight into the inner workings of the brain is our own. Why, if we are going to act like Evolution or Natural Selection is the sole motivating force that brought us into being (the scientific first position for all biology), would any scientist start from another point of view? If one is not taking a scientific position, then anything is possible and most motivations unknowable. So, why still act like it is any different for other animals than it is for us? Those orca purposely passed to either side of those kids because of a motivation that might have been curiosity, it might have been a defensive tactic, it might have been a way to leave their possibilities open. They didn't attack because they were not hungry enough, they understand humans are organised and may be vengeful, or they held some sort of sense of generosity. There is, under these conditions, no way to tell. However, to assume that orca, of all creatures who aren't human, act only on the barest of instincts based solely in a chemical biological response to stimulus and response on such a simple level, is to close the door on possibilities that are very real and astounding.I honestly don't know how to put this into an "eat, reproduce, survive" category.
Speak of motivation, generosity and love!I think I would like to share a bottle of bourbon
Yes of course, for just the reasons you pointed out.would any scientist start from another point
Even if your explanation were nothing but the whole truth, how does that exclude jealousy as the name for the feeling a dog experiences that makes it behave as though it were jealous? Those same words could explain the human condition. They may, in fact, be true, but I fail to see how providing an explanation for our behaviors in such terms removed what we feel as we are motivated to act.So many interesting ways to take this conversation.
Drew13440, I can offer an alternative explanation of your dog’s jealousy. Dogs are pack animals. There are genetically coded behaviors that establish rank in that pack. It could well be that the jealous dog regards your attention to the other dog as a pack or sovial demotion and its behavior reflects that. We project our interperpatation of that behavior as a human emotion of jealousy. Mote later.
Darwin's theories were founded on an economic theory being developed at the time. It was fundamentally survival of the fittest. Darwin added evolution to it from his observations of related but different species. Natural Selection, as part of that isn't a theory, it's a tautology. It's like saying the blocks are stacked well because the building doesn't fall down. There is nothing in these ideas that preclude or exclude emotions like love. We can say man is the only creature that feels love, but that flies in the face of behavioral evidence to the contrary. The facts are not knowable until we can clearly define such emotions in quantifiable phenomena.Darwin's theory is not a law. He proposed that as a species cross mated, the new siblings would be an evolved species in of itself.
The tautology criticism is more like the following. Evolution by Natural Selection is driven by the "Survival of the Fittest." The most fit are the ones that survive; therefore, evolution by Natural Selection is effectively driven by a "survival of the survivors." Fitness, however, is defined as the probability that a particular phenotype, consequently its underlying genotype, will live to reproductive age and leave viable offspring to produce the next generation, etc.Natural Selection, as part of that isn't a theory, it's a tautology. It's like saying the blocks are stacked well because the building doesn't fall down.
very well said.The tautology criticism is more like the following.
I don't know. My point was more that we project an human emotion, known to us by the word jealousy, to an animal that we have know way of knowing what it is thinking. We make predictions on their behavior based on what we would do when we feel that emotion. Those predictions may be very inaccurate and that's why I think the kids were in peril.Even if your explanation were nothing but the whole truth, how does that exclude jealousy as the name for the feeling a dog experiences that makes it behave as though it were jealous? - Will (Dragonfly)
Very good point. It is a good place to start, as long as we keep in mind, it is just a place to start. Science is, as you say, about building models of our universe from which we make predictions. They bear out or they show the model is deficient and needs more work. It is a historical truth that humans anthropomorphize the world around us, from our pets to the stars in the sky, to emotions like love and random events as the Fates and Lady Luck.We make predictions on their behavior based on what we would do when we feel that emotion. Those predictions may be very inaccurate and that's why I think the kids were in peril.
I'm bourbon able.What, you don't drink bourbon?!?!