It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Does Man Kill the Tigers?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I am curious as to how many cases of baboons killing tigers are on record.


I don't actually know. It was an example of the way non-human animals interact as opposed to how humans interact with other animals.
I could have used gorilla vs bobcat or any other animals.




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Man kills the tigers like police pull over drunk drivers.

Neither the tiger nor the drunk driver have to kill a human. They pose enough of a threat already.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Maybe the simple difference is indeed that we are smarter - but I should parse "smarter" and say instead "more prone to induction" - we extrapolate from the particular bad tiger incident and put the future not-yet-encountered tigers into the abstract bad-and-must-be-killed category...whereas the baboons are just more like riding the wave of events as they happen, not doing so much neocortical processing, proportionately...more like "oh here's a tiger oh God" than "That does it! I'm going to run for office on the anti-tiger platform"...



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Baboons don't live within range of tigers. Baboons do kill lions and lions kill baboons, though lions ususally kill far more baboons than the baboons kill lions.

Brown bears, pythons, and crocodiles do occasionally kill tigers though.



[edit on 30/6/10 by MikeboydUS]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nine-eyed-eel
 


Great response. Thanks. I agree it has something to do with our intelligence, more explained in my response on page one.


Originally posted by MikeboydUS
Baboons do kill lions


Oh! If only I had used lions for my rhetorical example instead of tigers!



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Interesting topic BH


obligatory caveat: I know next to nothing about primatology so I could be way off here, but ...

I think it has to do with humans' abstract thought processes, and tendency to project. That is, to project past experience into the future and also to project motivations onto others.

The argument from natural selection (that we developed this "skill set" because as our circumstances became more cushy we became physically more vulnerable) is somewhat compelling, but I don't think that's all there is to it or that the causality in the relationship is a one-way street.

I think that we developed our ability to project in conjunction with (in mutual reinforcement with) the complexity of our societies.

The other way you could look at it from an evolutionary-behavioral perspective would I suppose be in terms of tigers as competition for scarce resources (i.e. meat).

Of course that then begs the question of why we sometimes decide we must kill all the members of a species that isn't a direct competitor but we've decided gives us the "evil eye" or similar (thinking specifically of Madagascar traditional superstitions about the aye-aye here).



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by butcherguy
 




Brown bears, pythons, and crocodiles do occasionally kill tigers though.



[edit on 30/6/10 by MikeboydUS]


I posted this video once before on ATS...and I swear swear swear I now after this never will again...but it is so dang good...



Pythons and tigers are both nice.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
Of course that then begs the question of why we sometimes decide we must kill all the members of a species that isn't a direct competitor but we've decided gives us the "evil eye" or similar (thinking specifically of Madagascar traditional superstitions about the aye-aye here).


And that brings my thought process full circle. As what I'm REALLY wondering about is why we feel threatened by someone (another culture or nation) who gives us the "evil eye" or even disagrees with us or displays different-ness to us... whether it be societal, cultural or religious.

And it's not just different cultures or countries. Someone "different" moves in down the street and instead of thinking, "Oh, this will be enlightening! I am eager to learn from those who are different than me," we say, "What kind of trouble are these people going to cause? And how can I protect myself and my family from their different-ness"?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I hope this isn't too far afield, since I'm speaking of human to human interaction, leaving the critters out of it for a moment. If you think about it, we're predisposed to "choose sides". It's one of the most pervasive things I've noticed about human interaction. [Anecdotal evidence follows]

Take, for example, universities. Let's say, Oklahoma - Texas or Alabama - Auburn. These places really dislike each other, for no really good reason other than primarily football rivalry. Now, you can go to a campus and see further side choosing between the Greeks vs the Independents. Take a step further and within a frat house, you'll see the jocks vs the brainiacs. Then, the football players vs the basketball players. Then the offensive guys vs the defense. Then the linemen vs... etc etc.

I think it's probably deep within our genetic structure to form "Us vs Them" associations. We all do it to a degree as, I believe, an ancient survival mechanism. 10,000 years ago, if you couldn't associate with a group, you weren't likely to live long enough to have offspring. So the tendency is likely a result of survival instinct. [Bear with me, I have no idea what I'm talking about
]

The more "civilized" and educated we become, the more we're able to see the absurdity of viewing the world through that reptilian brain lens, and function based upon more rational and reasonable assumptions.

But the reptile is there, and (again headed on a tangent) easily manipulated by you-know-who, those who can foster a divide and profit from it.

Sorry, I can't resist - The Hegelian Dialectic. Once you recognize it, it loses a lot of its power.

Complicated, no?

Just a brain dump here, don't quote me.
extra DIV



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
If you think about it, we're predisposed to "choose sides". It's one of the most pervasive things I've noticed about human interaction.


Yes, I do notice this. And not only that, I notice myself fighting against it at every opportunity!
I guess I'm on the side of not choosing sides!




I think it's probably deep within our genetic structure to form "Us vs Them" associations.


I agree. And I guess part of what I want to say is that this choosing sides is SO unnecessary now, among "we the people", anyway. Not only unnecessary, but this genetic predisposition can be harmful in today's world. Not only do we not need to form sides, we need to come together as a people to survive. Our technology and intelligence are at such levels that if we continue to choose sides and "eliminate the threat", we won't survive because we'll eliminate each other.



The more "civilized" and educated we become, the more we're able to see the absurdity of viewing the world through that reptilian brain lens, and function based upon more rational and reasonable assumptions.


But are we doing anything about it? Are we changing our behavior to adjust to the more advanced and rational way of living - in harmony? Or are we still using that reptilian lens and choosing sides for the survival of our camp?



But the reptile is there, and (again headed on a tangent) easily manipulated by you-know-who, those who can foster a divide and profit from it.


Exactly! And if ever there was a good reason to choose sides and fight against something for our very survival, it would be for the common man to JOIN sides and fight against those who would profit from our division!


Nice brain dump. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I agree. And I guess part of what I want to say is that this choosing sides is SO unnecessary now, among "we the people", anyway. Not only unnecessary, but this genetic predisposition can be harmful in today's world. Not only do we not need to form sides, we need to come together as a people to survive. Our technology and intelligence are at such levels that if we continue to choose sides and "eliminate the threat", we won't survive because we'll eliminate each other.


Really? Isn't that just popular thinking, fear mongering and "The end is near"-thinking?
Mankind exists for how many thousand years? And while we have evolved, there are still those similiarities. Like: Romans had the coliseum, fights between roman legion warriors, we have boxing and tv shows like American Gladiators, were people aren't killed (so we evolved a bit
)

Who says we won't survive the way, the world is now? Because some people like to spread fear and cry for the end of the world, because they love animals and the planet more than humans? I mean all the talk you read on ATS day in and day out about that we need go back to "mother nature" and that we don't need all the things we have (and invented) and about people who rather go to a south pacific island and live there instead of a big city....i mean, who says that those people are the ones live the right? In my oppinion they're mentally ill and they need help while other people make think those people are heroes because they do the right thing.

In my oppinion: The world as it now is, is great, we have everything we need, not to survive, but to ENJOY life and thats the only thing that counts. Life is to short to worry about stupid things, life is too short to think about what may be better. I for one tend to enjoy life, don't think too much about what could be wrong. I know that my car may be not good for the nature, but who cares? Nature survived over 100 years full of automobiles, it's not like the planet will implode because of it.
I say: Enjoy life, don't think about what could and whad shouldn't been, because in the end you either go crazy or just won't have a happy life, you can see thise behaviour with a lot of users at ATS who seem to be already more than just crazy because they hate humans, they hate society and they hate themself and that's just not good.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Because, quite literally the human fears their own animal instincts, something they often see and envy, but ultimately know they cannot retain to become what they see as better than those animals walking upon all fours.


I think this is part of what I'm concerned about. Our own animal instincts to survive, or help "our side" to survive (whatever our side is), could be our own undoing. We should be beyond that. It's almost like we're in a phase of our evolution where the need (for "sides") has faded away, but our evolutionary behavior (instinct to take sides) has yet to catch up with it.



Yes, money is a part of it, but the over-reaction comes not from reaction, but fear.


Agreed. And fear is necessary for survival when there are competitive species. But how necessary is it now? I don't know. I do all right without it.
I'm not convinced that we need fear to survive. We have brains and technology. Why be afraid? Be sensible instead.




But they forget man can change while animals stay the same with instincts.


I think we can change, but it takes time for our instincts to flush out and change to accommodate the new framework.



We can hold power, if we keep our egos in check, but mankind rarely knows how to do this and more often than not get into positions of power, and their ego takes over.


Yep. The only people who are fitting to lead us are those who wouldn't want the job.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think this is part of what I'm concerned about. Our own animal instincts to survive, or help "our side" to survive (whatever our side is), could be our own undoing. We should be beyond that. It's almost like we're in a phase of our evolution where the need (for "sides") has faded away, but our evolutionary behavior (instinct to take sides) has yet to catch up with it.


But in picking "sides" we have already lost.

In the mix between animals, in this case, tigers, verses humans, sides are picked.

Because mankind cannot understand both animals and humans are cohabitants of Earth.

Looking back to the era you originally spoke of in regards to tigers, the hierarchical nature of mankind has been one of dominance over the animal kingdom.

More often than not it is to the detriment of any and all other species other than mankind.

And as we eradicate those other species for nothing other than selfish pleasures, so we eradicate our own existence through killing off all other species.

Each time a species is eliminated, the Dodo, the Australian Tiger, the Black Rhinoceros, we eliminate a part of our humanity, by killing off our animal brethren.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Agreed. And fear is necessary for survival when there are competitive species. But how necessary is it now? I don't know. I do all right without it.
I'm not convinced that we need fear to survive. We have brains and technology. Why be afraid? Be sensible instead.


It is not necessary, because fear is something we as a species can control, it is our fears that are out of control, which make us make stupid and irrational decisions.

Competitiveness is rather silly because over all it makes us lower ourselves.

To our baser animalistic tendencies.

Not the instinct portions of our brain but that of animal lusts of blood.

There is a finite delineation between instincts and animal lust, the human kind.

We do not need fear to survive, fear is a survival mechanism of those unable to think, it is a reactionary tool, which makes blind panic take over completely.

And mankind as a whole does not know how to be sensible unfortunately.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I think we can change, but it takes time for our instincts to flush out and change to accommodate the new framework.


Yes, it does take time, but at the same time it is being programmed out of us.

More often than not to our detriment because of the nature of politics.

And our political instincts, that of society, not necessarily conspiracy theorists, are bred out of us because of our implicit desire to be lazy and let someone else do what we should be doing for ourselves, representing our best interests.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yep. The only people who are fitting to lead us are those who wouldn't want the job.



Yeah, my local best friend keeps pushing me to go into politics, and I tell her to bite me.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I have to ask what about the earth?

What about diseases?

Natural disasters on the planet have been some of the most destructive forces on the planet ever, causing more extinctions and death than anything man could do short of an all out nuclear war.

Yellowstone for instance. We could detonate every nuclear weapon on earth and not produce the energy that was released by a supervolcano.
When it comes to death and destruction, the earth makes humans look like fleas.

Then there are diseases: viruses, bacteria, fungus, protozoa, etc. The death and suffering they inflict is far worse than anything humans have done. I'm not even including parasites, which can be really horrifying.

The only thing more destructive than the earth or disease is disasters from space. Thankfully they are very rare, but when they happen, mass extinctions follow.

My point is that we can complain all day what terrible things humans do, but in the end humans don't even come close to having a monopoly on death and destruction.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
The bottom line is the Tiger and other big cats are apex predators, they see everything as cat food. You might feel differently if one of them were stalking you or your family. You can't let killers run free....cage them or kill them.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Why does man kill all the small pox viruses? Why oh why? Dont they recognize that the small pox virus has a place in nature, and that this majestic creature should be allowed to roam, err, slither? ummm, be blown about? this Earth like all other wonderful living things?

Why dont we just kill the small pox viruses that actually attacked us? Why do we feel the need to eliminate them all?

Sorry for the drama, but does anyone feel as awful for the small pox viruses as they do the tigers?

It is a cognitive leap to be able to go from "this thing" (specifics) to making abstractions about all things of that type, (generalizations). Generalizations are one of our favorite toys, intellectually, and they hurt us in our reasoning sometimes, but, they dont have to be universally beneficial to provide a competitive advantage over all.

Why we kill all the tigers, small pox viruses, etc., is because we are capable of extending what THIS tiger does, to "tigers" in general. And groups that eliminated ALL of a threat, vs the one thing that actually ate them leaving all others of its kind, did better in evolutionary terms than those who only killed the one tiger and left all others.

It IS important that we learn to preserve the intricacies of an ecosystem, rather than go through with a hacksaw, and butcher it. Now. In the past, we just moved on to a new spot and butchered it for a while, and the spot we left filled back in. Now, we are going to have to make a new cognitive leap, one that recognizes our interdependence with other species. We never had to before. And, we either will or we wont. If we dont, in all likelihood, we will go extinct as well.

But it isnt willful ignorance. And other species dont have something we dont. (Nor do small tribes somewhere) Man never had to learn how to manage an eco system, he just moved when things were depleted. And magically, there was new stuff. Now that we have filled in every habitable nook and cranny, we are going to have to learn quick, or, suffer the consequences of maladaptive behavior.

Good thread.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Why Does Man Kill the Tigers?
~Revenge.

What is it, in mankind, that makes us want to kill all the tigers?
~Revenge.

My curiosity is about WHY man is different than other mammals in this scenario.

Evil men know how to kill, not for survival but for blood lust and fear of more deaths. Peaceful men know how to live in harmony, even with hungry predators and without killing everything in sight.

Take away the starvation factor and there won't be much killing.

[edit on 2010-7-01 by pikypiky]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
Humans are animals - The Ego Likes To Think Wer'e Above Animals --- NOT

As for Tigers, Try Googling "Tiger Wine", The Chinese Are A Sadistic Brutal People, Just Look At How They Run Their Fur Trade ... Part Of The Reason I Now Try N Live A Cruelty Free Life






posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
[edit on 1-7-2010 by Burgo]



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join