4 ms·

Cats, birds, and pigs are in turn happy to eat humans when convenient.

by jpttsn 8y ago

close04 8y ago
I think he mean the main difference would be that animals mostly kill (probably applies to most of their other actions) out of need (protection, food). Humans destroy things because they can many times. Sometimes it's not about needs... unless for example you consider greed to be a need.
- dumb2223 8y ago
  Learning English: They kill out of need, out of seems to me more like without. They kill without need. In Spanish we should say they kill because of need. How "out of" became because? Anyway, if you are out of luck I hope it is not because you are lucky.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - close04 8y ago
    Well... "out of necessity" is actually an idiom, meaning "because you have to". Since need and necessity are very similar in meaning I assume this is a correct statement. But I'm not a native English speaker this may of course be a common mistake. Regardless, I hope the idea stands.
    - dumb2223 8y ago
      Since we are trying to learn the tree language, I hope people don't get annoyed if I wonder about what is the mental state that converts "out of" into "because". If necessity was a generator, a vector or force for movements or actions, then I could understand that use of "out of". Out of indicates the result produced by a force, algorithm or oracle. But I consider necessity not as a generator or force but as a passive state. Hence I wonder what is the mechanism for this use. If we collapse the concepts of passive and active then I think language get corrupted and poissoned. Analogies are not fruitful because they go far beyong the logical ground. I believe that if you are going to get something out of a state then that state should be a generator. I don't know if what I am trying to say is sound but I sharply feel the unsoundness of linguistic non logically generated derivations
      - dumb2223 8y ago
        Perhaps originally this use of "out of" indicates a mental state in which change is promoted, in which you fight against an hostile passive state, so you bootstrap from your needs. Perhaps that kind of mental state could be used for sentiment analysis. The probability of that use of "out of" increases when you are in a mental state that promotes flipping active and passive states. For example, when you not any longer want to cope with your actual state, going to extremes: you put yourself in a fight for survival state that promotes a revolution by beating the slavery chains. Edited many times.
      - sjy 8y ago
        There is a great explanation of the difference between 'because of' and 'out of' in an answer to this question on English Language Learners SE [1]: > You should use "because of" in cases like this when the thing in question is the catalyst for something to happen, and use "out of" when the thing in question metaphorically "gives rise" to something else. [1]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/115445/can-i-use-because-of-in-the-place-out-of https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/115445/can-i-use-bec...
        close04 8y ago
        I always assumed out of necessity idiom means no other choice. And because of would mean I have choices and this is the justification for the one I made. For the purpose of the comment "out of need" felt a lot more appropriate for an animal that kills.
  - Uberphallus 8y ago
    "out of" just means "from" in many cases, you can switch them and be understood even if it may sound weird. The parent is an example, here's another: Where are you from? / Where are you out of?
  - getoj 8y ago
    The construction "out of need" is actually good old Latin - ex necessitas. Which I hope makes sense to a Spanish speaker. "Out of luck" is weirder. German has ausgehen to mean "run out" (as in "our supplies are running out"), but it's not quite the same...
  - schrodinger 8y ago
    I think it’s somewhat reasonable if you interpret it “the killing came out of need”. As in, the animal had a need (to eat, or defend themselves) and from that need came killing. So they “kill out of need”. Not sure if that helps! (Also, fwiw, you could also say “they kill because of need” or “they kill because they need to”, so because works in English as well)
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - usrusr 8y ago
    If you want a rationalization for that idiom, think of a state machine: they are in a state of need, therefore they kill. Note also how acting "out of" does not necessarily imply transitioning away, e.g. company x operating out of city y. The grammatical nuance between out of need and out of luck (nice find btw) would be doing (out of need) vs being (out of luck): you might win out of luck, and later lose because you are out of luck. Wastefully spend out of wealth, then be out of wealth, and so on.
- ItsMe000001 8y ago
  Animals kill "for fun" too. Not just cats (example: https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-30/wolf-attack-kills-more-than-40-sheep-in-germany https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-30/wolf-a... -- note: that was a single wolf, not a pack; and do you know what happens when a marten finds its way into the chicken coop? Chicken genocide).
  - zjaffee 8y ago
    Do other animals go to war, commit genocide, or in the context of our relationship with other animals, do anything similar to factory farming.
    - n4r9 8y ago
      Yep, if they have sufficient intelligence and social organisation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
    - King-Aaron 8y ago
      Some ants "farm" aphids: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009212548.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009212548.h...
      - fifnir 8y ago
        Ants also have wars: https://www.quora.com/Do-ants-ever-go-to-war https://www.quora.com/Do-ants-ever-go-to-war https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160130-animals-insects-ants-war-chimpanzees-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160130-animals-i...
    - girvo 8y ago
      Ant wars and ant/termite wars are fascinating to witness.
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    This discussion reminds me of the Tsavo Man-Eaters - a pair of lions that decided to focus mainly on hunting humans for food. Although there were possible health factors that drove these lions to preying on humans, I find it an interesting aside to this conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_Man-Eaters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_Man-Eaters
- thret 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War It's not the behaviour that is unique to humans; it is the ability to act counter to instinct, counter to appetite, to choose and be aware of the consequences. We alone can be held accountable for our actions.
  - close04 8y ago
    Unique? I specifically used the word mostly and not unique. And the scale is vastly different. Also "killing" was just an over-encompassing metaphor. I'm not implying that needless killing is the only, or the main thing that sets us apart from animals, except in the context of the comment I was replying to (about lions feeding on an impala). But it's taking this kind of actions despite having the ability to be aware consequences that makes us special. You would expect the threshold for some of these actions to increase with these newfound abilities but it went the other way around. A person is willing to kill a last member of a species not for survival but for little more than a trophy on a wall. There are probably far more things that set us apart from animals than instinct or awareness of consequence. Most children actually lack these abilities because they are partly taught, they have to be groomed. So the main difference might be that we are able to learn up to a point that no animal can rival us. This is the perfect example of what a human can be without "learning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya

Cats, birds, and pigs are in turn happy to eat humans when convenient.

by jpttsn 8y ago

Cats, birds, and pigs are in turn happy to eat humans when convenient.

I think he mean the main difference would be that animals mostly kill (probably applies to most of their other actions) out of need (protection, food). Humans destroy things because they can many times. Sometimes it's not about needs... unless for example you consider greed to be a need.

dumb2223 8y ago
Learning English: They kill out of need, out of seems to me more like without. They kill without need. In Spanish we should say they kill because of need. How "out of" became because? Anyway, if you are out of luck I hope it is not because you are lucky.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- close04 8y ago
  Well... "out of necessity" is actually an idiom, meaning "because you have to". Since need and necessity are very similar in meaning I assume this is a correct statement. But I'm not a native English speaker this may of course be a common mistake. Regardless, I hope the idea stands.
  - dumb2223 8y ago
    Since we are trying to learn the tree language, I hope people don't get annoyed if I wonder about what is the mental state that converts "out of" into "because". If necessity was a generator, a vector or force for movements or actions, then I could understand that use of "out of". Out of indicates the result produced by a force, algorithm or oracle. But I consider necessity not as a generator or force but as a passive state. Hence I wonder what is the mechanism for this use. If we collapse the concepts of passive and active then I think language get corrupted and poissoned. Analogies are not fruitful because they go far beyong the logical ground. I believe that if you are going to get something out of a state then that state should be a generator. I don't know if what I am trying to say is sound but I sharply feel the unsoundness of linguistic non logically generated derivations
    - dumb2223 8y ago
      Perhaps originally this use of "out of" indicates a mental state in which change is promoted, in which you fight against an hostile passive state, so you bootstrap from your needs. Perhaps that kind of mental state could be used for sentiment analysis. The probability of that use of "out of" increases when you are in a mental state that promotes flipping active and passive states. For example, when you not any longer want to cope with your actual state, going to extremes: you put yourself in a fight for survival state that promotes a revolution by beating the slavery chains. Edited many times.
    - sjy 8y ago
      There is a great explanation of the difference between 'because of' and 'out of' in an answer to this question on English Language Learners SE [1]: > You should use "because of" in cases like this when the thing in question is the catalyst for something to happen, and use "out of" when the thing in question metaphorically "gives rise" to something else. [1]: https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/115445/can-i-use-because-of-in-the-place-out-of https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/115445/can-i-use-bec...
      - close04 8y ago
        I always assumed out of necessity idiom means no other choice. And because of would mean I have choices and this is the justification for the one I made. For the purpose of the comment "out of need" felt a lot more appropriate for an animal that kills.
- Uberphallus 8y ago
  "out of" just means "from" in many cases, you can switch them and be understood even if it may sound weird. The parent is an example, here's another: Where are you from? / Where are you out of?
- getoj 8y ago
  The construction "out of need" is actually good old Latin - ex necessitas. Which I hope makes sense to a Spanish speaker. "Out of luck" is weirder. German has ausgehen to mean "run out" (as in "our supplies are running out"), but it's not quite the same...
- schrodinger 8y ago
  I think it’s somewhat reasonable if you interpret it “the killing came out of need”. As in, the animal had a need (to eat, or defend themselves) and from that need came killing. So they “kill out of need”. Not sure if that helps! (Also, fwiw, you could also say “they kill because of need” or “they kill because they need to”, so because works in English as well)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- usrusr 8y ago
  If you want a rationalization for that idiom, think of a state machine: they are in a state of need, therefore they kill. Note also how acting "out of" does not necessarily imply transitioning away, e.g. company x operating out of city y. The grammatical nuance between out of need and out of luck (nice find btw) would be doing (out of need) vs being (out of luck): you might win out of luck, and later lose because you are out of luck. Wastefully spend out of wealth, then be out of wealth, and so on.
ItsMe000001 8y ago
Animals kill "for fun" too. Not just cats (example: https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-30/wolf-attack-kills-more-than-40-sheep-in-germany https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-04-30/wolf-a... -- note: that was a single wolf, not a pack; and do you know what happens when a marten finds its way into the chicken coop? Chicken genocide).
- zjaffee 8y ago
  Do other animals go to war, commit genocide, or in the context of our relationship with other animals, do anything similar to factory farming.
  - n4r9 8y ago
    Yep, if they have sufficient intelligence and social organisation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    Some ants "farm" aphids: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009212548.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009212548.h...
    - fifnir 8y ago
      Ants also have wars: https://www.quora.com/Do-ants-ever-go-to-war https://www.quora.com/Do-ants-ever-go-to-war https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160130-animals-insects-ants-war-chimpanzees-science/ https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/160130-animals-i...
  - girvo 8y ago
    Ant wars and ant/termite wars are fascinating to witness.
- King-Aaron 8y ago
  This discussion reminds me of the Tsavo Man-Eaters - a pair of lions that decided to focus mainly on hunting humans for food. Although there were possible health factors that drove these lions to preying on humans, I find it an interesting aside to this conversation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_Man-Eaters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsavo_Man-Eaters
thret 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War It's not the behaviour that is unique to humans; it is the ability to act counter to instinct, counter to appetite, to choose and be aware of the consequences. We alone can be held accountable for our actions.
- close04 8y ago
  Unique? I specifically used the word mostly and not unique. And the scale is vastly different. Also "killing" was just an over-encompassing metaphor. I'm not implying that needless killing is the only, or the main thing that sets us apart from animals, except in the context of the comment I was replying to (about lions feeding on an impala). But it's taking this kind of actions despite having the ability to be aware consequences that makes us special. You would expect the threshold for some of these actions to increase with these newfound abilities but it went the other way around. A person is willing to kill a last member of a species not for survival but for little more than a trophy on a wall. There are probably far more things that set us apart from animals than instinct or awareness of consequence. Most children actually lack these abilities because they are partly taught, they have to be groomed. So the main difference might be that we are able to learn up to a point that no animal can rival us. This is the perfect example of what a human can be without "learning": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxana_Malaya