4 ms·

Infest is not the right word to use for animals in their natural habitat. In wilderness, it is humans who can be considered to be infesting...

benj111 8y ago
Rotting meat infested with maggots. Wood infested with woodworm. Infest has negative connotations, in the sense that it isn't something good. It doesn't indicate unnaturalness though.
- dmos62 8y ago
  That's the parent's point, isn't? It's normal, i.e. not bad, that there's lots of alligators there; and calling it infested, in other words, implying that we'd prefer that they not be there, is disturbing in its human-centricity.
  - de_watcher 8y ago
    > and calling it infested, in other words, implying that we'd prefer that they not be there It's bad from the point of view of the monkeys that were infesting the trees above the river.
  - arvidkahl 8y ago
    Exactly! Both examples, the "infestations" of meat and wood, are quite human-centric as they describe value loss of what humans would consider "useful material". Even though they are both relevant parts of a cyclical ecosystem.
    - nkrisc 8y ago
      And for the guys stuck in the trees, the presence of crocodiles in the water minimized the value of the water as a "useful material" for use as a means of transport out of where they were.
  - benj111 8y ago
    If you were stuck in a tree in a mangrove, would you want alligators swimming about? Its negative because they might eat you. If it were ponies, I wouldn't use the word infested. Yes it is human centric. That isn't necessarily bad, we are human after all. Just like ponies being harmless is human centric. To a blade of grass that pony is very much not harmless.
    - dmos62 8y ago
      The point of view that I'm attacking, whether it is shared by some of the parents or not, is "I don't know where I am, and I don't care, all that matters is that I am inconvenienced by X, and therefore X is bad". If someone were to ride a road bicycle through a mountain trail, and complain about it not being paved, I'd be similarly aching to ask "maybe you're the problem?".
      - nkrisc 8y ago
        Yeah, maybe they shouldn't have gone and got themselves stuck in that tree.
    - jdsully 8y ago
      A pissed off pony isn’t harmless. But not as bad as a posed off donkey.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Until you find another species capable of writing, good luck finding anything to read that isn’t human-centric.
  - Verdex 8y ago
    We could write and talk in a way which is 100% factually correct and unbiased. But then it would take ages to say anything and nobody would bother reading it. | is disturbing in its human-centricity I can't help but notice that you're writing in english. A language known for being not only human-centric but also western-centric. At the end of the day information theory always takes over. Commonly used ideas will be represented by short sequences. They could have said, "There were a lot of alligators (apparently these were crocodiles?) present. These creatures have teeth and aquatic adaptations which make them efficient at inflicting damage or even death to animals that otherwise do not frequent the water. Damage and death do not promote evolutionary fitness for any given individual. Therefore, the individuals present were not comfortable with the presence of these creatures. Please see appendix A, B, and C for additional details." Or they could just say "infested".
    - fao_ 8y ago
      This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that. Nobody is saying we should talk in a 100% factual and unbiased way, what they are saying is that we should inspect and minimize the biases we have. The best way to do that is through altering and correcting our use of language to better describe reality, while ensuring it stays convenient. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we speak in the way you proposed in your example. While you are correct that shorter language sequences usually win out, the shorter and just as informative "Alligator lake", did not win out. The just as complex "Alligator-occupied lake", would serve just as well in it's informative capacity, but did not win out either. We are now in a position where so many critical species have been destroyed or usurped by humans, that a good 70% of the earth's ecosystems are reliant on human maintenance to continue existing. Meanwhile, animals that have survived for millions of years, such as the Alligator and the Crocodile, are becoming endangered and at threat from human-led ecosystem destruction. It is important to note there are still many, many humans with the idea that the human is at the top of the food chain, and that animals exist only for our use. In this context, the thread-parent makes an incredibly valid point -- the language use in the article carries with it an implicit assumption that animals are 'out of place' or otherwise 'wrong' in their natural habitat. Is it not right that we should examine and attempt to correct biases like these? Given that they were influencing factors that lead to the behaviour and attitudes that cause destruction? Why shouldn't we question those biases and influences? Why shouldn't we attempt to question implicit ideas that have the power to lead to the genocide and destruction of entire species. Isn't examining our language usage to ensure we are not enabling attitudes like those, part of pushing against those attitudes?
nkrisc 8y ago
But this story is from the point of view of humans, reported for humans, so "infest" is appropriate. If it was reported by the crocodiles the humans might have been described as "disappointingly out of reach"

benj111 8y ago

Rotting meat infested with maggots. Wood infested with woodworm. Infest has negative connotations, in the sense that it isn't something good. It doesn't indicate unnaturalness though.

dmos62 8y ago
That's the parent's point, isn't? It's normal, i.e. not bad, that there's lots of alligators there; and calling it infested, in other words, implying that we'd prefer that they not be there, is disturbing in its human-centricity.
- de_watcher 8y ago
  > and calling it infested, in other words, implying that we'd prefer that they not be there It's bad from the point of view of the monkeys that were infesting the trees above the river.
- arvidkahl 8y ago
  Exactly! Both examples, the "infestations" of meat and wood, are quite human-centric as they describe value loss of what humans would consider "useful material". Even though they are both relevant parts of a cyclical ecosystem.
  - nkrisc 8y ago
    And for the guys stuck in the trees, the presence of crocodiles in the water minimized the value of the water as a "useful material" for use as a means of transport out of where they were.
- benj111 8y ago
  If you were stuck in a tree in a mangrove, would you want alligators swimming about? Its negative because they might eat you. If it were ponies, I wouldn't use the word infested. Yes it is human centric. That isn't necessarily bad, we are human after all. Just like ponies being harmless is human centric. To a blade of grass that pony is very much not harmless.
  - dmos62 8y ago
    The point of view that I'm attacking, whether it is shared by some of the parents or not, is "I don't know where I am, and I don't care, all that matters is that I am inconvenienced by X, and therefore X is bad". If someone were to ride a road bicycle through a mountain trail, and complain about it not being paved, I'd be similarly aching to ask "maybe you're the problem?".
    - nkrisc 8y ago
      Yeah, maybe they shouldn't have gone and got themselves stuck in that tree.
  - jdsully 8y ago
    A pissed off pony isn’t harmless. But not as bad as a posed off donkey.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Until you find another species capable of writing, good luck finding anything to read that isn’t human-centric.
- Verdex 8y ago
  We could write and talk in a way which is 100% factually correct and unbiased. But then it would take ages to say anything and nobody would bother reading it. | is disturbing in its human-centricity I can't help but notice that you're writing in english. A language known for being not only human-centric but also western-centric. At the end of the day information theory always takes over. Commonly used ideas will be represented by short sequences. They could have said, "There were a lot of alligators (apparently these were crocodiles?) present. These creatures have teeth and aquatic adaptations which make them efficient at inflicting damage or even death to animals that otherwise do not frequent the water. Damage and death do not promote evolutionary fitness for any given individual. Therefore, the individuals present were not comfortable with the presence of these creatures. Please see appendix A, B, and C for additional details." Or they could just say "infested".
  - fao_ 8y ago
    This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that. Nobody is saying we should talk in a 100% factual and unbiased way, what they are saying is that we should inspect and minimize the biases we have. The best way to do that is through altering and correcting our use of language to better describe reality, while ensuring it stays convenient. I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we speak in the way you proposed in your example. While you are correct that shorter language sequences usually win out, the shorter and just as informative "Alligator lake", did not win out. The just as complex "Alligator-occupied lake", would serve just as well in it's informative capacity, but did not win out either. We are now in a position where so many critical species have been destroyed or usurped by humans, that a good 70% of the earth's ecosystems are reliant on human maintenance to continue existing. Meanwhile, animals that have survived for millions of years, such as the Alligator and the Crocodile, are becoming endangered and at threat from human-led ecosystem destruction. It is important to note there are still many, many humans with the idea that the human is at the top of the food chain, and that animals exist only for our use. In this context, the thread-parent makes an incredibly valid point -- the language use in the article carries with it an implicit assumption that animals are 'out of place' or otherwise 'wrong' in their natural habitat. Is it not right that we should examine and attempt to correct biases like these? Given that they were influencing factors that lead to the behaviour and attitudes that cause destruction? Why shouldn't we question those biases and influences? Why shouldn't we attempt to question implicit ideas that have the power to lead to the genocide and destruction of entire species. Isn't examining our language usage to ensure we are not enabling attitudes like those, part of pushing against those attitudes?

nkrisc 8y ago

But this story is from the point of view of humans, reported for humans, so "infest" is appropriate. If it was reported by the crocodiles the humans might have been described as "disappointingly out of reach"