4 ms·

> a clueless hedgehog across a highway before it becomes roadkill Before watching the linked video I thought this was describing crows deliberately placing hed

by biggc 6y ago

> a clueless hedgehog across a highway before it becomes roadkill Before watching the linked video I thought this was describing crows deliberately placing hedgehogs in harm'ss way so that they could eat the resulting roadkill

filoleg 6y ago
Thanks for your comment, because I thought the same thing, but couldn't be bothered to watch the video. The article author definitely could've done a better job of wording that sentence in a less ambiguous way.
padjo 6y ago
I would urge caution in interpreting motive from animal behaviour. To my eye that crow could just as easily be attacking the hedgehog as helping it.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  This is a sensible caution, but we should also be careful not to do the opposite and assume an animal is incapable of sophisticated motives and intelligent planning.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    But if we take time to consider that animals may posses intelligence and rich inner lives, then we may also have to consider that our treatment of them is monsterous. Can't have that.
    - codezero 6y ago
      We can make up for it by uplifting their species with our technology. I sincerely believe we should be doing this - it's a core premise of one of my favorite novels: Sundiver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundiver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundiver
      - tomc1985 6y ago
        Yet another way to dominate over the animal kingdom... lifting them up with tech increases their reliance on us, all while we reserve the right to take it away again
        codezero 6y ago
        A very reasonable point, but I guess in my mind it would not be a master slave relationship, we should uplift them into sentience and allow them to use that technology to choose their own path. Obviously there is a lot of hubris there, but as a now ... semi sentient species, I prefer this over being eaten, and I think animals might express the same sentiment, as long as they don't murder us all for our sins :)
        athriren 6y ago
        humans are not yet beyond enslaving each other, which i do not feel bodes well for our treatment of an uplifted species; however, as concept fiction it allows exploration of ideas in interesting ways and i tend to like settings with “intelligent” animals. all impossibly anthropocentric obviously. is being made more human even “up” or a “lift”? maybe things are supposed to be as thingy as possible (in a platonic sense) and this whole conversation is like looking at a fish and criticizing it for not being arboreal.
        codezero 6y ago
        When and if we are in the position to uplift species, it will be on their terms not ours (my opinion) and the exercise in doing so will uplift ourselves (metaphorically and literally - why would we help engineer higher consciousness in other animals and not ourselves? We haven't even begun to tap our own potential as a culture of living creatures on this planet) edit: in pockets we are above enslavement, but just barely, and I think we need to really grit through to the next stage of our humanity, but there are a lot of road blocks before that happens, and as is the general sense, it's a razor's edge between advancement and annihilation.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
      I don't think it's monstrous to eat an intelligant animal. Pigs are very intelligent and sensitive animals. And yet, I eat pigs without remorse because being born on a planet where animals eat each other is not something I chose, therefore I do not feel guilty about it. Also, it's still mosquito season in Greece where I'm currently located and I've been feasted upon often enough myself to know that refusing to feed on another animal is a peculiarly human exceptionalism. In fact, I believe its sole purpose is to place humans apart from (indeed, above, morally speaking) every other form of life on this planet.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        > And yet, I eat pigs without remorse because being born on a planet where animals eat each other is not something I chose, therefore I do not feel guilty about it. You were born on a planet where rape and murder[0] is common in the animal kingdom too, yet quite rightly we humans have collectively decided that they are monsterous practices. "It's the natural order" is not a good basis for reasoning. [0] which we will here distinguish from killing for food, for example intra-species killing over territory, mates, etc.
        YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        Thanks for the reply. I think you understand my comment as making a point about the "naturalness" of eating animals (I certainly did not use the expression "natural order"). I'm rather making a point about universality. As far as I can tell, all animals eat other living things- be it plants or other animals. Humans eat both plants and other animals. This is not my choice, so I don't feel morally responsible for it. It's how I found things when I came into this world. I would rather things were different. I would rather not have to kill anything in order to feed. However, this is what we do. We kill other animals and eat them. We kill plants and eat them. Well, at least we usually eat them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing). Note that I find killing for sport morally unjustifiable. Rape and murder are not universals. That is, some animals rape and murder their own and some cannibalise their own, but not all animals do. In any case, I personally have never felt a compelling need to rape or murder anyone, so I can attest to the fact that it's not a universal experience for humans to rape and murder (assuming I'm actually human and not some weird mutation eh). Edit: As a summary of my views, I recommend "that's how it works" over "it's the natural order", which has connotations of a moral imperative that I don't recognise.

by biggc 6y ago

filoleg 6y ago

Thanks for your comment, because I thought the same thing, but couldn't be bothered to watch the video. The article author definitely could've done a better job of wording that sentence in a less ambiguous way.

padjo 6y ago

I would urge caution in interpreting motive from animal behaviour. To my eye that crow could just as easily be attacking the hedgehog as helping it.

nicoburns 6y ago
This is a sensible caution, but we should also be careful not to do the opposite and assume an animal is incapable of sophisticated motives and intelligent planning.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  But if we take time to consider that animals may posses intelligence and rich inner lives, then we may also have to consider that our treatment of them is monsterous. Can't have that.
  - codezero 6y ago
    We can make up for it by uplifting their species with our technology. I sincerely believe we should be doing this - it's a core premise of one of my favorite novels: Sundiver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundiver https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundiver
    - tomc1985 6y ago
      Yet another way to dominate over the animal kingdom... lifting them up with tech increases their reliance on us, all while we reserve the right to take it away again
      - codezero 6y ago
        A very reasonable point, but I guess in my mind it would not be a master slave relationship, we should uplift them into sentience and allow them to use that technology to choose their own path. Obviously there is a lot of hubris there, but as a now ... semi sentient species, I prefer this over being eaten, and I think animals might express the same sentiment, as long as they don't murder us all for our sins :)
        athriren 6y ago
        humans are not yet beyond enslaving each other, which i do not feel bodes well for our treatment of an uplifted species; however, as concept fiction it allows exploration of ideas in interesting ways and i tend to like settings with “intelligent” animals. all impossibly anthropocentric obviously. is being made more human even “up” or a “lift”? maybe things are supposed to be as thingy as possible (in a platonic sense) and this whole conversation is like looking at a fish and criticizing it for not being arboreal.
        codezero 6y ago
        When and if we are in the position to uplift species, it will be on their terms not ours (my opinion) and the exercise in doing so will uplift ourselves (metaphorically and literally - why would we help engineer higher consciousness in other animals and not ourselves? We haven't even begun to tap our own potential as a culture of living creatures on this planet) edit: in pockets we are above enslavement, but just barely, and I think we need to really grit through to the next stage of our humanity, but there are a lot of road blocks before that happens, and as is the general sense, it's a razor's edge between advancement and annihilation.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
    I don't think it's monstrous to eat an intelligant animal. Pigs are very intelligent and sensitive animals. And yet, I eat pigs without remorse because being born on a planet where animals eat each other is not something I chose, therefore I do not feel guilty about it. Also, it's still mosquito season in Greece where I'm currently located and I've been feasted upon often enough myself to know that refusing to feed on another animal is a peculiarly human exceptionalism. In fact, I believe its sole purpose is to place humans apart from (indeed, above, morally speaking) every other form of life on this planet.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      > And yet, I eat pigs without remorse because being born on a planet where animals eat each other is not something I chose, therefore I do not feel guilty about it. You were born on a planet where rape and murder[0] is common in the animal kingdom too, yet quite rightly we humans have collectively decided that they are monsterous practices. "It's the natural order" is not a good basis for reasoning. [0] which we will here distinguish from killing for food, for example intra-species killing over territory, mates, etc.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 6y ago
        Thanks for the reply. I think you understand my comment as making a point about the "naturalness" of eating animals (I certainly did not use the expression "natural order"). I'm rather making a point about universality. As far as I can tell, all animals eat other living things- be it plants or other animals. Humans eat both plants and other animals. This is not my choice, so I don't feel morally responsible for it. It's how I found things when I came into this world. I would rather things were different. I would rather not have to kill anything in order to feed. However, this is what we do. We kill other animals and eat them. We kill plants and eat them. Well, at least we usually eat them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_killing). Note that I find killing for sport morally unjustifiable. Rape and murder are not universals. That is, some animals rape and murder their own and some cannibalise their own, but not all animals do. In any case, I personally have never felt a compelling need to rape or murder anyone, so I can attest to the fact that it's not a universal experience for humans to rape and murder (assuming I'm actually human and not some weird mutation eh). Edit: As a summary of my views, I recommend "that's how it works" over "it's the natural order", which has connotations of a moral imperative that I don't recognise.