4 ms·

> Tahlequah is using much of her energy to cling to the dead calf, which weighs about 300 pounds, and she is unable to forage for food, scientists said during a

> Tahlequah is using much of her energy to cling to the dead calf, which weighs about 300 pounds, and she is unable to forage for food, scientists said during a news briefing on Thursday. They said that her closely knit pod was supporting her. Other female orcas, especially her sister, have been observed to be consistently at her side. Utterly tragic. It's also singularly evil the devastation humans have brought to some of the hyperintelligent species on the planet.

codeproject 2y ago
can't agree more !!!
cloverich 2y ago
I always have mixed feelings about this. It's sad. But how is her pod supporting her exactly? Are they bringing her food? If so is that food the dead offspring of other animals? I feel these kinds of stories often have a kind of selective empathy for the focused animal. Ultimately nature is extraordinarily cruel absent humans; imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.
- foota 2y ago
  I'm not a vegetarian etc., but you could argue that humans are both the only hope for something different, but also the only species capable of a particular sort of cruelty that comes from the society we live in for animals and other people. That is, animals may kill to eat, but humans slaughter animals to get tastier/more convenient/etc., food.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    Not so fast: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-killer-whales-rip-out-shark-livers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-killer-wha...
    - bmitc 2y ago
      The shark is often killed already prior to the liver being eaten. If it isn't, then it would certainly die very soon after. The shark liver is one of the most calorie dense things in the animal kingdom and accounts for a quarter of the shark's weight. Orcas eat it because it's fairly easy for them to kill sharks and the calorie intake. Orcas are much bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter than sharks. They do it for survival. Not to mention that the rest of the shark is perfectly recycled by the ecosystem.
      - stickfigure 2y ago
        I've never heard of anyone eating live cow. And if I go shoot a cow and walk away, all parts will be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem. I don't really understand how what you said relates to taste, convenience, or cruelty.
        bmitc 2y ago
        What options does an orca have? How is it cruel that they eat a shark? Have you ever even seen the cow, chicken, pig, etc. farms that are in use today? It's not like these animals are living in fairy-tale meadows all their life before they're killed. And no, if everyone ate cows that way, they would not be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem. These out of context arguments are never useful because they sideline the facts, the scale and population of humans being the relevant ones here.
- bmitc 2y ago
  > imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense. Humans are the number one cause of environmental destruction and animal and plant suffering on Earth that is completely out of whack with what it takes for humans to live. All of the "hope for something better" you refer to are for humans to solve less than 1% that we have ourselves caused in the first place.
- tw04 2y ago
  And yet nature has historically found balance. Humans, on a large scale, seem incapable of doing the same. At this point humans have become a perpetual extinction event with no end in sight.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Humans might accelerate changes, but everything in nature is always in flux. Even without humans, there is no reason a cosmic or terrestrial event can’t change the way things are, or an insect plague, or a virus or bacteria, etc.
- jvanderbot 2y ago
  I've recently taken up hunting, mostly because my rural family prioritizes it. The natural world is full of unimaginable cruelty. Wolves will take down young deer and eat them alive while parents watch. Bears will pin down whatever they can catch and who cares if it is alive. On and on, the amount of bloodshed required to support an omnivore/carnivore is simply bananas. Killer whales are hyper-intelligent aquatic nightmares, imho, that thankfully have not decided to eat humans. We, humans, made the following bargain with nature, at least until recently: We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully). I agree - we can carefully manage the wilderness for our own benefit, and that may take away the randomized killings. But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery and disregard for the life that has been reduced to just a link in the grass-to-meat or plankton-to-meat foodchain. I've come to terms with that and continue to eat meat.
  - Cpoll 2y ago
    > We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully). Maybe once in the past, or in places that still graze their animals. I don't think the average factory farm situation can be framed as mutually beneficial for the animals.
    - quickthrowman 2y ago
      I interpreted that as being about deer more so than livestock. If humans didn’t harvest deer to manage the population, there would be mass starvation deaths every winter.
      - jvanderbot 2y ago
        And wasting disease - that's not a pretty way to go.
  - AnonHP 2y ago
- jongjong 2y ago
  Oddly enough, I started thinking more like this. I think it's because I've felt discriminated against myself and thinking about ways in which I myself discriminate against certain animals such as cows, pigs and chickens helps me to put it into perspective. That said, my moral framework is consistent because it's based on intelligence. I will not eat dolphin or killer whale. Among humans, I often find myself tolerating intelligent jerks, for the same reason. I started penalizing for evil more strongly in recent years though. Before that, I subconsciously assumed that there was an inverse correlation between intelligence and evil, but it has come to my awareness that it's not the case. Reality is that, as intelligence goes up, evil, if present, gets better at hiding.
- sheepscreek 2y ago
  Spot on. The whole world is in a constant state of SNAFU. That is the sole truth I’ve understood from many years of pondering and soul searching. To make sense of this world (and the universe) beyond our limited means of comprehension is a futile attempt. Everything is relative - compassion, love, hurt, morality. One being’s loss is anothers’ blessing (food). I’m also not so hopeful about humans. A simple example: the way we mass produce and slaughter animals for food is beyond cruel. It’s impossible to not be on the wrong side of some argument if you look hard enough. No matter how ethical you are. I am honestly convinced the world just is. We give meaning to things to live as a civilization (and avoid conflict) but the universe/nature/world probably doesn’t give a shit.
  - sheepscreek 2y ago
    In case I wasn’t clear, I asked ChatGPT to explain what I wrote above. I think it did a pretty good job: This reflection expresses a deeply existential and relativistic view of the world. Here’s a breakdown: 1. SNAFU as the Status Quo: The term SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fouled Up) suggests that chaos, dysfunction, and disorder are inherent to the world. It implies acceptance that imperfection and unpredictability are the norm, not the exception. 2. Limits of Comprehension: The belief that trying to make sense of the world or universe is futile arises from recognizing the limitations of human cognition and perspective. This acknowledges that meaning, morality, and truth are often constructs rather than absolutes. 3. Relativity of Values: Concepts like compassion, love, morality, and even suffering are seen as subjective. They are shaped by context and perspective—what benefits one being might harm another, exemplified by the food chain. 4. Critique of Human Ethics: The example of industrial animal farming underscores a broader disillusionment with humanity’s moral contradictions. Even well-intentioned actions can have unintended, unethical consequences, leading to the view that absolute moral “rightness” is unattainable. 5. Indifference of the Universe: The idea that the universe “doesn’t give a shit” challenges the anthropocentric tendency to project meaning onto existence. This highlights the randomness and indifference of nature, leaving humans to assign purpose to their actions as a way of coping. 6. Civilization as a Construct: Meaning and morality are framed as tools for societal cohesion and conflict avoidance, rather than intrinsic truths. This echoes a nihilistic perspective where life “just is,” devoid of inherent purpose or universal justice. It reflects a worldview shaped by realism, skepticism, and existential questioning, wrestling with the contradictions of human morality and the indifferent nature of existence.
- ashoeafoot 2y ago
  every flower throws shade on another flower and that war we call peaceful nature.

codeproject 2y ago

can't agree more !!!

cloverich 2y ago

I always have mixed feelings about this. It's sad. But how is her pod supporting her exactly? Are they bringing her food? If so is that food the dead offspring of other animals? I feel these kinds of stories often have a kind of selective empathy for the focused animal. Ultimately nature is extraordinarily cruel absent humans; imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense.

foota 2y ago
I'm not a vegetarian etc., but you could argue that humans are both the only hope for something different, but also the only species capable of a particular sort of cruelty that comes from the society we live in for animals and other people. That is, animals may kill to eat, but humans slaughter animals to get tastier/more convenient/etc., food.
- stickfigure 2y ago
  Not so fast: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-killer-whales-rip-out-shark-livers/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-killer-wha...
  - bmitc 2y ago
    The shark is often killed already prior to the liver being eaten. If it isn't, then it would certainly die very soon after. The shark liver is one of the most calorie dense things in the animal kingdom and accounts for a quarter of the shark's weight. Orcas eat it because it's fairly easy for them to kill sharks and the calorie intake. Orcas are much bigger, faster, stronger, and smarter than sharks. They do it for survival. Not to mention that the rest of the shark is perfectly recycled by the ecosystem.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      I've never heard of anyone eating live cow. And if I go shoot a cow and walk away, all parts will be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem. I don't really understand how what you said relates to taste, convenience, or cruelty.
      - bmitc 2y ago
        What options does an orca have? How is it cruel that they eat a shark? Have you ever even seen the cow, chicken, pig, etc. farms that are in use today? It's not like these animals are living in fairy-tale meadows all their life before they're killed. And no, if everyone ate cows that way, they would not be perfectly recycled by the ecosystem. These out of context arguments are never useful because they sideline the facts, the scale and population of humans being the relevant ones here.
bmitc 2y ago
> imo humans are the only hope for something better, if such a thing even makes sense. Humans are the number one cause of environmental destruction and animal and plant suffering on Earth that is completely out of whack with what it takes for humans to live. All of the "hope for something better" you refer to are for humans to solve less than 1% that we have ourselves caused in the first place.
tw04 2y ago
And yet nature has historically found balance. Humans, on a large scale, seem incapable of doing the same. At this point humans have become a perpetual extinction event with no end in sight.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  Humans might accelerate changes, but everything in nature is always in flux. Even without humans, there is no reason a cosmic or terrestrial event can’t change the way things are, or an insect plague, or a virus or bacteria, etc.
jvanderbot 2y ago
I've recently taken up hunting, mostly because my rural family prioritizes it. The natural world is full of unimaginable cruelty. Wolves will take down young deer and eat them alive while parents watch. Bears will pin down whatever they can catch and who cares if it is alive. On and on, the amount of bloodshed required to support an omnivore/carnivore is simply bananas. Killer whales are hyper-intelligent aquatic nightmares, imho, that thankfully have not decided to eat humans. We, humans, made the following bargain with nature, at least until recently: We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully). I agree - we can carefully manage the wilderness for our own benefit, and that may take away the randomized killings. But there is _no_ version of a carnivore or meat-eating omnivore that does not involve killing and savagery and disregard for the life that has been reduced to just a link in the grass-to-meat or plankton-to-meat foodchain. I've come to terms with that and continue to eat meat.
- Cpoll 2y ago
  > We will drive away the predators that keep you in constant alert and savage your children, and in exchange we will determine how and when you die (quickly, but perhaps also fearfully). Maybe once in the past, or in places that still graze their animals. I don't think the average factory farm situation can be framed as mutually beneficial for the animals.
  - quickthrowman 2y ago
    I interpreted that as being about deer more so than livestock. If humans didn’t harvest deer to manage the population, there would be mass starvation deaths every winter.
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      And wasting disease - that's not a pretty way to go.
- AnonHP 2y ago
jongjong 2y ago
Oddly enough, I started thinking more like this. I think it's because I've felt discriminated against myself and thinking about ways in which I myself discriminate against certain animals such as cows, pigs and chickens helps me to put it into perspective. That said, my moral framework is consistent because it's based on intelligence. I will not eat dolphin or killer whale. Among humans, I often find myself tolerating intelligent jerks, for the same reason. I started penalizing for evil more strongly in recent years though. Before that, I subconsciously assumed that there was an inverse correlation between intelligence and evil, but it has come to my awareness that it's not the case. Reality is that, as intelligence goes up, evil, if present, gets better at hiding.
sheepscreek 2y ago
Spot on. The whole world is in a constant state of SNAFU. That is the sole truth I’ve understood from many years of pondering and soul searching. To make sense of this world (and the universe) beyond our limited means of comprehension is a futile attempt. Everything is relative - compassion, love, hurt, morality. One being’s loss is anothers’ blessing (food). I’m also not so hopeful about humans. A simple example: the way we mass produce and slaughter animals for food is beyond cruel. It’s impossible to not be on the wrong side of some argument if you look hard enough. No matter how ethical you are. I am honestly convinced the world just is. We give meaning to things to live as a civilization (and avoid conflict) but the universe/nature/world probably doesn’t give a shit.
- sheepscreek 2y ago
  In case I wasn’t clear, I asked ChatGPT to explain what I wrote above. I think it did a pretty good job: This reflection expresses a deeply existential and relativistic view of the world. Here’s a breakdown: 1. SNAFU as the Status Quo: The term SNAFU (Situation Normal, All Fouled Up) suggests that chaos, dysfunction, and disorder are inherent to the world. It implies acceptance that imperfection and unpredictability are the norm, not the exception. 2. Limits of Comprehension: The belief that trying to make sense of the world or universe is futile arises from recognizing the limitations of human cognition and perspective. This acknowledges that meaning, morality, and truth are often constructs rather than absolutes. 3. Relativity of Values: Concepts like compassion, love, morality, and even suffering are seen as subjective. They are shaped by context and perspective—what benefits one being might harm another, exemplified by the food chain. 4. Critique of Human Ethics: The example of industrial animal farming underscores a broader disillusionment with humanity’s moral contradictions. Even well-intentioned actions can have unintended, unethical consequences, leading to the view that absolute moral “rightness” is unattainable. 5. Indifference of the Universe: The idea that the universe “doesn’t give a shit” challenges the anthropocentric tendency to project meaning onto existence. This highlights the randomness and indifference of nature, leaving humans to assign purpose to their actions as a way of coping. 6. Civilization as a Construct: Meaning and morality are framed as tools for societal cohesion and conflict avoidance, rather than intrinsic truths. This echoes a nihilistic perspective where life “just is,” devoid of inherent purpose or universal justice. It reflects a worldview shaped by realism, skepticism, and existential questioning, wrestling with the contradictions of human morality and the indifferent nature of existence.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
every flower throws shade on another flower and that war we call peaceful nature.