5 ms·

That depends on your values. I think it's bureaucratic BS in every country. The world hasn't been like this forever, and still isn't like this for other animals

That depends on your values. I think it's bureaucratic BS in every country. The world hasn't been like this forever, and still isn't like this for other animals.

mnky9800n 10mo ago
That would be amazing if some country tried to enforce visa rules on animals.
- guerrilla 10mo ago
  They do actually, for example with swine in Denmark. They've built fences for that purpose specifically.
  - mnky9800n 10mo ago
    Do they have passports? Like how do they know if the pig is danish or German?
    - guerrilla 10mo ago
      I think many are tagged, but otherwise they have a lot of surveillance and fences. They probably track them after breeches as well. The point is to control disease.
uhdhr 10mo ago
If you enter a bear's den, especially if it has cubs, the bear will likely attack you. If you enter the territory of a swan, especially during nesting season, the swan might attack you. If a foreign object enters some animal's body, the immune system may attack that object.[0] Allergy might be related to the immune system misidentifying allergens. Squirrels can be surprisingly territorial. Ants have wars. [1] This is not surprising, since the consequences of territory being compromised can be severe. For instance, in this case [2], the territory was compromised through deception, like pretending to be one of them, and it led to the severe weakening or death of the whole colony through the mass devouring of their offspring. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_body_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_body_reaction [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_ants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_ants [2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/123ke8f/caterpillar_pretends_to_be_a_queen_ant_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/123ke...
- yawpitch 10mo ago
  So you’re saying we are no better than animals, and shouldn’t aspire to be?
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - _heimdall 10mo ago
    We are animals, we shouldn't try to avoid that as if its a bad thing.
    - yawpitch 10mo ago
      We should be, then, at least equal to animals in our behavior, and should also aspire to improve on them.
  - falcor84 10mo ago
    It was clearly a response to the grandparent's "... isn't like this for other animals". It's a fine thing to aspire to be better, but we just shouldn't be claiming that human behavior is any way less natural than that of all other animals.
    - uhdhr 10mo ago
      Please define "better" in this context. One definition of "better" could be to seek to avoid the extinction of the human species and of civilization. With that definition, in the current situation, taking measures to help avoid nuclear weapon usage, could be considered in depth and genuinely "better".
  - uhdhr 10mo ago
    You can also consider the subject in terms of IT. Firewalls can be argued to delimit territory, as can login systems. Sandboxes are probably the reverse, in terms of keeping something in instead of keeping it out. Some cells have cell walls, and viruses as I understand it have to penetrate that wall. Nuts and fruit sometimes have protective shells. An argument could be made that borders and territory are fundamental. For an agent that seeks to defeat border control mechanisms, it can potentially be effective to convince the target parties that border control mechanisms generally or specifically are harmful, are useless, or have drawbacks. This is not always completely false in all cases, for instance regarding immune systems misidentifying harmless allergens as harmful, causing potentially significant harm as allergy. However, if an agent uses such approaches, they have to be careful not to buy into that idea themselves, lest matters may become strange and weird. And, in the modern day, if an agent is especially successful and competent with defeating border control mechanisms, considering the extreme power that the human species holds these days, such as with nuclear weapons, it puts an extreme responsibility on such successful agents, at least in the current systems. Otherwise, the consequences might be extremely detrimental to the human species as a whole.
MrBuddyCasino 10mo ago
Humans and animals enforce their borders since millennia. The idea that borders are unimportant is very very recent. That is to say, its commie gobbledygook.
- uhdhr 10mo ago
  I am not convinced that the idea is recent, or rather, related ideas are not recent, going back thousands of years. It can be extremely complex, to put it very mildly. How well people that put their trust in some of those ideas fare, can likewise be an extremely complex topic, and can also be political. In some cases in some ways some of them might have fared well, in some other cases in some ways, maybe less so.
  - MrBuddyCasino 10mo ago
    A group of men crossing the border into another country was (usually) automatically considered invaders if its size exceeded a certain number. Eg Iberian Peninsula (Reconquista and later): Foreign parties >10 armed men could not cross without permission between christians and muslims. Chinese frontier zones, Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Turks etc all had similar rules. If you want to go back further, then Assyria, Egypt, Hittites, Greece had such limits.
    - uhdhr 10mo ago
      You are correct that there are many examples of border control mechanisms, in different levels and ways. Maybe even usually the vast majority for many levels and ways. Some nations, countries or groups, or other levels, did play with some of those mentioned ideas of less border control mechanisms in some ways or levels, also going back thousands of years. Countries that were not successful with border control mechanisms, sometimes ceased to exist. But there are many different levels and ways, and the whole topic is, to put it very mildly, extremely complex.
- yawpitch 10mo ago
  Right, well we know which side of the enclosure of the commons you for some unaccountable reason assume you’d have born in.
15155 10mo ago
> The world hasn't been like this forever People didn't receive handouts from governments in centuries past for just showing up and performing no contributory function. Kill all entitlements and let's open em' back up! > still isn't like this for other animals What reality are you living in where countless animal species aren't territorial? This is common sense.

That depends on your values. I think it's bureaucratic BS in every country. The world hasn't been like this forever, and still isn't like this for other animals.

mnky9800n 10mo ago

That would be amazing if some country tried to enforce visa rules on animals.

guerrilla 10mo ago
They do actually, for example with swine in Denmark. They've built fences for that purpose specifically.
- mnky9800n 10mo ago
  Do they have passports? Like how do they know if the pig is danish or German?
  - guerrilla 10mo ago
    I think many are tagged, but otherwise they have a lot of surveillance and fences. They probably track them after breeches as well. The point is to control disease.

uhdhr 10mo ago

If you enter a bear's den, especially if it has cubs, the bear will likely attack you. If you enter the territory of a swan, especially during nesting season, the swan might attack you. If a foreign object enters some animal's body, the immune system may attack that object.[0] Allergy might be related to the immune system misidentifying allergens. Squirrels can be surprisingly territorial. Ants have wars. [1] This is not surprising, since the consequences of territory being compromised can be severe. For instance, in this case [2], the territory was compromised through deception, like pretending to be one of them, and it led to the severe weakening or death of the whole colony through the mass devouring of their offspring. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_body_reaction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_body_reaction [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_ants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_ants [2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/123ke8f/caterpillar_pretends_to_be_a_queen_ant_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/123ke...

yawpitch 10mo ago
So you’re saying we are no better than animals, and shouldn’t aspire to be?
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- _heimdall 10mo ago
  We are animals, we shouldn't try to avoid that as if its a bad thing.
  - yawpitch 10mo ago
    We should be, then, at least equal to animals in our behavior, and should also aspire to improve on them.
- falcor84 10mo ago
  It was clearly a response to the grandparent's "... isn't like this for other animals". It's a fine thing to aspire to be better, but we just shouldn't be claiming that human behavior is any way less natural than that of all other animals.
  - uhdhr 10mo ago
    Please define "better" in this context. One definition of "better" could be to seek to avoid the extinction of the human species and of civilization. With that definition, in the current situation, taking measures to help avoid nuclear weapon usage, could be considered in depth and genuinely "better".
- uhdhr 10mo ago
  You can also consider the subject in terms of IT. Firewalls can be argued to delimit territory, as can login systems. Sandboxes are probably the reverse, in terms of keeping something in instead of keeping it out. Some cells have cell walls, and viruses as I understand it have to penetrate that wall. Nuts and fruit sometimes have protective shells. An argument could be made that borders and territory are fundamental. For an agent that seeks to defeat border control mechanisms, it can potentially be effective to convince the target parties that border control mechanisms generally or specifically are harmful, are useless, or have drawbacks. This is not always completely false in all cases, for instance regarding immune systems misidentifying harmless allergens as harmful, causing potentially significant harm as allergy. However, if an agent uses such approaches, they have to be careful not to buy into that idea themselves, lest matters may become strange and weird. And, in the modern day, if an agent is especially successful and competent with defeating border control mechanisms, considering the extreme power that the human species holds these days, such as with nuclear weapons, it puts an extreme responsibility on such successful agents, at least in the current systems. Otherwise, the consequences might be extremely detrimental to the human species as a whole.

MrBuddyCasino 10mo ago

Humans and animals enforce their borders since millennia. The idea that borders are unimportant is very very recent. That is to say, its commie gobbledygook.

uhdhr 10mo ago
I am not convinced that the idea is recent, or rather, related ideas are not recent, going back thousands of years. It can be extremely complex, to put it very mildly. How well people that put their trust in some of those ideas fare, can likewise be an extremely complex topic, and can also be political. In some cases in some ways some of them might have fared well, in some other cases in some ways, maybe less so.
- MrBuddyCasino 10mo ago
  A group of men crossing the border into another country was (usually) automatically considered invaders if its size exceeded a certain number. Eg Iberian Peninsula (Reconquista and later): Foreign parties >10 armed men could not cross without permission between christians and muslims. Chinese frontier zones, Scythians, Huns, Mongols, Turks etc all had similar rules. If you want to go back further, then Assyria, Egypt, Hittites, Greece had such limits.
  - uhdhr 10mo ago
    You are correct that there are many examples of border control mechanisms, in different levels and ways. Maybe even usually the vast majority for many levels and ways. Some nations, countries or groups, or other levels, did play with some of those mentioned ideas of less border control mechanisms in some ways or levels, also going back thousands of years. Countries that were not successful with border control mechanisms, sometimes ceased to exist. But there are many different levels and ways, and the whole topic is, to put it very mildly, extremely complex.
yawpitch 10mo ago
Right, well we know which side of the enclosure of the commons you for some unaccountable reason assume you’d have born in.

15155 10mo ago

> The world hasn't been like this forever People didn't receive handouts from governments in centuries past for just showing up and performing no contributory function. Kill all entitlements and let's open em' back up! > still isn't like this for other animals What reality are you living in where countless animal species aren't territorial? This is common sense.