Nkuhuma Pride

[Duco Ndona]

(02-24-2024, 09:31 PM)NLAL11 Wrote: @Duco Ndona "We have seen plenty of times that take overs arent as simple as one group just barging in on some other lions territory and being forced to fight by their own instincts even if it means certain death as if the instinct of self preservation just suddenly stops existing."
 
To be honest I'm not even sure what your point is here. I never said takeovers were simple. But, as I have said elsewhere, a male that doesn't repress it's instinct to avoid death in order to take over a territory, doesn’t get to mate and pass on its genes. This is a big part of the role of testosterone, by the way, to repress the fear of death. Which is why males of all species have more. Because at some point they need to get past the fear of death if they are to pass on their genes. It's also why young males (humans included) are prone to doing more risky but stupid things. They have higher levels of testosterone. Testosterone is literally linked with risk-aversion.
 

 The problem is, the way animals work according to you. It wouldn't be able to repress its instinct. As that would mean the animal made a choice and pondered the goals of its action. How else would a lion know that a take over results in better mating opportunities. 

Quote:"And again, lionesses are rarely present during a take over and if they are, them being in the mood for mating is even rarer."
 
Maybe because the lionesses aren't part of takeovers? The females of any species generally need to feel safe and relaxed to mate, and generally like to be familiar with the males. That isn't the case during a takeover. They also have cubs to protect. Furthermore, as you yourself said, " take overs arent as simple as one group just barging in on some other lions territory". Takeovers happen over great periods of time and geographical distances. So actually, lionesses are present in a way. They're just not 'involved' with the takeover, because it's what males do.
 
"So by your logic, how can a male be driven by the instinct to reproduce during such fights."
Maybe because the instinct is ever-present? They don't just get turned on and off. You said that. Males take over territory from other males precisely because of their instinct to reproduce. Without it, why would they bother, as you said, risking their lives for it? Because the necessity to pass on their genes outweighs the risk of injury or death. Because then what is the point of their existence?
 

Except that's not how mating instincts work. Male animals are not just horny 24/7 to drive them to mate. Plenty of male animals forego mating opportunities if they are tired, hungry, wary or otherwise not in the mood. 

Its also dodging the point. A take over itself is not a sexual activity, it just helps a male lion increase his chances of experiencing sex in the next couple of months. Mating instincts thus cannot explain why lions engage in battles over territory unless they have a deeper awareness of what they are fighting about. Also plenty of lions reproduce outside of take overs, so its a optional risk. 

Quote:"And no, you havent given any examples of humans deviating from their instinct. All you are doing is shift the goalpost by claiming animals lack abilities that they have already well demonstrated to have."
Lack what abilities? The ability to ask itself 'why'? Go on then, show me any single shred of evidence that lions are able to do this. Most HUMANS don't ask themselves why they do things. And you think lions do?

How about reading this forum. Plenty of evidence of animal behaviour far more complex than your model allows documented here. There is also something called the theory of evolution which dictates that humans are nothing more than animals. 
You are the ones making a claim here that humans are special. Not me. So the burden of evidence should lie with you. 
 

Quote:"You are kinda contradicting yourself here. First you point out that there are indeed instincts that leads to alruism and self sacrifice."
Not what I said. In fact I said quite the opposite. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's a sneaky and disingenuous tactic.
 
"But then you claim it does not happen and every event has somehow be misinterpreted even though there have been plenty of cases where animals have thrown themselves into danger to protect their offspring and werent just caught fleeing."
 
Throwing themselves into danger to protect their offspring does not equal self-sacrifice. This is literally my whole point. If animals went around purposefully throwing away their lives to save their offspring this behaviour would quickly disappear from the gene pool, as they would die and most likely so would their offspring. So it's not an adaptive behaviour. The fact that most of the time lionesses survive while their cubs die is an indication of this. An exception proves the rule.

A sacrifice is a loss or something given up for some bigger purpose. Giving up your safety in a attempt to protect your cub definitely counts in this aspect. 

And no. Animals don't just willy nilly do this, because animals are capable of weighing the options they have so they don't just put themself at risk for a hopeless cause. Its also not like events like these happen regularly in nature.
Also, being group animals, the death of the mother does not necessary mean the death of the cub as a lioness has the rest of the pride to fall back on to raise her cubs, should she die. So self sacrifice does not necessary mean a evolutionary death end. 

 

Quote:"And if self preservation was indeed the strongest most powerfull instinct."
It is. No question.
 
"Then why are so many animals risking their lives for territory and mating opportunities."
Because, as I have said, again and again, if they don't then they don't get to pass on their genes. Natural selection

So, self preservation is the strongest, except when it isn't?  Which one is it? If these animals have no way of reasoning their options and picking one over the other. It should be either one of the two. Not both. 
 

Quote:"What was for example the late othawa male thinking when he invaded Birmingham Boy territory for mating. Even though he was perfectly safe staying with the Mangheni."
I have no idea what the Othawa male was thinking when he did that. His mates probably told him it would be 'epic'.

So your model of animal behaviour fails to explain a simple case of an animal making a mistake. Reply