|
Animals and the cultures that worshipped them
|
It's way to easy to attach "human characteristics" to animals because essentially we are the same. We all evolved from the same things if you go back far enough and we all have soo many different characteristics that of course you'll be able find similarities between us. But there is nothing a lion does that you cannot compare to another animal. Maybe a sub species but it still will come down to where the cat is from and what specialized evolutionary traits needed to devolope to succeed in that specific region.
What you cannot compare is the ideology a human has, religious or moral. We no longer live by "survival of the fittest" and thus we no longer live by the "law of the wild" compared to wild animals. 
Guys, While discussing, I hope you all will follow the rules and will show the maturity. All the best
a very interesting video, it ends by saying that there are a similarities between the Lions and Humans and asks where the human intelligence has come from.
@Polar, the point is not what animal is the best carnivore but what if Lions can interact with human, to be honest the worst/best carnivore on earth its us the humans  (01-02-2016, 01:50 AM)LionKiss Wrote: I very interesting video, it ends by saying that there are a similarities between the Lions and Humans and asks where the human intelligence has come from. I am not trying to prove who is the best carnivore with that video or with the analogy I made; I didn't say that lions can kill more AWDs and hyenas than hyenas can kill lions and AWDs, I simply tried to prove that any one of the three can display characteristics similar to that of a human's basic characteristics at any given point in time, all three kill each other for differing reasons, and all three possess teamwork just like we group up to invade another tribe, their reasons are our primal reasons, regardless of the animal. Plus, any animal can interact with a human at any given time. (Our primal behaviors match an animal's normal behaviors, society simply prohibits our REAL side to show up.) I don't know about the worst or the best carnivore; in prey size? World domination? Prey amount per day? I'm simply undecided about that. (Although, I'm gearing towards the Pleistocene Polar Bear or the early-modern polar bear.) Human intelligence, of course, comes from earlier primates and the necessity to survive in an open grassland without any natural means of repelling (claws, protective skin, horns) apex carnivores away (Lucy). In short, you can attribute any human characteristic to any sort of animal. It doesn't mean they actually possess it, and it certainly is an illusion of the attributor. It doesn't only have to be a lion.
Also, a much more important point I missed. Usually, when one sees an animal that is either fear-inspiring (big cat/big bear) or social, he or she only attributes positive human characteristics (charisma, loyalty, good well-being) to that animal. When either a hyena or snake comes; however, the person will usually attribute negative human characteristics (unpredictability, thief, betrayer) to that animals. The animal that's given positive human characteristics can be just as negative or more negative than the one given negative human characteristics at any point in time, and vice versa. It's not what the animal is, it's when the animal is. Time is a deciding factor in the observation of human attributes among animals. A lion can be well-fed and happy by his keeper, but at another time, the same lion can unpredictably come charging towards the keeper. And at that time, I'm pretty sure the keeper will reconsider his venture that 'lions are much more like humans than other animals are.'
I would agree that humans attribute human characteristics to animals judging from other humans behavior.
Why do we call someone "a snake" or "filthy worm"? it i because those animals have something we dislike. similarly we will call someone "brave as a Lion" and this come for the true life of the Lion, see the photo below, You will never see a tiger, puma, leopard or other animal going against a herd of buffallos. You will see a human fighting alone, there are examples in history that one single man kept fighting until he was killed, he didn't surrender. it is simply nature but the nature of one animal is something we admire while the nature of an other animal is something that we hate. and so is with humans, some humans are like worms and snakes and others as Lions.  *This image is copyright of its original author this conclusion of yours is wrong: "In short, you can attribute any human characteristic to any sort of animal. It doesn't mean they actually possess it, and it certainly is an illusion of the attributor. It doesn't only have to be a lion." Why humans attribute certain characteristics to Lions and not to other animals, other cats? It is because Lions have those characteristics much more developed than other cats. Why do we say "brave as a Lion" and we also use the expression "you chicken out". Why don't we say ""brave as a chicken", well we do but ironically. The Lion has been the symbol of several great Empires and Kingdoms and still is, all those Emperors and Kings can't be wrong especially when they fought in the middle of the battlefield and some of them "Died like a Lion". And all this characteristics make the Lion unique. 
Bravery is very subjective, why do people not say "as brave as a honeybadger"? Because it is less "glamorous" then saying "as brave as a lion", the animals have similar nature in that sense and Ratels are in fact more active in these attribues.
In short I think those opposing your thoughts are making a fairer assessment of these animals rather than a preference based criteria in which you are trying to argue. 
A grizzly is less likely to choose a mature bison or moose as potential prey than might a lion or a tiger, given the same opportunity. The bear has a more varied diet so therefore more food options. This choice has nothing to do with courage. Both lions and tigers are extremely courageous predators made evident by some of their prey choices. The courage of the bear cannot be so easily measured. A bear will certainly, with few exceptions, choose the easiest meal available.
 (01-03-2016, 04:09 AM)brotherbear Wrote: A grizzly is less likely to choose a mature bison or moose as potential prey than might a lion or a tiger, given the same opportunity. The bear has a more varied diet so therefore more food options. This choice has nothing to do with courage. Both lions and tigers are extremely courageous predators made evident by some of their prey choices. The courage of the bear cannot be so easily measured. A bear will certainly, with few exceptions, choose the easiest meal available. We cannot determine braveness of an animal based on their diet option. Yes, the bears can be more opportunists based on their diversified diet ranged from omnivore to piscivore. However, when the animal is at bay, I can assume that the bear who is usually more relatively docile in behavior could turn out to be more dangerous than any big cat. A corned bear is the last thing that anyone wants to mess with.
From my own impression, let's say if I draw two barometers about the behavior of the three animals; lion, tiger, bear.
The first barometer is about the behavior of the animal who is more proactive for the pre-emptive strike and more prone for the provocative behavior, then it should be: lion > tiger > bear The second barometer is about the level of agitation of the animal when facing the cornered situation, then it should be: bear > tiger > lion Overall, I say that the bear who is normally even more shy and introvert than tiger can have by far more wish to fight to death when the bloodshed becomes inevitable. The lions are by far more interactive within their own species and less shy/introvert than the other two contenders. And yes, the lions are more prone for fighting because of their social behavior, but it doesn't make them some kind of desperado who has literally nothing to lose. Most of the lion fights are kinda regulated to avoid more bloodshed, mostly for the lions from East Africa. While the lions in South Africa can be turned out to be more bloody, it is literally the blood feud between different clans.
I have numerous books filled with stories of the "historical grizzly" before he was somewhat tamed ( comparatively ) after the invention of the breech-load rifle in 1848. Those repeater rifles were not common until the mid to late 1860s. Before those modern weapons and the great grizzly slaughter which coincided with the buffalo ( bison ) slaughter, the grizzly was a far more aggressive animal than those we know today. Also, the pioneers venturing west were forced to create more powerful black powder guns as those used on deer and black bear of the eastern forests were not enough to trust against a grizzly. In today's North America, the inland grizzlies are more aggressive that the giant coastal brown bears.
(01-03-2016, 12:38 AM)SVTIGRIS Wrote: Bravery is very subjective, why do people not say "as brave as a honeybadger"? Because it is less "glamorous" then saying "as brave as a lion", the animals have similar nature in that sense and Ratels are in fact more active in these attribues. It is not my thoughts almost all powers of the worlds history had the Lion as their symbol. I made a brief historical research and the LION has been the symbol of the following Empires, Kingdoms, civilization etc Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, in Ancient Macedonia it was the symbol of Alexander the Great Ancient Israel, Roman Empire Byzantine Empire after 1000 AD in Spain, France, England, Russian Empire (and the bear) if I search more I will probably find more all in all almost all Great Powers of the world had the Lion as their symbol, @Polar do you believe that the entire Human Civilization was wrong and you are right? There were no Lions in Mexico where the Aztecs used to live, they have never seen a Lion, the same for the Nordic countries, they admired the bear because they have never seen a Lion, lions don't live in so low temperatures. Besides, the Nordic countries based their admiration on the bulk power of the bear since they were more less barbarians, they were good at war but have shown nothing in sciences and art, philosophy, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, psychology etc. It is the same case with some European tribes, they were almost barbarians. They could not analyze the "character" of the Lion, they were small tribes fighting each other the most of their lives. The bear will not attack an other bigger animal, the bear goes always safe. A single 4-5 years old female Lion can kill a buffalo which is 4 times her weight and size. see this mid air attack by a female lion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEFTGb_ZR0 lions attack and kill full grown male giraffes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89IvWitiN8w Lions take enormous risks and have relative small causalities probably because they believe all that risk is quite manageable for them. the tiger of the photo you posted, is from this video and it shows clearly that the tiger went for the man not the elephant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4t0aeTX954 @ I agree with your Barometer, you said right. @GrizzlyClaws of course you can determine braveness by the size of the animal to be attacked, because when you have a 14 members in a lion pride and the most of them cubs someone should bring the food and it is usually the females (the males also sometimes) which need to kill a big animal so there will be food for all of them. So they take high risk, high reward prey, such as buffalos, giraffes, hippos etc for me all this conversation I make here is not to prove that the lion is more powerful then a bear, probably a bear has more power, but that the lion has several characteristics that humans have and are fascinated when we see them in the Lion. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 11 Guest(s) |