There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
04-20-2022, 11:30 PM( This post was last modified: 04-20-2022, 11:40 PM by afortich )
(04-20-2022, 11:05 PM)Duco Ndona Wrote: I think there is no concrete evidence for some kind of human "mind" that animals don't possess. The whole concept directly violates various scientific ideas such as the Copernicus rule and the theory of evolution. The idea of animals being purely instinct driven machines compared with the thinking rational man that has shed itself of any instinct only holds up if you never spend any time with either animals or humans.
Just like we, they have to weigh options, plan, learn and adapt to perform successful hunts. A lion isn't born a skilled hunter or fighter. And just like them, we are driven by carnal desires to feed, copulate and protect our young. Ultimately all our process is nothing more than tools to satisfy our base instincts.
That being said, animals do think a lot different than us. The mind is ultimately nothing more than just another organ to evolve and most animals split millions of years ago from our evolutionary tree and developed far different means to deal with life. We have to be extremely wary of anthropormation or projecting our ideals on them and the wild just doesn't offer the same luxuries as we have.
Not to mention our information on animal life is highly generalised and incomplete. So we see lots of behaviour that makes perfect sense when looking at the wants and needs of a individual animal, but directly violates our ideas how they should behave as a species.
I would have to add that "Rational Thinking" goes beyond carnal desires or necessities, and I would not relate the same to organs such as the brain.
Rational Thinking is what enables humans to differentiate between concepts of good, bad, feelings, etc., and define some of the boundaries between human behaviors and animal behaviors.
Consequently, when you see animal behaviors crossing said boundaries, it would add some beginning of rationality that goes beyond carnal desires/necessities.
Otherwise, all animals will behave in the same manner and all humans will behave in the same manner, thus, every action would be predictable, which is neither the case for humans nor for animals.
Isnt that just anthropomorphism though.
You are setting up some very human rules of rational, morals and behavoir and using that as the example an animal has to follow.
The decision of a male lion to slaughter the cubs of a newly conquered pride is just as much rational from a lions perspective. As are the emotions it evokes in them.
(04-20-2022, 07:31 PM)1ofCourage Wrote: I guess it depends on a lot of factors. Lions can be heartless and indifferent too, as they say, yet there are exceptions. I was just sensing a lot of negativity in the posts and although these people know their lions very well, I hold out hope until the end for my own sake.
Lion-watching is definitely not for the faint of heart because the truth may be a bitter pill.
Its not negativity, lion (animal) world in general is brutal, "fairly tails" and "happy end" stories are very rare.
Lions act on instinct, they first care for themselves for survival, they dont have rational or logic thinking like we humans.
Idk about that "Lady Liuwa" lioness, i didnt see it, but is that raw footage or documentary?? Documentaries can be edited and missleading for drama pourposes, or if it is true, then is very, i mean very rare case and i have never encountered something like that, that 1 lion brings another food.
Well, Sizanani qualifies. Not sure if he outright dragged kills but faciliated for his brother to be able to eat from those.
(04-20-2022, 11:58 PM)Duco Ndona Wrote: Isnt that just anthropomorphism though.
You are setting up some very human rules of rational, morals and behavoir and using that as the example an animal has to follow.
The decision of a male lion to slaughter the cubs of a newly conquered pride is just as much rational from a lions perspective. As are the emotions it evokes in them.
Nope, those rules as you called, are not for animals because apparently they have no consciousness or at least like human's. However, some animal behaviors reflect a bit of those rules without any apparent consciousness.
Consequently, there is so much more we don't know about animal behavior compared to what we think we know, and I believe that their behaviors is mostly instinct but not its entirety.
Therefore, it is my opinion that animal behavior is not only instinct based on desires and carnal needs.
Why insists that animals lack an consciousness while you yourself are admitting that too little is known?
Wouldn't it make more sense for animals to be more conscious about the world, as they are the ones in constant danger and such?
And what rules? Morals are purely a social construct. Even among humans there are huge deviations between what's right and what isn't.
04-21-2022, 01:41 AM( This post was last modified: 04-21-2022, 06:02 AM by afortich )
(04-21-2022, 01:21 AM)Duco Ndona Wrote: Why insists that animals lack an consciousness while you yourself are admitting that too little is known?
Wouldn't it make more sense for animals to be more conscious about the world, as they are the ones in constant danger and such?
And what rules? Morals are purely a social construct. Even among humans there are huge deviations between what's right and what isn't.
I am not saying animals lack consciousness, therefore, I used the word "apparent" with "consciousness" because I do believe they do have although not in the manner disclosed by humans.
With regards to moral rules, a lot of them are based on effects of nature such as breeding/incest that as a consequence generate genetic disorders. Therefore, the foundation of moral rules are not merely arbitrarily created by humans but a lot of them were discovered that they were already there.
04-23-2022, 09:31 PM( This post was last modified: 04-23-2022, 09:32 PM by Cath2020 )
Very very concerning if Wide Nose doesn't show up soon. If he succumbed to his injuries after the attack, this will be a HUGE blow to the coalition, and a big win for the invaders!!! This will mean that they might have an advantage next time they attempt a takeover.... considering they are probably collectively stronger. Gore is questionable as a fighter in his condition.
The N'was must stick together or they will get picked off one by one.... Those subs are still very vulnerable from the Styx Pride. Three lions will easily dispatch them all if the lionesses are not being protected adequately. I'm so worried now.
Gore is doing everything a male is supposed to do, I don't see why it would be different fighting wise, he has canines and claws that can kill like every lion so I don't see why people on forums are treating him like a deadweight that doesn't count in the coalition for the fights, yes he's way more vulnerable in fights but that doesn't mean he can't inflict damages.
They need to stick together and that's what they've been doing until now but they won't be H24 all days together it's just impossible, if they're picked one by one then that's how it is.
(04-23-2022, 10:02 PM)WildRev Wrote: Gore is doing everything a male is supposed to do, I don't see why it would be different fighting wise, he has canines and claws that can kill like every lion so I don't see why people on forums are treating him like a deadweight that doesn't count in the coalition for the fights, yes he's way more vulnerable in fights but that doesn't mean he can't inflict damages.
They need to stick together and that's what they've been doing until now but they won't be H24 all days together it's just impossible, if they're picked one by one then that's how it is.
Absolutely sir.
No lion coalition could stick together for 24 hrs.
Even the legendary coalition like majinglanis not everytime stick together and they rule in SS for 8 yrs and never lose a battle.
And one more thing, why only nwaswitshaka boys need to stick together. The 3 intruders too need to stick together which they r not, the kambula subs also need to stick together but they r not.
I don't think apart from 2 S. Avocas any lion coalition seems to be together everytime.
The thing matter the most is when a single lion is at vulnerable, how quickly and how much reinforcement come to escort him.
Kinky tail was ripping apart and eaten alive by 4 males. Reinforcement came, but was too late and inadequate so he mate his fate.
HB and ginger matimba were about to ripped apart dominant majinglanis throat, but golden mane and scarnose came at the right moment and the odds got change and the duo had to flee for their life.
Even with widenose demise they would still make a formidable coalition. Though it should serve as a warning that having the numbers does not make a coalition untouchable.
Gore has a tendency to stick to the styx pride, even when his brothers go off to hang out with the Kambulas for a while. He already has issues standing up for himself with other solo nomads. So if this conflict were to resume, he would be a significant weakspot. But I don't think those three newcomers were seen in the area for a while now. So I think they moved on.
WRT to these unknowns/Invaders, only two have been sighted so numbers wise they’re still at a disadvantage. At least until more is known regarding their third member and same goes with Wide Nose/Uboso.
