Is
Mother Nature Cruel?
"Most
of evolution has evolved life to kill it's prey and reproduce as fast
as possible. In this - both killing and fucking are usually over
quickly, painlessly and without much fuss."
-
David Attenborough
This
book looks at the ancient discourse whether mother nature is cruel or
not from all three sides:
- Nature is Cruel
- Nature is Beautiful
- Nature is Neutral
“ I think you are confusing Mother Nature with Mother Earth ”
“Why is mother nature so cruel?
Think
about it. Suppose a hummingbird who just finished hatching her eggs
is trying to find food for her offspring. The mother leaves the nest
and flies to another location to find some worm to catch. On her way
down, the mother is caught by an eagle. The eagle eats her. The
mother died. Now, who is going to take care of the offspring? The
offspring are going to die slowly from starvation.
That
is just cruel. These tragedies happen in mother nature all the time.
Is this just how mother nature is supposed to work?”
“1.
There's no such thing as ‘mother nature.’ You're attempting to
personify something that doesn't exist.
2.
Mama falcon is going to feed hummingbird bits to baby falcons.
Without mama falcon catching other birds, then baby falcons would
starve to death. “
“Well
Mother nature is cruel like that, yeah I understand you. But think
about it this happens to babies too, the mother of the baby could die
or the dad, and I mean just think of all the kids in Africa dying
from starvation, every 11 seconds I think a child dies from
starvation, what the hell is mother thinking well anyway she is just
like that, like she gave woman periods every month and men nothing
like that so not fair, and than men, that we are cranky, well if they
knew they'd quit talking and know what women actually go through.
Well what can I say, even if you try arguing with mother nature it's
not going to change her mind she just likes being cruel, plus this
isn't Heaven, all happiness isn't supposed to be here, all happiness
is supposed to be in Heaven so that is why she could do things like
this too, in here you are supposed to suffer from time to time, until
you go to Heaven or whatever your destination if it's hell well then,
you are practically screwed.
Please
help stop child hunger by donating 10 grains of rice for every answer
you get right at: freerice.com
They
really do donate 10 grains of rice, for every question you get right,
please help and donate.”
“that
is just the circle of life. it's what we do to the environment that
actually makes mother nature cruel. we cut down trees and destroy
nature to make parking lots.”
“Nature
isn't cruel, it just is. Only living things have the ability to be
cruel. It's an ability that only a few of them ever exercise. Mostly
cats and humans.”
“I
think you're confusing the effect with the cause. Sure, we're natural
beings but perversity is a component of just about all living things
and it gives us the ability to behave in destructive or non-logical
ways. Humans are indeed natural; human behavior is anything but.”
“So
in animals (other than humans and cats), when they are hungry and
they hunt (kill) to eat is this behavior or nature?”
“Why
do we call it mother nature and not father nature, brother nature or
sister nature, etc?”
“Mother
Russia, Mother India or Mother Nature, which one can readily help you
when you are least expecting it?”
“A
woman had a newborn baby and she was living alone 'cause the man
abandoned her. She left the baby to buy some milk, when she was
crossing the street a man stole her purse and killed her. The baby is
now alone, mother nature is not cruel she is everything; you, me, the
birds, etc.
Things
happen for a reason, the great steak you ate from a cow who had a
baby, and the fresh fruit you ate this morning where the ovaries of a
plant who couldn't reproduce. We all are in a feeding chain. Mother
nature is beautiful and she knows how to handle thing. Worry about
the problems that involve you and your society.”
“ Cruel
implies an intention to cause pain. I don't think we can say that
‘nature’ is cruel by any objective standard because nature has no
intentions or agency.”
Traditional-Religious
Transhumanists like “Pastor” God/Religion
is Lunacy!
Why
does their theism make me crazy? Because, IMO, it is illogical,
scientifically obtuse, and primitively deluded about Hope. Below I
present my own Atheist-Transhumanist perspective:
“A
good ‘God’ can’t exist,” scoffs by twelve-year-old daughter.
“There’s too much murder, sickness and death in the world; an
all-powerful ‘God’ would have to be mean, bad, extremely cruel,
to create a world like this.”
Her
point-of-view isn’t unusually nihilistic; it was my POV when I was
her age. Additionally, I teach a Debate class at her middle school -
every ‘tween and teen atheist in attendance asserts the same
remarks. (About 50% are anti-religionist, especially the children of
scientists employed at nearby UC San Francisco.) The
World Was Created With Horrific Flaws,
the children contend.
For
example, almost all
living beings murder and eat other living beings.
That’s
just totally, violently gross! Plus, there’s Pain, Sadness,
Sickness and Death. An
All-Powerful God who invented that “Natural Order” would just be…
Evil!
My
daughter is currently writing a term paper for her social studies
class. Her topic - inspired equally by affection for Atheism and The
Hunger Games
-
is titled, “Child Sacrifice in the Bible.” What she uncovered is
quite illuminating.
The
Old Testament God (Yahweh, Jehovah) was literally
a
bloodthirsty deity, with an appetite similar to other regional gods.
Yahweh
enjoyed blood sacrifices,
reasoned the early Israelites. How did they arrive at this savage
conclusion? Because, they surmised, why else would He create a world
where human life was short, brutal, painful, tragic, abbreviated
rudely in pestilences, famines, and massacres?
Answer:
God
likes to watch people die!
Human
sacrifice was a prevalent, well-established tradition in the ancient
world, for precisely this reason. BC and early AD priests believed
that the blood-lust of God could be appeased through human sacrifice.
Giving Him what He wanted up-front in horrendous rituals, they
believed, was far better than pissing Him off with disrespect or
neglect, and getting punished for it via battle defeat/genocide or a
plague.
To
honor and satiate the Creators:
*
Phoenicians and Carthaginians roll their babies down the bronze arms
of Moloch and Baal statuary, into pits of fire. (Jeremiah 19.5, etc.)
*
Jephthah sacrifices his daughter Iphis to Yahweh in thanks for a
wartime victory. (Judges 11:1-40)
*
Abraham is willing to slice his blade across Isaac’s throat, before
an angel halts him. (Genesis 22:2-12)
*
Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphegenia to the goddess Artemis,
so winds will guide his ships to Troy.
*
Patriarchs in the Levant murder their eldest sons at newly-built
fortification walls, to ingratiate their gods.
*
Mesh, King of the Moabites, sacrificially burns his son to death, for
the god Chemosh (II Kings 3:27)
*
Joshua, directed by Yahweh, eliminates Jericho’s population - all
men, women, children. (Joshua 6:25)
*
Israelites, advised by Yahweh, annihilate Midiamites, Amalekites,
Ethiopians, people of Laish and Ai, etc.
*
Yahweh slays all the first-born sons of Egypt (Exodus 11:29-30)
*
Mayans and Aztecs cut living hearts out of thousands of victims on
their pyramids, to honor celestial deities.
*
Romans strangle enemy generals in front of a statue of Mars.
*
In Celtic rituals, victims for the god Esus are hanged, but Taranus
wants his offerings burned alive, and Teutales likes his drowned.
*
etc., etc., etc.
Was
this artery-spurting tradition reversed in the New Testament?
Absolutely not.
Christianity
itself is based on blatant Filicide, i.e., Jesus was sent to Earth by
his Father (God) as a human
sacrifice,
to
redeem humanity.
The
Deity’s willingness to transport “only begotten son” to Earth
as a victim - thorn-crowning, scourging, and crucifixion torture - is
regarded by the era (and still is?!) as a normal, sophisticated
gesture of religious sincerity. The barbarism of this event is
reflected with hemoglobin-smeared realism in “The Passion” film
by Mel Gibson, and the validity of it’s function is lauded in the
Epistles: “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
(Hebrew 9:22). Primitivity is continued in the Eucharist sacrament; a
cannibalism ritual where devotees drink the blood and eat the flesh
of Jesus.
One
of my points-of-view here is that the Old Testament God - with His
wrath, revenge, and vampiric lust for human annihilation - is
actually a more honest, clear-eyed, and accurate portrayal of
Nature’s Creator, than his parable-spouting, heaven-promising,
poverty-is-blessed Jesus-the-Son successor. The Old Testament God
kills us and causes suffering, even if we obey his numerous petty and
aggressive demands. This is, of course, What Life Really Gives Us.
Even if we do everything correctly, morally and physically, we’re
still going to get tormented by Biological Nature with deterioration,
decay, and death. Life also offers laughs, love and mental and
emotional ecstasies, but our joys can conclude miserably any minute.
Pain
and Demise are Inevitable.
Heaven,
of course, is an ambiguous, farcical hope. In actuality, there’s no
escape offered by Nature / The Deity. Why would we trust Him
anyway? He’s subjected homo
sapiens
to
sadistic cruelties ever since we emerged as a species. We’ve all
been compelled to exist within the boundaries of Nature’s Cruelty;
ie. the incipient suffering in sentient life.
Theism,
in my opinion, is a long weak attempt to understand the maliciousness
of “God” and reach acceptance with the amoral laws of Nature.
Religion
is the pablum for our collective Thanatophobia.
Every
compromising, cringing creed attempts to justify the Deity’s
violent game called Life-and-Death with reasons like, “our reward
for obedience is Heaven,” or “suffering brings us closer to Jesus
because He suffered for us,” and “we can’t possibly comprehend
Him because he’s so much Wiser than us, so let’s just have
Faith.” The majority of religionists - when questioned about
the despicable malevolence of “God’s Plan” - flaccidly
recommend prayer, penance, and acceptance. Instead of viewing Death
as the wretched ruination of our lives, traditional religion accepts
the notion that we are all “sacrificed” for a higher cause. Death
is thus accommodated, even glorified.
What
are our choices?
Are
we doomed to either:
1)
Deluding ourselves with sophomoric, self-belittling religions,
bleating piteously like Jesus’s lambs.
2)
Existing in anger at our circumstances, hating Life because we hate
Death
Both
selections above are miserable. However, I believe TransHumanism
offers humanity a Third Option.
Our
eventual escape from Pain and Death, our release from atrocious
degrading lethal diseases, has always been and will always be via
Human Accomplishment. No Deity has ever, or will ever, assist us.
Technological achievements that reduce life’s squalor,
brutality and pain, are invented by humans, not deities.
Eventually…
soon… finally… Death will be destroyed! Human ingenuity and
determination will Triumph!
To
escape the carnivorous grip of of our enemy - Death - we must
overcome the nefarious, corroding intentions of the “natural order”
- we will control our own evolution - we will “Transcend the
Biological.”
Opponents
of this H+ vision are (quite often) religionists who are horrified
that H+ rebels - arrogantly, in their opinion - against “God’s
Plan” and “What is ‘Natural.’” Religionists are (quite
often) an obstacle to progress - it would be better if they utilized
their reverent passion in a “Crusade Against the Monstrosity of
God’s Homicide of Humanity,” or a “Jihad Against Suffering.”
The
last enemy that shall be destroyed is Death.
(1
Corinthians 15:26)
Humanity
needs to unite itself in the Common Task, to exterminate the causes
of our extermination.
When
radical-and-indefinite life extension arrives in 30-60 years, what
will Traditional Religion look like, in retrospect?
My
answer:
A
Long, Mumbling Distraction. A Blind-Eyed, Pathetic Conciliation. An
Idiotic Conglomeration of Useless Irrational Rubbish.
Source:
“God”
is Cruel - we must conquer his “Nature”
Hank
Pellissier May 1, 2012 Ethical
Technology
“ If
God is Evil, then why is there Good? If God only wanted to watch us
suffer, then He could have made the world a lot worse. We can imagine
a Hell far worse than this, one without the release of Death. Since
this World is still far from the worst Hell we can think of, I
believe it is too simplistic to explain its flaws by dismissing God
as Evil.
There
is suffering whether you believe in God or not. The only difference
is that without God our suffering is random and meaningless. For this
reason, I find a Godless Universe existentially horrifying. I would
rather believe that from an omniscient, eternal, cosmic, God’s eye
point of view, our suffering serves a purpose, even if I don’t know
what that purpose is.
If
God exists, then there is presumably an afterlife, which means our
Universe is not real, per se, and neither is our suffering.
Finally
Hank, if you view yourself as a rationalist, I think you should be a
little more skeptical about transhumanism. Believing the Singularity
will grant you eternal life and bliss is no more likely than an
afterlife.
“
“
Mother
Nature, Thou Art a Cruel and Heartless Bitch!
When
a fly lands on a horse it uses its tail to swat the fly off, when it
rains you use the windshield wipers in your car, but when the earth
has a problem… all hell can break loose!
I
believe that the earth is a sentient being capable of taking drastic
and sometimes violent steps in order to heal itself, it is only when
humans are in the path of these destructive forces that we label the
event as a disaster. What about the events that led up to the
disaster, and much more importantly… why did the disaster happen…
All
natural events happen for a reason, the earth does not play games and
it surely doesn’t joke around, when it needs something it will take
it without asking. I hope to explain the theory behind many of these
events, I want people to realize that our so-called “natural
disasters” are not so much disasters, they are the earth curing its
hangover.
- Floods – The idea of flooding being a natural disaster is in most cases our fault explicitly, I mean we already know where they will occur… it’s called a flood plain for a reason people. We often build our towns and cities near the water, some of the most expensive land you can buy is often in a flood plain. In the past flooding was considered a blessing because of the nutrient rich silts that were deposited in the flood plain, these floods that occur periodically were at one time the backbone of our agriculture. Although the farmers placed their fields in the flood plain, the farmers were smart enough to build their houses above the flood line.
- Wind – I remember earlier this Summer I was standing on the sidewalk on a windy day with the three-year old from my street, when the wind would blow she would grab my hand, stand on her tippy toes with her eyes closed and laugh away as the wind blew dust in our faces. As we stood there enjoying nature a massive branch snapped in a tree and came crashing to the ground with such force that it broke every other branch that was below it on the tree, all of these branches happened to be the ones that I had marked to be pruned. This was what led me to the realization that although pruning a tree is not exactly necessary, if we don’t prune the tree in a controlled and safe manner, nature will prune the tree for us in a violent and often destructive manner… The tree had developed a problem that was ultimately solved by mother nature who has been known to occasionally be a cruel and heartless bitch… Reminds me of someone I live with… Though she never cut me down… Just pruned the diseased and infested branches from my crown…
- Fire – Fire is one of the most mis-understood natural disasters, yet it is so absolutely necessary to the survival of the earth. Many trees and plants have developed root systems that grow deep into the ground, there are many reasons for this but the one I want to touch on is to prevent the roots from being damaged by the fire. Native americans used to use controlled burns to clean up the ground below their nut trees, the fire would prune the lower branches and when timed properly could also be used to eliminate pests. Many nut trees develop problems with pests laying eggs in their young fruit, this fruit will often drop off the tree prematurely so the insect larvae can crawl into the ground and pupate until it is ready to re-start its life cycle. A properly timed burn can eliminate these infected nuts on the ground before the larvae has a chance to bore into the ground, this is my kind of integrated pest management.
The
earth is not always destructive when it is solving a problem, many of
its methods are actually quite beautiful events. Many of these events
go unnoticed due to the fact that they have little to no immediate
effects on human life.
- Algae blooms – A byproduct of human life happens to be CO2, in the case of industry massive amounts of CO2 are pumped into our atmosphere. Plants are nature's way of handling build-ups of CO2 in our atmosphere, over water this occurs as massive and sometimes colorful algae blooms that are a direct result, and solution to the high levels of CO2 present in our atmosphere. Although these blooms occur in nature, they are beginning to occur often enough to disrupt life in our oceans that in turn throws off all of the ecosystems present around it.
- Global Warming – Although this has the ability to be extremely destructive, the immediate effects are almost pleasant if you are not looking at the big picture… You see I believe that global warming will lead to global cooling and will ultimately send us into the next ice age. Let me explain… The gulf stream is a constant movement of water in our oceans that encompasses the earth, it is responsible for climates around the world. Warm water is moved into cooler regions and the cool water is moved into warmer regions balancing the earth's climates, if the earth really is warming and our polar ice caps melting than we will eventually experience a massive ice cap melt off that will essentially turn our oceans into “ice-water”. I am not scared of the warming part because I would love to be able to grow plants not suitable for my climate, it’s that pesky ice-age that could be looming around the corner that really gets me worried.
- Over-population – This my friends… Is the truly scary one… If a horse has the ability to swat a fly off of its back… Imagine what the earth has the ability to do… Think of the events in recent memory that were considered “mass casualty” events, earthquakes, tsunamis and floods all happen for a reason, imagine if that reason was actually “us”! If we become a big enough of a “fly” on the earth's back it will eventually lash out in rage and “correct” the problem, maybe then we will finally learn the hard way that we have been given a gift… a gift that essentially comes with no warranty… and a mountain of liability!
As
far as I am concerned the most important “weapon” the
environmental movement has in its arsenal is the very thing we are
fighting to protect, mother nature will do the work for us if we just
give her time… we are just attempting to avoid speeding up the
inevitable “extinction event” that we will someday experience…
Evidence to me that “true species sustainability” is not
possible. I believe that although the earth probably does have an
expiration date that is unavoidable, I think it best to not swim in
our own shit until the end.
My
intention with this post is not to scare, but to educate people on
the theory that these natural disasters are less disaster and more
like the creation of scar tissue over a wound. The flood is not the
problem, the fact that we built-in a place that obviously floods is
the problem… Though I say that if you can live with the fact that
you may lose everything including your life to be able to live by a
stream or lake – a long list that will include me someday… More
power to yah! I will have to do a post on the “key-points” of
slopes someday as I find building locations on hillsides fascinating…
“
Evil,
it can seem, is all around us. Hitler. The Rwandan genocide. Ted
Bundy. Every time you read the news or watch television, bad
behaviour that causes harm is on display.
Is
being evil advantageous in some scenarios?
These
days, the word ‘evil’ has religious connotations. It’s tied up
with morality and transgressions against the will of a divine being.
But in its original Old English it meant anything that was simply
bad, vicious or cruel.
Assuming
we stick to this broader non-religious definition – that evil
involves acting in a malevolent way – it’s reasonable to ask why
it came into existence. We know that humans evolved from apes and,
ultimately, from much simpler animals. That means we get many of our
behaviours from our animal ancestors. Does this include evil
behaviours – and if it does, is this because being evil is
advantageous in some scenarios?
Or
to put it another way, can we trace the evolution of evil?
Many
forms of 'evil' behaviour can be identified in animals (Credit:
Alberto Sebastiani/Alamy Stock Photo)
There
are many different definitions of the ‘nature of evil’ but we
will define it as acts that cause intentional suffering, destruction
or damage to B for the benefit of A. To explore further, we can break
down those intentional actions into four basic categories: the Dark
Tetrad.
Machiavellianism
involves using intelligent strategy and cunning to gain power and get
one up on a rival
A
group of psychologists including
Del
Paulhus
at
the University of British Columbia and his student, Kevin Williams,
first
came up with these categories about 15 years ago.
Initially they defined a Dark Triad, which included Machiavellianism
(manipulative, self-interested, deceptive), Psychopathy (antisocial,
remorseless, callous) and Narcissism (grandiose, proud, lacking
empathy).
Paulhus
later extended the Triad to a Tetrad,
to include Everyday Sadism (the enjoyment of cruelty). Why do these
behaviours exist in humans? And can they be seen in other animals?
Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism
involves using intelligent strategy and cunning to gain power and get
one up on a rival. It is a normal part of political life, of course –
even if the individuals playing politics aren’t human.
Every
individual monkey seems to have the capacity for Machiavellian
behaviour
Dario
Maestripieri of the University of Chicago has found intriguing,
Machiavellian-like behaviours in rhesus monkey societies
during
his studies over 20 years.
Alpha males engaged in threatening behaviour and violent tactics to
protect sleeping spaces, females and food.
The
dominant monkeys used unpredictable bursts of aggression to rule over
subordinates. Alliances were formed and female monkeys looked out for
their own daughters by mating with the alpha male – but they also
mated with other males behind his back to ensure they would be
protected if the alpha male died or was deposed.
In
fact, every individual monkey seems to have the capacity for
Machiavellian behaviour, says Maestripieri. "It's part of who
they are. It's not that there are Machiavellian individuals that do
it all the time and others who never do it. Just like humans, it's
part of our nature, which doesn't mean we have to do it all the
time."
Machiavellian
behaviour is part of a monkey's nature (Credit: Sean Pavone/Alamy
Stock Photo)
Rhesus
macaques act in this way because they desire power, and Machiavellian
behaviours are an effective way to establish and maintain dominance,
or alliances with dominant individuals. It's not a risk-free
strategy, though. If they’re caught cheating there is punishment,
says Maestripieri. If a group member was
spotted
attacking baby monkeys, for instance, they faced retribution.
Where
tasks are done cooperatively, Machiavellianism could work in
virtually every task you're trying to do
Even
so, the many pros of adopting Machiavellian strategies may outweigh
these cons, particularly in highly social animals like monkeys or
humans.
"Where
tasks are done cooperatively, it could work in virtually every task
you're trying to do," says
Samuel
Gosling,
professor of psychology at the University of Texas, in Austin US, and
a
leading researcher into personality types in non-human animals.
"Whether it’s foraging, feeding, caring for the young or
defending the group."
In
fact, you could argue that simpler animals are capable of a
rudimentary form of Machiavellianism too. The viceroy butterfly
protects itself by mimicking another species that is toxic or
disgusting to birds. The anglerfish is so named because of a long
filament protruding from its head, with a growth on the end which
resembles a fish or a worm. It deceives smaller fish into an unwise
attack – they are then quickly gobbled up.
In
other words, there is good reason to believe that the intentional
deception underlying Machiavellianism has very deep evolutionary
roots. It is just such a useful survival strategy.
Psychopathy
It
might come as a surprise, but some animals seem to be genuinely
unpleasant individuals.
The
primatologist Frans de Waal had a chimp in his Arnhem Zoo colony
called Puist who he said was "two faced and mean" and
"deceitful or mendacious". She was the universally disliked
by researchers and compared to a witch.
Jane
Goodall, meanwhile, studied a mother and daughter pair of chimpanzees
– Passion and Pom – who systematically cannibalised eight infants
over four years. Goodall called Passion a "cold mother".
But
are these apes psychopaths?
Chimps
sometimes murder other chimps (Credit: Steve Bloom Images/Alamy Stock
Photo)
According
to the psychologists Peter Buirski and Robert Plutchik, they might
be. In 1991 the pair used the
Emotions
Profile Index, an observational measure, to study Passion.
The index includes "deceptiveness, callousness, aggressiveness,
absence of emotional ties, and fearlessness" – and it
suggested Passion showed socially deviant behaviour.
Some
chimpanzees may display psychopathologies
A
2006
study
on psychopathology of great apes also considered Passion and Pom.
The chimpanzee pair "cannibalised with such persistence that a
human psychiatrist is tempted to render this as antisocial
personality 'disorder'", wrote the researchers.
They
cautioned against pinning too much significance on the word
'disorder' though, writing that, "Whether infanticide is a
behavioural abnormality or an adaptive reproductive strategy has been
a matter of controversy."
A
study in 1999 took 34 chimpanzees in captivity at a research centre
in Georgia as the
subjects
of its 'Chimpanzee Psychopath Measure'.
The chimpanzee living quarters were filled with toys, ladders, tyres
and plastic barrels for the animals to play with.
It
is not just chimps that have been suggested to show psychopathic
tendencies
The
chimps were examined for traits such as being boredom-prone, failing
to learn from punishment, being likely to throw temper tantrums, and
likely to tease others. In combination, such traits might suggest a
psychopathology.
The
researchers were asked to pick the trait that fit best from the Big
Five dimensions (Agreeableness, Extraversion, Neuroticism,
Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience). The Big Five is a
model still used by psychologists to describe human personality.
The
team found that there was "evidence for the psychopathy
construct in chimpanzees", and concluded that certain features
of human psychopathy, such as risk-taking and absence of generosity,
were found in great apes. As in humans, male chimps received higher
scores than females.
There
are many different definitions of the ‘nature of evil’ (Credit:
imageBROKER /Alamy Stock Photo)
It
is not just chimps that have been suggested to show psychopathic
tendencies: so have dolphins.
Ben
Wilson
of
the University of the Highlands and Islands in Inverness, UK, was
part
of a team who observed evidence of violent interactions between
bottlenose dolphins and harbour porpoises.
Porpoises washed up on the coast of Scotland, then, later, Wales,
Southern England and Monterey Bay in California, showed signs of
injuries inflicted by the dolphins.
The
idea was put around that there were a couple of freaky dolphins,
poisoned or psychotic
"The
idea was put around that there were a couple of freaky dolphins,
poisoned or psychotic," says Wilson.
But
it is difficult to back up that idea without more information on the
attacks – especially as there are alternative ways to account for
the behaviour.
For
instance, it is possible that the dolphins were in competition with
porpoises for prey, so they simply wanted to get rid of their rivals.
However, Wilson points out that dolphins also have a similar diet to
seals – and yet they don’t attack the seals.
Alternatively,
the porpoise attacks could have something do with
infanticide,
which has been observed in bottlenose dolphins.
We
know that there are good biological reasons for various mammals to
kill young. It will happen in lion societies, when a male lion takes
over a pride. Maybe there's an equivalent in bottlenose dolphins,
suggests Wilson. Getting rid of offspring can be a smart idea because
it allows the female to be available to reproduce if she is not
looking after a cub.
Some
dolphins may murder their rivals (Credit: Terry Whittaker/Alamy Stock
Photo)
"If
you go to attack a dolphin with a mother defending it, it's a
dangerous thing to do – so you might need some practice and a
porpoise is a good thing to pick on," says Wilson.
Ultimately,
we don't know why bottlenose dolphins sometimes attack porpoises.
"There isn't evidence for one theory being right or one single
view. All reasons had pros and cons and information that was
missing," says Wilson.
Sadism
In
the Dark Tetrad, everyday sadism is defined as taking enjoyment in
cruelty.
Sadism
may allow a person to maintain power and dominance, suggests Paulhus.
"It seems like vicious politicians [who] maintain power become
more and more sadistic over time and maybe they have to, to stay in
power."
He
gives the example of Vlad the Impaler who was able to deter enemies
from entering his kingdom by hanging bodies on the border, showing
invaders what might happen to them if they continued.
Is
sadism a behaviour we can recognise in non-human animals?
Vlad
impaled many of his enemies (Credit: Prisma Archivo/Alamy Stock
Photo)
Wilson
says he has seen dolphins swimming under the water popping off
seagulls that are sitting on the surface. This behaviour could be
interpreted as a deliberately annoying one, but "sadism"
carries very moralistic overtones that Wilson rejects –
particularly since we do not know for sure that the dolphins are
aware of the annoyance they are causing to the birds.
"It's
like us popping bubble wrap," he says. The dolphins might behave
this way simply for the personal pleasure it brings without
recognising that the behaviour is also cruel to the birds.
Perhaps
adult animals that act sadistically are actually fixated at the play
stage of childhood
"It
could just be good practice, effectively play is practice or it could
be good fun. Dolphins will barrel boats for ages. It's a very obvious
behaviour and still pretty hard to explain apart from that it looks
like good fun," he says.
We
might associate some of the purest forms of fun with childhood play –
and, says Paulhus, perhaps this is one ultimate origin of sadism.
"If
you look at animals that play with their victims, they don’t kill
them, they torture them," he says. "Maybe that's the
connection, to learn to be an adult animal you have to play first and
somewhere between play and becoming an adult who has to kill, there's
a line. That play aspect carries over to some adults, they're
actually fixated at the play stage, they never got over it."
Animals
that play with their victims seem to torture them (Credit: Dpa
picture alliance/Alamy Stock Photo)
So
perhaps sadists are really displaying a form of arrested development.
If this is the case, it might seem odd that the behaviour can exist
over the long term in adult societies.
Paulhus
has a theory. "You could consider the dark personalities to be
parasites in different ways," he says. "In animal
communities parasites do serve a very positive function. One argument
that could be made is they clean up the less adaptive individuals,
those in the herd who didn’t quite have the qualities to
contribute."
It
is a morally troubling argument, but perhaps Dark Tetrad behaviours
are, paradoxically, beneficial to human and animal societies by
encouraging other individuals to be on their guard and think
carefully about their trust. "They are keeping the species fit
in a way," says Paulhus.
Narcissism
The
vanity associated with narcissism would seem to be a purely human
characteristic. But is it? Can we draw any comparisons between the
charm and charisma of a narcissist and the lengths some animals will
go to in order to draw attention to themselves?
A
male peacock with his beautiful tail, the scented pheromones of a
fox, the dance of the bowerbird. We can’t be sure that non-verbal
animals are purposely grandiose, but do these ostentatious displays
give us some indication of how narcissism evolved?
Some
animals go to great lengths to get attention (Credit: Loop Images
Ltd/Alamy Stock Photo)
Explaining
the extreme selfishness often associated with narcissism might be
easier if you take a gene’s view of evolution. Famously, of course,
Richard Dawkins wrote about the selfishness of genes – arguably
their one and only "goal" is to perpetuate down the
generations, and it matters little to genes if their success comes at
a cost to other genetic sequences – or the organisms they are
housed within.
Explaining
the extreme selfishness often associated with narcissism might be
easier if you take a gene’s view of evolution
While
humans have partly over-ruled their original selfish urges and broken
out of the governance of selfishness through cultural influence, all
livings things are "gene survival machines" – and to a
degree this can help explain not only the evolution and survival of
narcissism, but also of the other components of the Dark Tetrad.
"There
are a variety of avenues to reproduction," says Paulhus. "Some
of them we might [now] consider to be unacceptable but they worked
apparently in the past."
For
instance, the psychopath and the Machiavellian may have – or have
had in human history – more sex than most people because of some
tendency towards promiscuity associated with their behaviour. "You
can persuade and manipulate partners a lot better if you think
strategically without empathic concern for hurting another's
feelings," says Paulhus.
"The
narcissist feels special and exudes confidence that people react to,
and that provides opportunities for reproduction," he says.
Why
sadists might have a reproductive advantage is harder to explain, he
concedes. "Presumably in the past [sadism] allowed you to exude
more power – and power leads to reproduction."
"Nature,
red in tooth and claw," wrote Tennyson, about the violence of
the natural world. There are certainly many examples to support his
description. In Brazil, the margay cat mimics the sound of a wounded
baby pied tamarin monkey, to deceive and entice its prey.
The
female praying mantis will often chomp the head off and eat her mate
after sex, sometimes even in the middle of the act. Hyena cubs will
kill siblings from the moment they are born. Even plants use
deception: the bee orchid tricks the male bee into pollinating it by
mimicking the female insect.
There
is trickery going on here - the bee orchid tricks the male bee into
pollinating it (Credit: Science Photo Library /Alamy Stock Photo)
Arguably
the real mystery lies not in the origin of "evil"
behaviours but in the fact that humans now generally view these
behaviours as distasteful – even though deception, selfishness and
other "evil" traits appear to be widespread in nature, and
generally beneficial for the survival of genes, animals and species.
John
Armstrong, a British writer, and philosopher at The School Of Life,
sees a gulf between human aspiration for justice and ethics and the
laws of nature. Often we feel that something that is "evil"
is against the natural order of things, or, as Armstrong put it, "at
odds with everything one might hope for".
But
perhaps the opposite is actually true: it is "bad"
behaviour that is natural and successful. "What's surprising is
how amazingly well (though still very imperfectly) human beings have
tried to reverse this natural arrangement," he says.
Source:
Lucy
Jones
Nature
is beautiful, but it can also be deadly, and sometimes, just
downright nasty. Horrible ways in which animals can kill you.
Electrocution
Electric
eel
Electric
eels are elongated, freshwater fish, native to the Amazon and Orinoco
rivers in South America. They are not really eels, but a kind of
knifefish (and related to catfish). They are among the deadliest
denizens of the South American rivers. It has not one, but three
specialized organs to produce electric currents strong enough (600
volts, sometimes more) to stun or kill an adult human. It is believed
that many “unexplained” disappearances of people while swimming
in the Amazon and Orinoco rivers, could be due to them being stunned
by an electric eel and drowning, or even, dying because of the eel’s
discharge itself. Many of these deaths are often blamed on attacks by
predatory animals such as piranha or caiman.
The
electric eel doesn’t eat human beings; it feeds on smaller fish,
crabs and small mammals. It only attacks in self defense, and
handling an electric eel or even entering the water wherever these
fish are common should be avoided at all costs.
Constriction
Python,
anaconda
Pythons
and boas (anacondas being a kind of boa) are not venomous. They have
very sharp teeth to hold on to their prey, but they rely on
constriction for the actual kill. This means, they coil around the
victim (once they have secured it with their teeth) and squeeze so
that the unfortunate animal doesn’t have any space to breathe.
Every time the victim tries to inhale, the snake squeezes harder.
This deadly “hug” is so powerful that even blood can’t flow. As
a matter of fact, death comes usually because of cardiac
arrest/stroke, and not asphyxia as was once believed.
Although
some smaller snakes (such as king snakes and gopher snakes) use
constriction to kill prey, pythons and anacondas are the best known
constrictors, and the scariest, too, since these cold-blooded
predators have been known to kill and eat humans once in awhile.
Drowning
and Dismembering
Crocodile
Among
large predatory animals, crocodiles are the ones that kill the
greatest number of people every year. They are often said to be among
the few animals that still see humans as perfectly suitable prey. To
deal with large prey, crocodiles use the “death roll”. Called by
some “the most powerful killing mechanism” of any animal, it
consists of the crocodile holding its prey with its jaws (usually by
the neck or a limb), dragging it to the water and spinning its entire
body; this is usually enough to dismember the unfortunate victim.
They can do this on dry land as well.
The
scariest part is that the crocodile really doesn’t care if the prey
is alive or dead when it starts feeding; by doing a death-roll, it is
really trying to tear the prey into smaller, easier to swallow
pieces. Many humans lucky enough to escape a crocodile attack, have
lost entire limbs to this devastating feeding method. But most
victims die of blood loss, shock or simply drown before they have a
chance to escape.
Bitten
through the Brain
Jaguar
Most
big cats kill prey by strangulation. From the house cat to the tiger
and lion, they all go for the neck/throat in most cases, biting so
hard and holding so tight that the victim either chokes or has a
stroke. In some cases, the bite is deep enough to pierce the
windpipe, the jugular vein, or even to snap the neck vertebrae. It
often takes a few minutes for a big cat to strangle a large prey to
death. But the jaguar is a completely different story. This
formidable cat, found in Mexico and Central and South America, has
been known to strangle some prey once in a while, but it usually goes
for a faster, deadlier method; it simply bites through the skull and
pierces the brain, causing instant death. It has particularly long
and thick fangs, and incredibly powerful jaws to do this (actually,
its bite is much stronger than a lion’s or a tiger’s, relative to
the cat’s size).
The
skull bite allows the jaguar to kill armored prey such as caimans, as
well as the, now extinct, glyptodonts (giant relatives to
armadillos), and they have also been known to use this killing method
successfully against feral bulls weighing almost half a ton. You
could ask, if the jaguar kills its prey so quickly and efficiently,
why is it in the list? Shouldn’t the other cats be worse, since it
takes minutes for them to strangle prey? Maybe, but it seems that for
some not so big, or not so armored prey, the jaguar doesn’t bite
through the top of the skull, but rather sinks its fangs into the
victim's ears! Can you imagine the fangs of a giant cat stabbing
through your ears and going into your brain? That’s the stuff of
nightmares.
Gutted
by Giant Bird
Cassowary
The
Cassowary is the only bird that made it to this list. Sure,
protective parent owls clawing your eyes out and causing you to fall
down a tree to your death (it has happened) are scary, but these
birds are usually harmless unless you do something really stupid.
While the vegetarian Cassowary (found in the rainforests of Australia
and New Guinea) is usually a shy animal, and will try to avoid
confrontations, males can be extremely aggressive at times, and
zookeepers agree that cassowaries are among the most dangerous
creatures to keep in a zoo.
Listed
by the Guinness World Records as the world’s most dangerous bird,
the Cassowary has an enormous, dagger-like claw on the second toe of
each foot. When confronted, it will leap into the air and kick its
enemy, kung fu-style, using the deadly claws to cause serious injury.
It can, literally, claw your guts out. And even if it doesn’t, the
kick is mighty enough to rupture your internal organs and cause
massive internal bleeding and death. Needless to say, you should
never approach one of these birds, particularly if they are captive
or protecting their chicks.
Having
your Face Ripped off
Sloth
Bear
Sloth
bears are among the least known bear species. They are found mostly
in India and Sri Lanka, where natives fear them even more than tigers
or snakes. And with good reason. It has been said that these bears
maul at least one person per week in India, and they often seem to
attack without provocation. They feed mostly on ants and termites,
and only very rarely eat meat, but they seem to dislike humans (which
shouldn’t be surprising, since these bears have been subjected to
centuries of hunting and cruelty, e.g, dancing bears). They are also
short sighted and easily taken by surprise. If confronted, a sloth
bear is as likely to attack as it is to run away.
Being
mauled by any kind of bear is a horrible way to go, but the Sloth
bear is particularly nasty due to its trademark killing method; it
uses its teeth and it's incredibly long, sharp claws to literally rip
the victim’s face off. Those who are lucky enough to escape death
after a Sloth bear attack, are usually badly scarred for life, and
often left without one of both eyes, nose, lips, etc.
Choking
on Ants
Siafu
ant
Also
known as the driver ant, this African species is the only insect
known to actually attack and devour humans, although you have to be
very unlucky to die in a Siafu attack. These ants are very slow, and
blind; unless you are unable to stay out of their way, you really
don’t have to be scared of them. Usually these ants feed on smaller
animals, but attacks on sleeping people, babies left unattended, and
at least one drunken man who broke a leg and couldn’t run away from
the ant army, have all been reported.
Domestic
animals such as cows and goats who were left tied to a pole for the
night, and thus rendered unable to escape, have also been known to be
devoured by Siafu ants. What makes these insects so scary, is that
they can bite and sting, but that’s not the way they kill you.
During the attack, they will attempt to go into any opening they can
find, including your mouth and nose, and victims are said to die of
asphyxia after the ants crawl into your lungs! If that’s not scary…
Deadly
infection after Rape
Candiru
Candiru
are rather sinister creatures to start with. These small, slender,
almost transparent catfish relatives are among the few hematophagous
vertebrates, feeding on the blood of other fish. They do this by
going into their gills and anchoring themselves to them with a series
of hooked spines they have in their bodies. A severe candiru
infestation can weaken and eventually kill the unfortunate victim.
They also feed on death fish, eating them from the inside out.
Although candiru used to be a little known denizen of the South
American rivers, they have lately gained some fame as the most feared
fish in the Amazon. That’s right; more so than piranhas and
electric eels.
This
is because, sometimes, candiru will swim into the urethra or anus of
both men and women, and become stuck in there via the hooked spines.
This is very painful, and potentially deadly, because when the human
victim leaves the water, the fish dies and its body starts to rot.
The resulting infection has caused many deaths in remote parts of
South America where there aren’t any hospitals, since a delicate
surgical procedure is needed to remove the fish from your private
parts. Ouch.
Being
Eaten Alive
Wolves,
hyenas
Big
cats will usually make sure you’re dead before they start feeding
on your flesh. They are perfectly equipped to kill their victim
quickly and with no mess. However, some of their distant Carnivorous
relatives are a completely different story. Although they kill
smaller prey by violently shaking them and breaking their spine,
wolves and hyenas lack any efficient killing weapons to deal with
larger prey, so they usually don’t waste time and start eating as
soon as the victim is brought down.
Indeed,
it is not uncommon for a large animal to be still alive when the wolf
pack or hyena clan is already munching on its intestines. Of course,
death follows soon after, due to shock or blood loss, but still, the
idea of being alive while a snarling group of voracious predators
feeds on your entrails is particularly disturbing to most people.
Starvation
Tapeworm
Tapeworms
are gigantic (up to 12 meters long or more depending on the species)
although very slender parasites, whose eggs or larvae can be ingested
via eating raw or badly cooked meat. Once ingested, the creature will
anchor itself to the walls of the host’s intestine and absorb all
the nutrients from the host’s food; in other words, you eat, your
intestine absorbs the nutrients, and the tapeworm steals the
nutrients for itself. The result? You can eat incredible amounts of
food and you will still be malnourished.
If
left untreated, a tapeworm infection can eventually lead to death by
starvation, no matter how much you ate. And just in case you thought
it couldn’t be worse, sometimes the tapeworm larvae can find their
way into your brain, causing seizures, and all sorts of neurological
problems. So, having seizures due to a worm infestation in your brain
before you starve to death due to the big adult worm in your gut.
Mother Nature Still in Charge
The
Myanmar cyclone. The earthquake off the coast of Japan. The Chilean
volcano. Has Earth gone bonkers?
Not
at all. This level of natural activity is normal for Earth,
scientists say.
"Mother
Nature is just reminding us that she is in charge," Bill
Patzert, a climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in
Pasadena, Calif., told LiveScience.
That
also means the recent Midwestern quake (centered in Illinois) and
temblors near Reno, though unnerving and frightening to locals, were
just another day for Planet Earth.
Reference
point
A
look back at events in 2007 serves to remind just how wild this world
routinely is. EM-DAT, the OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database,
tracks natural disasters in which either 10 or more people were
killed, 100 or more people were affected, a State of Emergency was
declared, or there was a call for international assistance.
In
the United States in 2007, EM-DAT tallied four such tornado
disasters, five winter storms, seven floods, two wildfires and a
drought in various locations. Non-EM-DAT events included six U.S.
hurricanes and 2,789 earthquakes of which 80 were 5.0-magnitude or
greater, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Tornadoes
are an American affliction primarily, it's true, but that is a result
of geography, Patzert said. About 80 percent of tornadoes in the
world happen in the United States because cool Canadian air mixes
with warm moist air coming from the Gulf of Mexico, he said.
The
appearance of a cluster
It
might look and feel like the recent disasters worldwide are a cluster
of events that could be related, but scientists say they aren't.
"It's
totally random," said Peter Kelemen, a geologist at Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York.
Kelemen
this week told the story of anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, who
detailed the thinking of Trobriand Islanders in his book, "Magic,
Science, and Religion" (1948).
"He
said the distinction between magic and science for those Trobriand
Islanders was that for magic you only count confirming cases,"
Kelemen said. "And so, say you had this idea that earthquakes
occur right before or after volcanic eruptions, so when that happens
you notice and you put a notch in your stick or whatever. When there
is earthquake that doesn’t occur with a volcanic eruption, you
don't notice at all or say there must have been mitigating
circumstances in this case."
Scientists
can fall into the same trap.
"Scientists
do an awful lot of what Malinowski would've called magic all the
time," Kelemen said. "We filter data and come up with
reasons why our [results] in one instance are not correct and that
allows us to overlook that instance. Nevertheless, it's a trap."
Kelemen
suspects people are struck by similar coincidences in nature and
"probably don't make a note of it when there is an earthquake
and no volcano. It is only when these things are happening clusters
that it makes an impression on you."
He
pointed out that you can use a computer to generate random numbers
and plot them graphically and see patterns and clustering. Clearly
though, there is no natural or scientific phenomenon behind those
figures.
More
disasters than usual?
The
number of reported natural disasters globally has been on a fast rise
since the 1960s. EM-DAT disasters are up from about 120 in 1980 to
more than 400 in 2007.
But
the increase has nothing to do with the planet.
Rather,
the rise is the result better monitoring and reporting of natural
disasters, said Charles Mandeville, a volcanologist at the American
Museum of Natural History in New York.
And
the actual number of people killed worldwide by natural disasters has
been relatively small (under 500,000 per year) since the 1960s
compared previous decades in the 20th century when death tolls
sometimes exceeded 2 million or even 3 million, according to EM-DAT.
That
drop is the due to better building codes and preparation, Mandeville
said.
"And
we've done a much better job of evacuating people that need to be
evacuated, the evacuation of Chaiten, Chile, [this week] being a good
example," he said. "We know now that maybe 30 kilometers is
a reasonable evacuation distance for a volcano that is erupting
explosively from what we have learned from Krakatau [in 1883] and
Monserrat [in 1997] and Mt. Pinatubo [in 1991]."
The
1982 eruption of El Chicon volcano in Chiapas, Mexico, helped
planners learn about the hazards of volcanoes that have glaciers on
them, he said.
"We're
starting to learn not only recognizing the precursors to certain
things like volcanic eruptions," Mandeville said. "We're
trying to get to that state of affairs with earthquakes by mapping
out where strains are very high and also trying to build buildings
that will withstand a moderate magnitude earthquake."
Many
past fatalities owed to people going back to partially damaged
buildings, which then collapsed or experienced fires related to
natural gas pipeline breaks.
The
location factor
The
ongoing Reno rumble and the Midwest earthquake last month spared
human lives, unlike the disastrous cyclone in Myanmar, where the
death toll could exceed 100,000, according to the latest reports.
"Mother
Nature can be cruel especially when human nature is careless and
unprepared," Patzert said. "The Earth is very dynamic.
People forget that cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes — some years
are active, some years are not."
The
latest natural events are a wake-up call and reminder that Earth is
dynamic, he said.
Many
homes and businesses are now built in coastal and earthquake-prone
regions. This shows a "disdain for the power of nature,"
Patzert said. "She's still in charge."
For
this reason, if the Indonesian tsunami of 2004 had happened half a
century ago, it would've killed some 30,000 people, rather than
nearly 300,000, Patzert said.
Retrieved
from
Robin
Lloyd
