chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (02/12/87)
In article <305@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > In article <1151@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes: > > In the Giants trilogy, James P. Hogan postulates (among other things) > >a world where predators do not exist (except in the deep ocean). I will skip > >his theory of how evolution could work out to forbid predation and > >concentrate > >instead on something more clear-cut: he says that in the absence of > >predation, aggression will not exist. This has been shown to be false: some > >herbivores are among the meanest creatures around. > > The only herbivors that we have around to study most definitely > evolved in a predator filled environment. Therefore an argument > based on these 'aggressive' herbivores is fallacious. The amount that the creatures have to worry about predation does not correlate with their aggression, as far as I know (that is, from reading about examples). I wish I could remember some examples of herbivores which do not suffer significant predation, but I need more than just elephants (which are, however, capable of getting angry and stampeding, and compete for mates in not the most friendly manner -- an aggressive behavior -- even though they did not suffer predation except possibly of old and weak individuals (even a lion won't mess with a grown elephant) until humans came along. > Ok, with that out of the way.... No, it's not out of the way. > "...in the absence of predation, aggression will not exist." > > Given that predation exists, then aggression, by definition, > also exists. (I think you'll agree to this.) No I do not. Predation is one way of getting food; the predator is not competing with the prey, but eating it. Lions do not hate their prey any more than we hate the meat we get at the supermarket (-: well, as long as it tastes decent for what we pay for it :-). > Given that predation does not exist, then aggression, by definition, > does not exist. (here's the sticky part...) Wrong, because the basis is false (see above). > Aggression: "1. an unprovoked attack or warlike act; 2. the practice > or habit of being agressive, or quarrelsome." > > Agressive: "1. aggressing or inclined to aggress; starting fights or > quarrels. 2. ready or willing to take issue or engage in > direct action; militant." > > Agress: "to attack, to start a quarrel or be the first to attack." This definition is the one of choice for politics and non-scientific human relations, but it doesn't cut it for biology. For biology you have to add that it is only that which is an attempt to deal with competition. > Predation: "the method of existance of predatory animals." > > Predatory: "1. of, living by, or characterized by plundering, robbing, > or exploiting others. 2. living by capturing and feeding > upon other animals." Only #2 is correct for biology. > Ok, predation can take two forms, Overt, and Covert. Overt being what > is usually thought of, one animal eating another. Covert, being > violent competition for resources of any sort, often between members > of the same species. This is where Predatory #1 comes in...exploitation > of others. Predatory #1 is not predation in biology. Therefore, exploitation other than actually eating the exploited is not predation. > If overt predation does not exist, then there are no predators to be > overtly aggresive. So lack of overt predation rules out overt > aggression. (Gee, half done!) Wrong. What about fights for mates? These occur in herbivores independantly of the level of predation (although under high threat of a predator coming the animals MIGHT not get into it as much as if the threat were not there). > If covert predation does not exist, then there is no competition > between species for resources. Covert aggression is therfore also > ruled out. See above. > See, both halves of aggression ruled out along with both halves of > predation! Only by redefining the words in a way unacceptable to standard biological terminology. > Ok, flip it around: > > If aggression exists, then predation exists. Only if you redefine the words as above. [Some more repetitive stuff deleted.] > What do you say Lucius? I refer you to Konrad Lorenz' _On_Agression_. I can't say that everything in it is correct, but it will teach you the concept of what aggression is and how it is different from predation. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius or (if tardis is dead, but it's harder to get to) lucius@borax.lcs.mit.edu seismo!borax.lcs.mit.edu!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above.
throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (02/24/87)
>,>>> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) >> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) >>> [...] James P. Hogan postulates [...] that in the absence of >>>predation, aggression will not exist. This has been shown to be false: some >>>herbivores are among the meanest creatures around. >> The only herbivors that we have around to study most definitely >> evolved in a predator filled environment. Therefore an argument >> based on these 'aggressive' herbivores is fallacious. > The amount that the creatures have to worry about predation does not > correlate with their aggression, as far as I know It is worth noting that herbivores really ought to be considered predators. It is just that their prey is particularly easy to sneak up on... >> [..."proof" that predation implies agression and non-predation >> implies non-agression...] > This definition [of predation] is the one of choice for politics and > non-scientific human relations, but it doesn't cut it for biology. > For biology you have to add that it is only that which is an attempt > to deal with competition. Similarly, my definition of predation might be a little non-standard. But my point remains... Hogan's world wasn't truely free of agression. It's just that the agression was all directed towards species that did not resist effectively. But then, humans don't prey on species that can resist effectively. They didn't even do it when there still were species that could resist effectively. So how is the selective pressure on the Giants different from those on humans? In one regard. For a Giant, the simple fact of mobility is a strong indicator that a species ought not be be preyed upon, because all mobile species on the Giant's planet were effectively defended. It could thus plausibly be built in to the Giants that they only agress against plants. -- There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. --- John von Neumann -- Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw