Animals and Humans

there is an absence of understanding and more than a couple of misinterpretations with regards to the subject of creatures. This article will talk about some of these confusions and the acknowledge that we have to make on the off chance that we are to keep away from passings and creature assaults. The issue appears to lie in our misguided judgments that creatures are driven by feelings instead of by immaculate survival impulses. This causes us to credit a creature assault to the human feeling of outrage or vengeance. I realize that all individuals don’t hold these misguided judgments, which would be pompous. I am stating that a greater part of individuals do, basically based upon the confirmation. The confirmation I allude to incorporates network shows on Discovery, Animal Planet, TNT, and so forth. It additionally incorporates the news media, and even Academia. Once more, a few shows are guiltier than others, however the deceptions extend from the little to the crazy.

The primary indicate the peruser needs take from this article is that creatures are creatures, driven by fundamental impulses vital for their survival. They don’t feel outrage, envy, love, or plot exact retribution. Albeit a few creatures may contain the limit with regards to these feelings, I question those faculties are as exceedingly created or contemplated through as our own appear to be. Along these lines, when we endeavor to credit human feelings to creature inspirations we are committing a senseless error. We require just attempt to take a gander at the circumstance from the creature’s perspective. This shouldn’t be hard, in light of the fact that we can reason. We require just endeavor to come back to a perspective that we haven’t had since we rubbed sticks together and drew on give in dividers.

The Main Issues:

The tree hugger is as much to fault as the seeker. At the point when a nature beau is assaulted mercilessly by a creature and survives they generally put forth the expression; “It didn’t recognize what it was doing”. This is not valid. The creature knew very well indeed what it was doing. They would likewise make the claim that they ought not have placed themselves in that circumstance. That announcement really is valid, to a degree. When we wander out into nature we can’t expect that we won’t be assaulted by a wild creature. What we should expect is that there is a probability, and we should acknowledge duty regarding this on the off chance that we are going into the forested areas at any rate.

Creatures are discovering their common grounds undermined by lodging improvements, organizations, and different exercises that bring people into zones where creatures used to wander. Their domain is contracting. Thus, when we go out into the forested areas than it is our obligation. In the event that a man enters the woods for any reason, and is assaulted by a creature, whatever the reason; it’s their blame. Why? Since they know in the back of their mind that it is a plausibility. On the off chance that you go into the forested areas with your kids and they are assaulted, then it is the parent’s blame. Why? Since they knew it was a probability. You have each privilege to go for broke, yet when and if something awful happens, you can’t accuse the creature.

There are individuals out there who trust that creatures are of no result. The main thing that matters in this world is humankind. On the off chance that a creature is hit by an auto, shot, or executed by something besides normal means; so what. This is an exceptionally insensible perspective to have for one reason. We live in a world that is administered by adjust. One thing influences another and in the event that one animal categories vanishes it will influence different species. Here and there it can be positively for that species and some of the time it can be badly. In the event that every savage feathered creature were to go terminated than it would be extraordinary for rodents. It would not be so useful for whatever the rodents sustain upon and it definitely would not be beneficial for us. Conceded a few animal varieties can go wiped out without enormously disquieting the adjust of things. It’s the point at which numerous eliminations happen that a noteworthy issue will emerge. These people that don’t hold creatures in high respect, when assaulted by creatures, more often than not rush to outrage. That creature assaulted me and hence amazing! I question that they would much think about how possible it is that they bore any obligation at all to enter the forested areas that day. Most importantly if individuals enter the forested areas, we should know about the risks. This goes for any regular habitat that we deliberately enter, knowing very well indeed that we could be assaulted by a bear or a shark.

I will always remember a scene of Worlds Most Amazing Video or possibly it was the Most Extreme, where an elephant was rampaging through the boulevards of Mexico. In the event that I recollect effectively, this elephant was performing in a carnival, turned on its mentor (executing him), and after that started going through the lanes. This elephant wound up being shot to death in the road. I had no issue with that, it was clear the creature must be brought down. What I had an issue with was the announcement made by the blockhead pundit of the show. He expressed, “This is a grievous occasion, yet how about we not overlook why this was important.” That may not be his announcement word for word, but rather the fact of the matter is clear. The elephant needed to bite the dust since it was a rampaging beast! How unmindful is that? As I would see it that was a to a great degree insensible proclamation that made them revile so anyone can hear at my TV. The reality of the matter is that the elephant killed his coach. It is likewise genuine that the elephant was crazy. Why are these the main legitimate focuses? Did anybody stop to surmise that the elephant ought not have been there in any case? Elephants don’t have a place in bazaars and they don’t have a place in zoos. The main reason a zoo ought to serve is to restore harmed creatures or to sanctuary creatures that are jeopardized.

Creatures are wild, the main misstep made in the elephant circumstance is that “WE”, thought we could tame or control this creature. Can we isn’t that right? Yes, we can, yet should we, NO! By and by, if a creature that is in a zoo or a bazaar assaults a man then I would prefer not to find out about it. No sensitivity will be found with me. Basically creatures have a place in nature. I couldn’t care less how agreeable or tamed we surmise that they are. The shot will dependably remain that they can assault for reasons that truly don’t make a difference. I have a sufficiently hard time attempting to make sense of why individuals do a portion of the things they do. The exact opposite thing I need to need to do once a day is attempt to make sense of what an elephant, bear or a shark was considering.

When I was more youthful, I went to zoos. The last time I went by a zoo I was 21 years of age, and it was at Busch Gardens and Disney’s Wild Kingdom. I am 31 years of age and I have not been to a zoo since. I will never go to a zoo again essentially in light of the fact that I don’t trust in them. To take a wild creature and stick it in a pen for our diversion is basically absurd. What number of us might want to be stuck in a fenced in area, I couldn’t care less how regular or agreeable that it is, and afterward told we can never clear out? Very few, yet since we are not discussing individuals than it doesn’t make a difference. Creatures don’t have a place in confines. They are intended to be out in nature. Along these lines, when we put creatures in circumstances that they instinctually don’t have a place in then we can’t consider them responsible for their activities. The main individuals that can be considered responsible for creature assaults happening in zoos or a carnival are we. Not only the proprietor of the zoo or bazaar, yet the individual that was assaulted too. All things considered, they are the ones paying the charge to enter a zone where hazardous creatures are kept. Its about duty and time after time are we not willing to acknowledge our share of the obligation nowadays.

Creatures are not administered by similar things that we are. On the off chance that a man wrongs us then we get furious. On the off chance that a man cherishes us then we adore back. Individuals are fit for a variety of feelings including, envy, joy, pity, outrage, fear, and so forth. We additionally can plot and plan. In the event that somebody makes us amazingly irate or desirous then we may wish to do hurt against that other individual. Creatures don’t think thusly but at whatever point I listen, or read of a creature assault; I generally hear somebody attempt to credit human inspirations to why the creature acted the way it did. Genuine is not Lady and the Tramp, or Over the Hedge. Creatures don’t reason as we do. The main exercises that creature are worried with are eating, resting, crapping, peeing, and multiplication. From the day they are conceived till the day they pass on, they are just worried with life forms.

Our lifestyle alongside our very created mind permits us to move past these straightforward procedures. They are still there and will always remain the point of convergence of life, however they will never devour as quite a bit of our lives as it accomplishes for creatures. People still need to eat, rest, crap, pee, duplicate, and so forth. We have all the more spare time that permits us to concentrate on different things. We work for sustenance and recreational things. We get water from a well and live in houses and lofts. This permits us to apply our energies somewhere else. Creatures are not managed this. For the most part since they have not developed to the degree that people have. This is nobodies blame, its exactly how it is. With this development comes obligation on our part. We need to understand that we are in charge of our activities since we know about our activities. It is distinctive with creatures, they don’t know about their activities.

In the event that I am strolling in the forested areas and a wild bear assaults me, it doesn’t do as such out of outrage. The grizzly may essentially consider me to be a simple target. On the off chance that it is eager then it will search for nourishment. It isn’t right to state that individuals are not some portion of what they eat. A bear will eat pretty much anything in the event that it is eager. We realize that bears eat meat. Indeed, bears have been known to eat everything from berries to bucks. I think the reason that we say things as, “They don’t ordinarily eat individuals”, or “We are not some portion of their eating regimen”, is on the grounds that we are once in a while in contact with bears. Since our advancement we have placed ourselves in contained situations called houses, which are encompassed by towns and urban communities. No bears here, in spite of the fact that in

Wasps – Bad or Not?

The ones that are actually males are total bros. No only will they not sting you; they, in fact, are incapable of stinging.

Female wasps, on the other hand, will sting the shit out of you. And now, since it’s semi-relevant, I want to share my experiences with wasps over autumn.

I learned quite a bit about wasps in autumn. They invaded my home, and I could not find their nest. Over the course of a couple months I must have killed at least 70 of them. I was not stung once, and I became an adept wasp killer. I no longer feared them. Sometimes I didn’t kill; I observed.

I experimented as well. I killed a wasp and left it on the windowsill, keenly anticipating how the other wasps would react. One hovered over top its fallen comrade for some time, and then landed on top it. It used its mandibles to prod the body, and then crawled around the dead wasp. Then, it flew up, and off it went. Almost aimlessly. The next time I encountered a number of wasps, I decided to kill another, only this time I left my weapon choice near the scene. I crushed the wasp slightly, so that it would not die immediately, and then placed the cigarette box near the body on the sill. When a second wasp came to inspect, it performed a routine similar that of the first wasp’s. When it took off, it zeroed in on the cigarette pack almost immediately. It buzzed around the box for sometime, and then flew away. It was fascinating.

I also once found as spider. Knowing that most wasps are predatory, I killed the spider and left it on the sill. I waited patiently, until a wasp appeared and inspected the spider. It then used its mandibles to pick the spider up, and flew off with it. This also fascinated me. As much as I hated these wasps, observing there behaviours in different scenarios was quite interesting.

I watched wasp was on the large window looking out onto the street. In the top corner. I observed it gently stroke its antennae with methodical precision, over and over with its forelegs. It was actually kind of beautiful, the way the light reflected off its eyes. A prism of light. Dark as the ocean blue, bright as the white hot sun, and as lively as ochre foliage dancing in the wind. I decided not to kill that wasp, I captured it instead. I placed it in the freezer, and dubbed it Lazarus when released from its cryogenic prison. But Lazarus did not awaken. Lazarus still sleeps within a glass house lying on my sill.


Geese. I spent three months at a naval station at Newport, Rhode Island. There was a ~3 mile running trail that went around the perimeter of the island, which we ran three times a week. Invariably, at some point on the trail, you’d find a gang of those cocksuckers blocking the path, and they’d just give you that vacant goose stare as you bore down on them. I actually kicked one of the fuckers one time because he wouldn’t move. He looked surprised and mildly offended, then delivered a defiant hiss at my retreating buttocks.

But that was just mildly entertaining. The real downside of having all those geese was that there were little fucking goose-turd land mines all through the grass. Which doesn’t sound so horrifying until a DI orders you and your 20 friends to lie down RIGHT HERE for some pushups, and then there’s a mad scramble to find a shit-free patch of grass.

And as if that wasn’t enough, there was a fucking family of skunks moping around the place too.


Aren’t lobsters supposedly “immortal” as well? They don’t revert in quite the same way, but they are capable of dealing with telomere issues due to something within their biology. They continue to grow in size, so they find it more and more difficult to hide and avoid being eaten; so it isn’t quite like the mentioned jellyfish. But

I just remember this because one of my top rated comments was about using the science behind the telomere “fix” in lobsters to extend human life, and having to compete with my great-great-great-grandchildren for potential mates due to nobody ever dying.

Edit: Scrolled down and more or less got my answer. They die because of predation, but also because they lack the ability (eventually) to sustain the energy levels required to keep up with their size. So, they eventually do get too big and will eventually die no matter what. However, I would be interested to find out if there have ever been mutations in lobsters that create “dwarf” lobsters that are unable to increase in size beyond a certain point, thus never having to deal with the size issue, and because their genetics are not an issue, they would be theoretically capable of existing for a very, very long time.

Animal Evolution

You’re correct. As I mentioned, toxin is biologically expensive. It’s also important to note that if that random mutation for slight toxicity never happened, both the deer and the plants likely would’ve carried on as before and both would have gotten along fine. Or if some other trait had happened like spiky leaves, the deer might have evolved tougher lips instead. Or if the deer and plants had split off into two groups, one with toxin+immunity vs tough lips+spikes, they could both coexist in the same ecosystem since neither is competing with the other. Eventually they stop breeding with each other and become different species.

There’s also random/disaster selection, where a trait may not be beneficial at all or even detrimental, but some random event happens. Like say half the deer are nocturnal, while half aren’t. A flash flood wipes out the valley during the day while the nocturnal ones are up in the hills sleeping, leaving only nocturnal deer. And also sexual selection, where a trait has no purpose except to attract a mate (see: peacock).

If we’re getting into K vs r, I like to mention insects, which tend to have an absolutely HUGE r rate. They breed by the thousands, and have tiny lifespans. This is why there are around 950,000 species of insect and only 30,000 species of fish, even though fish came first. Also why you get so many freaking weird looking bugs.

Edit: A note on fish, while fish usually have a large number of offspring at once, only a few make it to breeding age, and they tend to have much longer lives than insects do.

Evolution is not conscious

Evolution is not conscious, no. Let’s go through your two examples:

“Some of the plants evolved to have poisonous leaves so animals wouldn’t eat them.”
“They evolved to have immunity against the poison.”

Here’s how that actually works:

  • There is a valley with some plants, and some deer.
  • The plants are the primary food source for the deer.
  • Even so, the plants are abundant enough that some survive to flower and seed.
  • Each flower has slightly different genetic information from combining the flower’s DNA with DNA from pollen from a nearby plant. These slight genetic differences are the key to evolution.
  • These flowers become seeds and are scattered over the landscape.
  • A bunch of random mutations happen in the plants over time (thicker stem, more water absorption, etc).
  • After several generations, one happens to get a random genetic mutation that makes them create a mildly poisonous chemical.
  • Deer start to avoid the slightly poisonous plants. Their leaves don’t get eaten as much, so they do much better than all the non-toxic plants.
  • This makes it HARDER for the non-toxic plants to survive, because if 1/8 of the plants are toxic, the food supply’s gone down by 1/8. This means more of the non-toxic plants get eaten.
  • Because the toxic plants are not getting eaten at all, and the deer are eating the competition, the new slightly toxic plants do very well and their population continues growing.
  • After several more generations the toxic plants are doing SO well that they completely take over the non-toxic plants. The completely non-toxic plants go extinct.
  • At this point, the desperate deer at this point are going after the slightly toxic plants. Some of the deer die to it, but some don’t.
  • The deer that can best tolerate eating the slightly toxic plants will have more food available, which means more babies, each with slightly varying DNA.
  • Random mutations occur along the generations that make the toxin more potent, and likewise, that make the deer more resistant to toxins. Toxic plants might get pollinated by less toxic plants, but those babies get quickly eaten by the deer that are tolerating the slightly toxic plants, and only the toxic+toxic plants do well.
  • Because the deer that survive the poison are the ones that are reproducing, it becomes less of an advantage to have only weak toxin.
  • Likewise, if any of the baby deer have an even better way of tolerating the toxin, they’ll have a more ample food source than the deer that can eat only slightly toxic plants. Those toxin-tolerant deer are able to have more babies, and crowd out their competition as the plants grow more and more toxic.
  • Soon only deer that can tolerate eating toxic plants are left. The rest are either dead from poison or have moved on to a different area.
  • Likewise, the non-toxic plants are all gone. Only plants that are toxic are left.

Now, if the plants didn’t have the deer eating them all the time, the toxin wouldn’t have been a particularly beneficial trait. Maybe a few of them would have remained toxic, but since toxins take an organism energy to create and have no other benefit, it’s unlikely that the toxin would stick around, since energy dedicated to making toxin is energy that’s not making offspring. Likewise, the deer very likely would not have become resistant to the toxins without trying to eat the toxic plants. It may pop up randomly as a mutation, but it doesn’t overly help a deer to survive, so the trait doesn’t help them out-compete their fellow deer.

The jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula is biologically immortal

The jellyfish Turritopsis nutricula is biologically immortal and could, under ideal conditions, live for 1000s of years. After sexually reproducing, this jellyfish can revert back to the immature polyp stage (back into a “child”). The jellyfish can still die due to predation, but aging is not a problem for it. The exact mechanism for this is not yet well understood. Article on aging and the immortal jellyfish

EDIT: More credible sources, as the first one I posted is a bit sketchy, as pointed out by /u/SirT6 below.

Reversing the Life Cycle: Medusae Transforming into Polyps and Cell Transdifferentiation in Turritopsis nutricula (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa)

A silent invasion

Note: The last article uses Turritopsis nutricula instead of Turritopsis dohrnii but it’s now thought that the two species names may refer to a single species.

This species of jellyfish is the only animal known to be able to revert to an immature state after reaching sexual maturity. To begin we’ll need a quick understanding of the jellyfish lifecycle. They start as a free-swimming larva and then develop into a sessile polyp (similar to a sea anemone). Polyps are colonial and can asexually produce medusa (asexual reproduction results in a clone). Most medusa (the stage that looks like the jellyfish you picture in your head) die after releasing sperm/egg, but Turritopsis nutricula can return to the polyp state after producing sperm/egg through a process called transdifferentiation. Transdifferentiation is a change of well-differentiated cells (cells with specific jobs) to other cell types (different jobs) by returning to a state of undifferentiation (cells with no job). Stem cells are a kind of undifferentiated cells, but it is unclear if they are involved in the transdifferentiation of Turritopsis nutricula. Transdifferentiation is usually only seen in regeneration, but this jellyfish has managed to use it to revert to an earlier form of life. (source 1) (source 2)

While Turritopsis nutricula is the only known animal to revert to an immature state, there are other examples of biological immortality. To be clear biological immortality means that likelihood of death does not increase with age. Wiki page on biological immortality



Those bastards wait till a mother bird from a different species has left the nest to get food. The Cuckoo will then sneak in a lay an egg in the other birds nest then disappear like John Wayne riding into the sun set.

A few weeks later the Cuckoo egg will hatch, usually before the other birds brood. The cuckoo chick, hours old, will then use a specifically designed hollow in its back to push the other eggs out of the nest, killing them off one by one. The bird then raises the Cuckoo as it’s own, never realising the deception.

When it’s old enough the Cuckoo will fledge and leave the nest. It never visits, writes or even remembers the birthday of its adoptive mother

Another thing that makes them dicks, the mother cuckoo doesn’t care how big the forced adoptive mother is. The Cuckoo chick is quiet often double the size of it’s fully grown adoptive parent!

tl;dr mother Cuckoo lays it’s eggs in another species nest. Baby Cuckoo then murders it’s adoptive brothers and sisters. Adoptive mother cares and raises the Cuckoo leaves home, never visits or phones.