Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Mojo]

But still can cause relatiónship. How genetic relationship can matter in animals esp when they are not in close contact?

If an animal exhibits behaviour towards individuals that do not share its genes, that has no survival value for the animal's genes, so that behaviour will not be selected for.

 

[JayUtah]

I rarely complained...

Most of your posts addressed to me lately complain that I don't understand you. If that's true, it's because you don't write comprehensibly in the language you've chosen to debate it.

Anyway, leave this language a&f issue. Mod may mind.

If the moderators dislike the comments regarding your inability to write coherent English, they have the ability to say so and to edit away those posts. As long as you're willing to keep raising the issue that people aren't properly understanding your arguments, it will remain relevant that you are incompetent at English. That's nobody's problem but yours to fix.

 

[Dave_46]

Still many posts are understood here and much more elsewhere. Since we are discussing, it suggest we are, anyway, understanding each other. May be some if not fully.

I understand most of the posters in this thread. My language is English, I was born in England and I have always lived in England (apart from brief visits to other countries).

I do NOT find it easy to follow most of your posts. (pretty much all of them)

Dave Smit

 

[Kumar]

I understand most of the posters in this thread. My language is English, I was born in England and I have always lived in England (apart from brief visits to other countries).

I do NOT find it easy to follow most of your posts. (pretty much all of them)

Dave Smit

Yes, it is real matter. Actually, I can also do some bétter but due to much overlóad, I just casually go on without rechecking. I shall try.

 

[Kumar]

Most of your posts addressed to me lately complain that I don't understand you. If that's true, it's because you don't write comprehensibly in the language you've chosen to debate it.



If the moderators dislike the comments regarding your inability to write coherent English, they have the ability to say so and to edit away those posts. As long as you're willing to keep raising the issue that people aren't properly understanding your arguments, it will remain relevant that you are incompetent at English. That's nobody's problem but yours to fix.

Ok, I shall try to improve by rechécking and by limiting the posts.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Still many posts are understood here and much more elsewhere. Since we are discussing, it suggest we are, anyway, understanding each other. May be some if not fully.

Stop that, Kumar! Your atrocious English is a major obstacle to all discussions here. We try our best, but we NEVER know exactly what you are trying to say.

Hans

 

[bruto]

Yes, it is real matter. Actually, I can also do some bétter but due to much overlóad, I just casually go on without rechecking. I shall try.

Do, please. It is possible to understand some of what you say but it requires effort which should not be necessary, and implies that the person making the statements is at best careless of his listeners and at worst lacking in intelligence. It does your arguments no favor.

 

[Kumar]

Stop that, Kumar! Your atrocious English is a major obstacle to all discussions here. We try our best, but we NEVER know exactly what you are trying to say.

Hans

Yes, some weaknesses are constitutional but some miss or bounces is also a reason. However, I felt, I should try to improve it by re-checking and decreasing the posts.

 

[Kumar]

Do, please. It is possible to understand some of what you say but it requires effort which should not be necessary, and implies that the person making the statements is at best careless of his listeners and at worst lacking in intelligence. It does your arguments no favor.

In view of common complaint, I shall try to improve it by re-checking and by decreasing the posts.

 

[Kumar]

OK, no problem. Then stop trying to shoehorn your own explanations into ti.




Yes, that is correct. Most domestic animals are flock animals (cats are an exception, but then cats are not very altruistic), and they take their human keepers as flock leaders. This exactly shows that it is not an intelligent or emotional choice: In most cases the human flock leader will exploit the animal to his own uses, and the animal does not realize this.

Quité right except when human keeper treat some animals as companions alike family members and take their due care upto their natural death.

Not, however, that this is still an evolutionary advantage: The humans make sure that the animal survives as a species. Very few domestic species would have much chance of surviving for very long without humans.

Hans

Humans do it in their own selfish or commercial interests to get more and better quality food. It may not be taken as a symbiotic relation esp in both sides equal benefits. Nature in nature had maintained existances and harmony since infinite time.

 

[Mojo]

Nature in nature had maintained existances and harmony since infinite time.

No, it really hasn't. You like to refer to the "balance of nature", but this is not, as you seem to think, a nice, peaceful, harmonious process. It is, to use another term you are fond of misusing, dynamic. Creatures eat one another. Populations are, on the whole, kept in check by the availability of food, but there will always be variation in this. Temporary abundance of food will result in population explosions, but when the temporary abundance is exhausted as a result of the increased population the population will crash again, with many individuals starving. Everything is trying to survive and breed, but with no foresight, and certainly no idea of "harmony".

 

[Pixel42]

Nature in nature had maintained existances and harmony since infinite time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events

 

[Kumar]

No, it really hasn't. You like to refer to the "balance of nature", but this is not, as you seem to think, a nice, peaceful, harmonious process. It is, to use another term you are fond of misusing, dynamic. Creatures eat one another. Populations are, on the whole, kept in check by the availability of food, but there will always be variation in this. Temporary abundance of food will result in population explosions, but when the temporary abundance is exhausted as a result of the increased population the population will crash again, with many individuals starving. Everything is trying to survive and breed, but with no foresight, and certainly no idea of "harmony".

Why all that can't happen to bring all things and being in perfect harmony or to nature's balance by might is right leading to survival of fittest resulting live and let live?

 

[fagin]

That sounds like a particularly stoned stoner poster from the sixties

 

[Kumar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Major_extinction_events

Should we make issue that all will extinct on big-bang? Nature go on changing itself for some cause--extinction can be one of those. Nature do not care what it is losing, we just care.

 

[fagin]

This thread is a dodo.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Quité right except when human keeper treat some animals as companions alike family members and take their due care upto their natural death.

Sure. There are good keepers and bad keepers.

Humans do it in their own selfish or commercial interests to get more and better quality food.

Yes, or because it interests them or gives them some other fulfillment.

It may not be taken as a symbiotic relation esp in both sides equal benefits.

Symbioses rarely gives equal benefits.

Nature in nature had maintained existances and harmony since infinite time.

Nonsense. Either you speak against better knowledge or you know very little about nature. Life in nature is a deadly race.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Sure. There are good keepers and bad keepers.



Yes, or because it interests them or gives them some other fulfillment.

Thanks.

Symbioses rarely gives equal benefits.

Mutualism

Nonsense. Either you speak against better knowledge or you know very little about nature. Life in nature is a deadly race.

Hans

Depend on prevailing conditions. Plenty or sufficiency of avalabilty may not need above when just live & let live can prevail.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Depend on prevailing conditions. Plenty or sufficiency of avalabilty may not need above when just live & let live can prevail.

No. Not in nature. Any species will try to get as much as they can or increase their numbers at least as much as supplies allow.

"Live and let live" is a human ideal which we have a hard time following ourselves. Don't expect nature to even try.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

No. Not in nature. Any species will try to get as much as they can or increase their numbers at least as much as supplies allow.

"Live and let live" is a human ideal which we have a hard time following ourselves. Don't expect nature to even try.

Hans

We need to think on it deeply. Our mentality on plenty/sufficiency and on deficiency? Will it remain the same.