Are scavengers edible?

Kumar said:
Due to non A&F nature of science. We can't see so many variations in science.
Click to expand...

In plain English, then: no answer from any source (other than your Chosen Fount of All That is Correct™) will suffice. You are not here to discuss, you're here to preach & most of us are having none of it.
 
EHocking said:
Post #104.

"There is no such thing as Balance of NatureWP."
Click to expand...

I meant to A&F, but moving on. There absolutely is a balance. Any ecosystem contains only so many resources and therefore can only support so much biomass. Any change in the composition of that biomass therefore results in other parts of the biomass also changing until equilibrium (a balance) is restored.

This is basic ecological science.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
I meant to A&F, but moving on. There absolutely is a balance. Any ecosystem contains only so many resources and therefore can only support so much biomass. Any change in the composition of that biomass therefore results in other parts of the biomass also changing until equilibrium (a balance) is restored.

This is basic ecological science.
Click to expand...
So the balance of nature you are referring to can be demonstrated by mixing two pots of water at different temperatures and observing that they result in a new pot of water at an intermediate temperature?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
So the balance of nature you are referring to can be demonstrated by mixing two pots of water at different temperatures and observing that they result in a new pot of water at an intermediate temperature?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that the balance of nature is far more complex than that. The numbers of any species can vary chaotically over time. Like remove 50% of the grass and the number of grass eating animals might go down 80% and the number of predators might go down 90%. Then the numbers might start going back up. If the grass goes back to its previous state then the numbers of grass eating animals might go way beyond its former levels, then go down again as the grass gets eaten.

Even the above is vastly simplified. Like it ignores scavengers.
 
Since Nature™ would appear to be a on-going, ever-changing state of affairs, any comment concerning "balance" could only refer to a given moment rather than any continuum.
 
rjh01 said:
I would suggest that the balance of nature is far more complex than that.
Click to expand...

Yes, my point was that what CP was describing applies to pots of water but falls apart for nature. Very few ecosytems reach any kind of equilibrium.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
I meant to A&F, but moving on. There absolutely is a balance. Any ecosystem contains only so many resources and therefore can only support so much biomass. Any change in the composition of that biomass therefore results in other parts of the biomass also changing until equilibrium (a balance) is restored.

This is basic ecological science.
Click to expand...
No, this is outdated ecological "science".

The "biomass" is in constant conflict and flux - not balance.
Ecological "balance" is an absurdly romantic belief, not ecological science.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Yes, my point was that what CP was describing applies to pots of water but falls apart for nature. Very few ecosytems reach any kind of equilibrium.
Click to expand...
All ecosystems are self regulating complex systems. It is a fundamental characteristic of all life on this planet and always was. "Balance" has been used to describe this quality for years, but I much prefer the systems science approach and terminology.

However, it is not necessarily wrong per se to call it the balance of nature as long as one understands the "balance" is always in constant flux as feedbacks both positive and negative interact and "unbalanced" really is referring to ecological cascades of some type or another like the well studied trophic cascades.

I wouldn't beat some body up over minor terminology issues. It is somewhat pedantic. What was described is fairly well in the common tongue and you know exactly what was meant.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
All ecosystems are self regulating complex systems. It is a fundamental characteristic of all life on this planet and always was. "Balance" has been used to describe this quality for years, but I much prefer the systems science approach and terminology.

However, it is not necessarily wrong per se to call it the balance of nature as long as one understands the "balance" is always in constant flux as feedbacks both positive and negative interact and "unbalanced" really is referring to ecological cascades of some type or another like the well studied trophic cascades.

I wouldn't beat some body up over minor terminology issues. It is somewhat pedantic. What was described is fairly well in the common tongue and you know exactly what was meant.
Click to expand...

If by "what was described" you are referring to Kumar's posts on this subject, then, no, he is not correct.

What you have described above is quite reasonable, but it's very different from the concept that Kumar is basing his views on.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
All ecosystems are self regulating complex systems. It is a fundamental characteristic of all life on this planet and always was. "Balance" has been used to describe this quality for years, but I much prefer the systems science approach and terminology.

However, it is not necessarily wrong per se to call it the balance of nature as long as one understands the "balance" is always in constant flux as feedbacks both positive and negative interact and "unbalanced" really is referring to ecological cascades of some type or another like the well studied trophic cascades.

I wouldn't beat some body up over minor terminology issues. It is somewhat pedantic. What was described is fairly well in the common tongue and you know exactly what was meant.
Click to expand...

I get your point, and it's reasonable, but I do not believe that Kumar's concept of the balance of nature is similar to yours. It is, of course, hard at times to extract clarity from his expression, and hard also at times to find consistency, especially in deciding what belongs and does not belong to "nature, " but it appears that his notion is that nature itself is an entity that governs what occurs, and that the balance involved is teleological, rather than a consequence of how systems operate. I may be wrong about this but, having engaged Kumar for some time on several of these issues, I would not, if I were you, invest too much hope in finding common ground.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I hope someone knows about savanna wildlife.

You often, in TV features about wildlife see predators having to ward off scavengers from their catch. Generally, they just growl and slash at them.

Today I saw a feature about a cheetah mother struggling to feed a litter of six (!) cubs. While they were eating she chased away the gathering vultures.

I started to wonder why she didn't kill a few of them. Pretty free food as they walked (well, lurched) right up close. A vulture looks big, but it it only weighs some three kg. So the 15 times heavier cheetah should have no trouble killing it, even if it has a sharp beak.

Do vultures taste very bad or something?

Hans
Click to expand...

Predators generally don't attack other predators or at least otherwise harmful or hard to catch large animals in their vicinity.

It's much easier for everyone to target the small and weak.
 
IIIClovisIII said:
Predators generally don't attack other predators or at least otherwise harmful or hard to catch large animals in their vicinity.

It's much easier for everyone to target the small and weak.
Click to expand...

Yes, that seems to be much of the explanation.

Hans
 
IIIClovisIII said:
Predators generally don't attack other predators or at least otherwise harmful or hard to catch large animals in their vicinity.

It's much easier for everyone to target the small and weak.
Click to expand...
But in the wild it is so much more often the small and weak chasing the large, e.g.,


It has always struck me as odd to see something like a Buzzard being chased off by something the size of a Swallow.
 
EHocking said:
But in the wild it is so much more often the small and weak chasing the large, e.g.,


It has always struck me as odd to see something like a Buzzard being chased off by something the size of a Swallow.
Click to expand...

Crows will mob an owl many times larger than any of them; in turn, red-winged blackbirds will drive off crows and ravens.
 
Ground squirrels and rabbits will kick a rattlesnake's ass and send it running away during certain contexts of interaction. Both are typical prey for the snake in other contexts.
 
Well, I think one lesson is clear: Unlike movies and computer games where hostile creatures tend to attack on sight and fight till death, in nature any species that does not avoid a fight whenever possible will soon become extinct. Even a small risk of injury is simply not worth taking, unless there is a very good reason (like defending your young, winning mating rights, defending a hard-won territory, and such).

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom