We destroy our only home and we call ourselves intelligent. Intelligence isn't measured by if you know more than another creature or have a higher brain power than them. All creatures are intelligent, they all go about doing what they are purposefully supposed to do, except humans, we go around killing and destroying the only thing allowing our species to survive. It doesn't sound at all intelligent to me.
Cite me an example of a creature that destroys it's home and food source for no gain whatever? No animal destroys it's home, it's food, it's water, that would be counter productive to it's basic survival. Why would I need to cite and example, look around your room and tell me our lives our sustainable here...
^ Deer sometimes eat all the vegitation avaiblible in an area and as a result many die over the winter from starvation. Some migrate to find more food, some die Humans could migrate to a different planet too By your own logic: Why would humans destroy there environment it would be counter productive to there basic survival? Answer: most animals don't think like that they just do what their feelings tell them to do. There is no gurantee of survival, 99% of species on earth have gone extinct for one reason or another I'm not sure what you want the phrase "for no gain whatsoever to mean?" We do gain something when we cut down a tree or use a technology that pollutes.
Well in humans people usually think you are smart if you know random things or know a little of everything but I think intelligence should be measured by your skills in problem solving, thinking of solutions to things and creation of new tools that will do this. As to animals some are a lot smarter then you would think but humans are definitely more intelligent I mean I don't know of any other animal that can use devices to communicate with others of the same species and think together on a subject like intelligence.
I guess it all comes down to neuroplasticity, not only in a single life, but over the process of evolution. The more plasticity a species is capable of, the more intelligence they are capable of.
Going back to the idea of morality and other such subjective things defining our intelligence, I think that they do. Humans have dominated the planet for the past couple thousand years because they have mostly bonded together and taken over. Not because of our physical capacities, which aren't really that great compared to many other animals, but because humans have joined together and thrived in almost every climate because of our minds. If you've ever heard the saying "it's only human", that emerges from our tendency to do things for other humans, cause we are human as well. We have developed a sense of morality and "right or wrong" among us. Just my opinion.
Intelligence to me is being able to rationalize but also be intuitive. Common sense. Questioning anything you don't understand To think beyond a scientific perspective but use your imagination to come up with an answer Plus intelligence is subjective there can be areas that you're better at knowing
Deer appear to reduce their metabolic rates in winter, so that at rest they burn fewer calories. They survive not on the food which they find but on the fat reserves they built up prior to winter. Combatting the deep snow and the exposure to wind and cold in the open hardwoods, they are less likely to make it through the winter than they are lying among the protecting evergreens of the traditional lowland wintering areas. Deer also rely completely on microorganisms in their bodies to digest food, otherwise they can eat and eat and eat but will still starve to death. "No gain whatsoever" was put in there so people don't say "well animals kill the same species" that's a gain for them, or "animals eat their own young" while not a gain for their species, also a personal gain. Deer eat all the food because 1) they don't eat much in winter anyways 2) they need to eat to feed the microorganisms, for if they die the deer can not digest food. So deer don't eat all the food in their area because they aren't intelligent, they are designed to do it, the ones that don't survive just weren't strong enough it's the circle of life, not lack of intelligence.
Then if humans can't survive then its because they weren't strong enough in there circle of life, nothing to do with intelligence. BAM All animals rely on microorganisms to do there digesting as far as I know.
No, ruminant animals rely on microorganisms, like deer, goats, cows. I don't quite understand the bolded part I'm high so help me out here haha
Ruminant animals? Ahh well I looked up that definition. "A ruminant is a mammal that digests plant-based food by initially softening it within the animal's first compartment of the stomach, principally through bacterial actions, then regurgitating the semi-digested mass, now known as cud, and chewing it again" It appears "ruminant" does not hinge soley on microorganisms digesting food. Humans use microorganisms too as well as other animals, ruminant animals aren't the only ones. Anyway I'm saying your last statement " So deer don't eat all the food in their area because they aren't intelligent, they are designed to do it, the ones that don't survive just weren't strong enough it's the circle of life, not lack of intelligence." could be said about humans to. "So humans don't pollute the Earth because they aren't intelligent, they are designed to do it, the ones that don't survive just weren't strong enough it's the circle of life, not lack of intelligence."
Do animals rape? Yes. Do animals murder? Yes. Do we know rape and murder is wrong? Yes. We've evolved abilities to rationalize and reason. Yes if we keep polluting the Earth we will end up dying on this planet because we weren't smart enough to stop it. We aren't designed to do this, we chose to. We are designed with the ability of reasoning and understanding far beyond the abilities of all other creatures.
Well I don't believe we were designed in the first place but I'm not gonna turn this into a god vs no god debate Nothing makes rape or murder "wrong" except that we define it as wrong in our system of morals Even if we fuck up the earth some humans or other types of life will evolve to fill the void.
The primary difference between a ruminant and non-ruminant (called monogastrics, such as humans, dogs, and pigs) is that ruminants have a four-compartment stomach. The four parts of the stomach are rumen, reticulum, omasum, and abomasum. In the first two chambers, the rumen and the reticulum, the food is mixed with saliva and separates into layers of solid and liquid material. Solids clump together to form the cud or bolus. The cud is then regurgitated and chewed to completely mix it with saliva and to break down the particle size. Fiber, especially cellulose and hemi-cellulose, is primarily broken down into the three volatile fatty acids (VFAs), acetic acid, propanoic acid and beta-hydroxybutyric acid, in these chambers by microbes (mostly bacteria and well as some protozoa, fungi and yeast). Protein and non-structural carbohydrate (pectin, sugars, starches) are also fermented. Even though the rumen and reticulum have different names they represent the same functional space as digesta can move back and forth between them. Together these chambers are called the reticulorumen. The degraded digesta, which is now in the lower liquid part of the reticulorumen, then passes into the next chamber, the omasum, where water and many of the inorganic mineral elements are absorbed into the blood stream. After this the digesta is moved to the true stomach, the abomasum. The abomasum is the direct equivalent of the monogastric stomach (for example that of the human or pig), and digesta is digested here in much the same way. Digesta is finally moved into the small intestine, where the digestion and absorption of nutrients occurs. Microbes produced in the reticulorumen are also digested in the small intestine. Fermentation continues in the large intestine in the same way as in the reticulorumen And here you need to read up on what a ruminant animal's stomach actually does, not the basic 4th grade anatomy.
I see Still other animals use micro-organisms. So mabye you need to read up about how humans and most animals digest food.
Okay? It doesn't really matter seeing as deer are completely dependent on them to survive. When deer eat they are feeding themselves, but they are also feeding their gut microorganisms. Deer digestion is 100% dependent on them. They help break down the food, and without them the deer cannot digest. Deer are ruminants, meaning that they bring their food back from the first part of their stomach, called the rumen, to chew it again. If a deer, or any ruminant, starves to the point of also starving off the good microorganisms, in order to survive, the deer will need to get not just food, but needs to get replacement gut flora too. Even with all the food a deer could want, it would starve to death with a full stomach if the gut flora is not replaced. It's like you're saying because we poop and animals poop and because some animals eat their poop, then we must all eat our poop. Just because some animals still rely on microorganisms doesn't mean they are dependent on them for survival... Completely different digestive systems, completely different use of microorganisms. Your point was deer eat all the food in their habitat, my point is they do it because they need to in order to survive, the deer might be trying to not starve to death by eating all the food or it may just be storing fat reserves for the winter since deer do not eat much in winter months. But you are arguing semantics because you didn't get to be right, and I grow tired of people who refuse to be wrong and accept new information to further grow their knowledge. It's pointless to argue with stupidity for you have much more practice in that department than I do. I would be more open to your ideas and opinions if you weren't so forceful in wanting to be right and trying to deter any facts presented to you by starting a completely different argument. Just accept new knowledge and move on, nobody thinks less of you for not knowing, but trying to argue further because you weren't correct to begin with does make people think less of you.
WTF I'm not saying we all eat our poop? How do you get that from what I said? Humans HAVE MICROORGANISMS IN OUR INTESTINES!!!! HOW DO YOU THINK OUR FOOD TURNS INTO POOP!? ANSWER: MICROORGANISMS DIGEST IT FOR US MAKING IT EASIER TO EXTRACT NUTRIENTS44 THAT IS WHAT I"M SAYING. RECALL THE CONVERSATION I said ALL ANIMALS USE MICROORGANISMS TO DIGEST FOOD YOU THEN SAID NO ONLY RUMINANT ANIMALS THEN WE QUIBLED OVER THE DEFINITION WHICH WE DISCOVERED DID NOT RELY ON THE PRESENCE OF MICRORGANISMS BUT WAS ABOUT THEIR STOMACH ANATMOMY STILL EVEN WITH THAT DEFINITION OF RUMINANT ANIMALS IT DOES NOT DISPROVE MY INTIAL STATEMEMNT WHICH YOU SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN WHICH IS "most animals use microorganisms to digest food, i believe"
Again you are starting another argument because you were wrong. I'm not playing this game with you anymore, you will win the stupid contest I'm sorry I don't have much experience in that department to continue this anymore.