Orcas that hunted alongside humans might be extinct
livescience.com
livescience.com
In this case, the poster is asking about the claim that the orcas were hunted to be consumed by humans. You didn't provide any evidence that this is the case---and in fact suggested a reasonable alternative---so I suspect you also either question or deny that claim as well.
I think you've fallen into a trap. You've allowed the very people you are trying to rail against here to convince you that anyone asking questions is an enemy of yours and worthy of your derision.
However, if there is documented proof it would make interesting reading, so...
While the humans don’t know them anymore, except in a couple small hunting populations
Following this theory, I found a similar treaty as the “law” mentioned in this article, amongst some of the Salish people in the Pacific Northwest, a lot of the indigenous groups with their own national identities in North America don’t have organized written records and especially not on the internet to reach the broader collective conscious and I think people assume otherwise.
if this phenomenon in the article was reportedly going on for a millennium in that one region of the world, I could see there being cross-drift to other regions
this is supporting my idea that the orcas still communicate it, and act that way towards us because of it, as opposed to any innate symbiotic relationship or general disinterest in violence towards humans
Since both of those are reciprocal, it's as much an innate relation as you can get with thinking social animals.
I'm open to the idea of another species demonstrating a higher position on the food chain. We've been resting on our laurels for too long, ready for an injection of new energy.
they have a mutation where their digestive tract closes as soon as they can mate, but they reproduce so thats the only thing optimized for in natural selection
fix that and we can see where that cognition goes
there isnt so much collaboration only more of a truce
:(
Wish humans were better stewards of earth. As a human it’s frustrating to watch others engage in destroying the planet instead of taking even simple steps to at least try.
We do, but politics is a part of reality - in every situation - and needs to be dealt with. Saying 'we'd solve the problem but for the politics' is like a ship captain saying 'I'd sail but for all that water'. The worst tactic for dealing with politics is to say it's somehow static and hopeless, though political opponents love it.
(And even if we had never done it, that is not a barrier.) The only thing we have to fear is despair. We are wealthy, young, capable and powerful; we can accomplish enormous things. No wonder the status quo loves to spread despair - they have no other defense: Imagine if people left behind all that despair and started acting!
Yes, the concept is that simple, and the action needed by you and me is that simple. Just forget all the doubts and just get to work!
(I don't mean to berate you with the exclamation points. I'm excited by the possibilities. LFG! :) )
If you want to grasp how that could happen, it's just people following social norms. The norm is despair: if you are in a meeting and everyone says such-and-such is hopeless, raising your hand and saying otherwise is not only socially hard but a bit transgressive. My hypothesis is that the status quo powers political messaging has pushed despair - after all, what else will preserve the senseless, unpopular status quo (look at climate change!)? It's the only defense they have.
One of the reasons mentioned was because despite hunting/gathering generally providing better nutrition (due to the variability in food), farming produced more calories. So the decision became (these number are made up) "we can farm and provide high quantities of poor nutrition to keep all of us alive", vs "we can hunt/gather to keep 75% of in great health, while 25% of the group dies."
Basically once a certain population threshold is reached the group has to enter a cycle of farming -> allows more babies to survive -> farm more. Your comment and this anecdote reminds of the capitalism cycle of consume more -> produce more value -> consume more.
If true, we've been unable to escape this cycle for thousands of years.
Modern agriculture produces varied, nutritious and plentiful foodstuffs. It also produces nonsense filler. But it’s simply not correct to claim that we’re stuck in the tradeoff our ancestors made when they settled down to farm.
I mean we are because if we go back to hunting/gathering billions of people would die.
The point is that that at the time, farming produced worse nutrition, but despite that we couldn't go back once we started. There's a whole lot of other variables today that obviously prevent us from going back to hunting/gathering.
And those who survive wouldn’t be much healthier. This isn’t a tradeoff. It’s a net gain. The original tradeoff was a worse but more-stable food supply. Today we can reliably produce nutritious food. No tradeoff.