it's like anything else.. everything's completely fucking bizarre if you really see it.

>> ^Jinx:

You know, when you actually think about Elephants you realise how fucking bizarre they are. May as well be from another planet. Giant intelligent herbivores that use a trunk like an arm? What?

You know, when you actually think about Elephants you realise how fucking bizarre they are. May as well be from another planet. Giant intelligent herbivores that use a trunk like an arm? What?

Then the evil herbivores came and feasted upon their leafy flesh. The tree's leafy revenge came from the carnivores. The carnivore helps protect the most peaceful of this worlds creation fight off its most evil foe.

I have to completely disagree with the formation of your argument. Unfortunately, you have presented a very shallow, 1 dimensional view of violence; most would refer to it as a scarecrow. I wish to state before I go further that I wish I lived in this world you imagine. I long for a world where violence isn't an answer. Let us take on your examples one at a time, then go into the thrust of the issue.

As far as terrorism goes, it is hard to even understand what terrorism is. It isn't very rigidly defined. Is it terrorism to force people to pay taxes, or is it only when you blow them up when they aren't expecting it? Terrorism is more of a red herring word used to justify actions rather a "thing" itself. that is a dodge of the issue, but then again, so was this word all along. So lets move into some of your better examples.

Was the objective of Vietnam and Korea to stop Communism? If so, then the success rate is 50%. As far as things go in the world, those aren't terrible odds. South Korea still exists as a democracy, violence won out in that case over rivaling violence.

The world war 2 example is a curious example to use. It actually shows a different picture then I think you would like to present. In the end, Germany ended up with a ruined country, as you say. But, that is only because it met up against resistance/violence. In the end, Germany was BOMBED into submitting, not talked into it. A greater force of violence stopped the lesser source of it. It was the rule of the jungle carried out in its most prime. Countless attempts by Brittan and France to talk Germany out of taking over its neighbors had no effect, only when the grind of blood and bullets was too much for her to bear did Germany relent. Indeed, WW2 is a horrible example for you to use...probably the worst I can think of.

Instead you should of used people like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther, and Martin Luther King Jr. These people were truly non-violent and changed the world. However, they are the conspicuous examples. The reason they stand out in history is because all to often, non-retaliation results in certain defeat. Look at the plight of the native Americans. While history tells the tail of all the tribes that fought, many did not. Many made deals with the White man. The history of these arrangements is grim indeed. For the White man would constantly renig the terms and send into exile the native Americans. Even the great Jefferson, the champion of democracy, sent the native Americans further and further down the trail of tears. They did not fight. The suffered...and suffered. Perhaps, if they fought, they would off been completely eradicated, so, instead, they choose exile and decimation. Which is better, I am not one to say. But surely, their non-violence did not result in one could consider a victory.

You need to remember your fathers. And I don't mean the founders of the USA. I mean 2 billion years of evolution on this planet. Humans are not some sanctimonious super being. We are composed of the same shit, sweat, and tears as everything else. The history of all animals is almost wholly violent. The lion doesn't solve his mating deputes with a rival by any other means than brutality. Your immune system doesn't win out by being less virulent than the infection it sees to mend. Your food won't survive long enough to reap if you don't stop the insects and vermin from eating it. Washing your hands is akin to mass murder of bacteria. Anti-bacterial soap is akin to genocide. But we resolve ourselves of these sins almost constantly so that we can be naive in the construction of our morality when dealing with each other. In this world, it is life for life. Nothing alive doesn't take life as well, spare most planets. Plants are only noble creation along with some fungi. Most every animal on the planet exploits unto pain through violence some other organism. herbivorous being the most foul violator eating the only noble life on the plant. Carnivores are their penitence.

This world is a cycle of pain, and its root is violence. Violence is what drives evolution forward. One of the expatiations of the Cambrian Explosion is the arrival of carnivores. And billions of years later, you stand on the top of the tradition of exploitation. And you won't be rid of it be ignoring it inside you. You might construct a society that can slowly cope and perhaps even bread out billions of years of evolution. And in perhaps 10 thousand years, you can look back and see that you reduced human violence by 20%. And that would be a great accomplishment. Only to then be wiped out by a asteroid ending all human life to be replaced by the new slug overlords. The great comedy of life is to think you can make a difference in the 80 years we have vs the billions that the history of life has been with us. Unless you are talking about complete genetic experimentation to change the face of what it means to be human, I don't see anything working. Maybe you make a government system that handles the nature of man better, but the nature of man...the 2 billion year old murder animal, is still set before you.

Like I said, I don't like this world. I would rather live in your fantasy world. A world of reason, of peace, of progress. We don't have that world. We have a world of brutal, violence. It's only true self is that of conflict and competition that is all to often violent. It the a 2 billion year old rule that we didn't make up but have had to better realize, lest make poorly designed strategy to deal with the beast that is man.

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^BoneRemake:
UPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

VOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOTEEEEEEEEEEE

"violence doesnt solve anything "
and yet we go to war, explain that mrs former cop.

By the way, you forgot to quote her whole comment, which in its entirety goes:
"My message to the young people out there is that violence does not solve anything. It can get you into more trouble than what it's going to solve. [If you are being bullied] don't suffer in silence: find a trusted a adult and let them know what's going on."
So first off, your question about wars was completely off-topic. But I'll take a shot at answering it anyway.
She didn't say people were smart. She didn't say people don't ever get violent. She instead pointed out violence doesn't solve any problems. Did we solve the terrorist threat with the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Did we stop Communism with the Vietnam and Korean wars? Part of the reason Germany went to war in World War 2 was because their economy was in the crapper after World War 1 and they owed money in reparations. Did they solve that problem by getting their country bombed to rubble?
Nations go to war for many reasons. There's the ostensible reasons like "spreading freedom" that the population is forced to buy and there are the actual reasons like securing resources or the sheer madness of the country's leadership. My question for you is, at the end of the day, can you really think of a war that "solved" a problem in a way that couldn't have been solved peacefully?

Every human cell is selected to protect it's gene group and take as many resources - any way it can.

Maybe on an alien world ruled by creatures descended from herbivore herd reared animals.

...but passive herbivores lack the fatty proteins from killing and eating to develop significant intelligence.

>> ^csnel3:

This is disturbing. I guess I'll be thankfull for Fred Meyers, Winco, and 7-11's. Unless I devolve into a herbivore, I can't condem these people. I eat meat, but you won't find me stabbin cows in the small end of the corral. Does thAt make me bad?
Can we agree that there is a difference between domestic animals that are our food sources (cows, chickens, ect.) and wild life (whales, eagles , elepahnts, etc.)and other animals that are not our food (dogs, Horses and kittens)?


I would argue its actualy far better to hunt wild animals so long as u can do it without deplating the suply.

wild animals wil have a far higher quality of life and depnding on how u hunt them you end up hunting the weeker animals.

obvously issues arise if u over hunt and thats where the benofits of farming animales come in. but purely on a ethical level i think hunting wild animales is actualy more ethical than the current mass farming used.

The best thing to do would be to breed thicker animals and then look after them well , people reering animales themslefs and then eating them would be so much better as people would respect and value the meat .

This is disturbing. I guess I'll be thankfull for Fred Meyers, Winco, and 7-11's. Unless I devolve into a herbivore, I can't condem these people. I eat meat, but you won't find me stabbin cows in the small end of the corral. Does thAt make me bad?
Can we agree that there is a difference between domestic animals that are our food sources (cows, chickens, ect.) and wild life (whales, eagles , elepahnts, etc.)and other animals that are not our food (dogs, Horses and kittens)?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'herbivores, BBC, Life of Mammals' to 'herbivores, predators, BBC, Life of Mammals, Attenborough' - edited by JesseoftheNorth

Its easy to tell that the herbivore has a hard time understanding "the chase" despite the diplomatic canine's enthusiastic tutelage.

He's glad there are no T-Rex around today, but why? If they're herbivores, he has nothing to worry about.

I'm tired of people who say, "But in my Bible it says..." as if that lends any credibility to their point.

I think this guy learned science from Troy McClure: "Let's ask this scientician!".

So the bible says they ate plants, but he maintains that you can't tell that the T-Rex ate meat because no one was around to see it happen... yet, apparently the men who wrote the bible know they were herbivores?

Hang on, so you admit that we can't get all we need from just fruit/vegies and grain, and yet you then attack me for saying it's not what we're built for???

We ARE built to be omnivorous (not carnivorous as you say). I have NO ISSUE with people choosing to be vegetarian (vegan is a little off the deep end to my thinking, I mean really, do you think a chicken really cares if you use their eggs? Considering my chickens leave them lying around the garden to go off if we don't... I don't think they give a crap)

My issue is with people saying 'The solution is for us all to be vegetarians'. No, that doesn't solve things at all. So, yes we ARE designed to be omnivorous, our bodies need the nutrients gleaned from meat, our teeth are designed to tear meat, if we were purely herbivores we'd have grinding teeth only like cows... and maybe two stomachs.

And seeing as B12 is VERY important for a growing body, and isn't found in ANY part of a vegan diet... well, they can go to hell if they try to tell me it's the way we should all live, because they're taking artificial supplements probably derived from animal products in order to keep up the required vitamins their body needs that they aren't getting because they're not eating meat like they're designed to.

My issue with with those like Peta who put animals over humans, and are hypocritical in what they preach as they have harmed people in the name of stopping cruelty to animals, which seems insane, as we're animals too.

Anyway... I have vegetarian friends, I enjoy vegetarian food, I believe we need to eat more vegetables (you should see the helping we have every night with our meals, and we have our own vegie patch)... but I don't want to cut out meat entirely, I don't think others should be being high and mighty over others who don't want to and feeling all superior for being vegetarian.

>> ^Tupho:
>> ^direpickle:
Well, to be fair, there are nutrients that humans need that aren't naturally available without eating animals or animal products. Vegans need to (should, anyway--asking for trouble if they don't) take supplements to get their B12.


That is correct direpickle, as far as I know.
Still its really annoying when people who really are intellegent and have otherwise sound values (yes i´m talking about you spoco2:) conclude that we´re just supposed to eat meat. We are not designed to be carnivours, we can choose.
But I don´t think the killing is the real issue. No human knows how animals or vegetables for that sake experience things. We can only assume. It´s the sympthomes of humans fancying ourselves being some kind of superiour existence that make me feel unpleasant. Even if we assume animals experience pain the same way we do, it doesn´t stop us from treating them like shit. Unnecessarily too.

>> ^dag:
Humans can get by just fine without animal proteins. And as the literature at my local Hari Krishna restaurant says- you could feed the entire world 7 times over if the crops devoted to livestock feed were instead used for human food production.


I already referenced the Least Harm Principle. "So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest, etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet) kills far more animals of the field than would extensive agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines."

The conclusions of the LHP are that we should stop eating poultry and eat ruminant animals (cow, goat, sheep, deer, etc.). Reasonable estimates are that we would kill about 0.982 billion animals per year. Less than in the vegan alternative of 1.2 billion. (See: Davis, Steven L. "The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet" in Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Vol. 16 No 4 July 2003.)

Never liked the Sims all that much, but I'm all over Spore. And I don't see how he figures it's hard to be an herbivore. I've brought carnivores and herbivores into space from the cell stage, and honestly I thought the herbivores had it a lot easier.

Omnivores are probably the easiest, though you do have to watch how your actions affect your evolution and make sure you aren't drifting too much towards the herbivore or carnivore side of things.

Oh and I think more than half of the video time here was spent on ads...

Rabits, come spring, will instictively "murder" any rabit that looks unhealthy in anyway. knowing this, one can use this evolutionary trait and apply it possibly to the behaviors of other mammal herbivores such as the alpaca. Just because animals might not look the same doesn't mean that an enviroment can't shape them all to have similar behavioral characteristics.