Discovery channel's preditors discover their ad-hungry Killer Clips (a.k.a. "Animal faces of death") - a series of highly popular 30- to 40-second clips of animal takedowns featuring a.o. "cheetahs killing gazelles the same way they did (just to be on the safe side) 3000 years ago" - in their deep digitized video vaults..

Sounds like a genetically modified gazelle made to glow in the dark for the convenience of lazy yet wealthy, Western armchair-hunters who have a preference for night hunting!

>> ^legacy0100:
I disagree with this video. But I'll upvote to promote discussion.
Exploitation is a very natural drive. Since when did animals treated their rivals and prey as their equals and share their abundance?
Seeing all creatures on earth as 'equals' is a uniquely exclusively human and extremely philosophical, which is, man made. But yet, exploiting one's environment and designing them to aid one's self isn't a strictly human thing. Lots of species out there exploit other animals or their surroundings to do their bidding.
Scissor ants harvest leaves, against that tree's will, to grow a fungal farm. Hyenas steal cheetah's food when they're exhausted from chasing the prey. And they don't give a gazelle's ass whether the cheetah dies of hunger or exhaustion.
And when it comes to cruelty, mammals like lions kill off all cubs when newly taken control of a pride in order to wipe out the previous leader's seeds and to lessen competition by them near future. Birds kill the competitor's young by replacing the competition's egg with their own egg.
So what this video argues has nothing to do with how the actual nature runs things.


Here is what's wrong with this entire point: It is the textbook example of a logical fallacy, aptly named an "Appeal To Nature"
Just because something is a certain way in nature does not suggest anything regarding how things should be.
I should remind you of how slippery of a slope this argument stands on, as you appear not to have thought this one all of the way through, with all due respect.
hypothetically, say we were to look at the way things are at any given moment, and remark "well this world is just fine! because this is the way things are in nature and have been for a long time. therefore, nothing needs be changed or revised, because we base what SHOULD be on what is OBSERVED IN NATURE"..

ultimately, how can you justify the accepting of any human-made laws as morally sound?
surely you can't be suggesting that for human-human affairs, the man-made consensus decides what is right and what is wrong, while then back-flipping to say that these same good/bad judgements are utterly NULL and VOID when it comes to animals?
i would like to know where you stand on slavery issues?
capital punishment?

this argument could not be more misguided, in my opinion.

Additionally, I am not ignoring your other points, but rather don't have the time right now. Let's take the arguments one at a time for now.

Hoping you can clarify some things,
tcash

I disagree with this video. But I'll upvote to promote discussion.

Exploitation is a very natural drive. Since when did animals treated their rivals and prey as their equals and share their abundance?

Seeing all creatures on earth as 'equals' is a uniquely exclusively human and extremely philosophical, which is, man made. But yet, exploiting one's environment and designing them to aid one's self isn't a strictly human thing. Lots of species out there exploit other animals or their surroundings to do their bidding.

Scissor ants harvest leaves, against that tree's will, to grow a fungal farm. Hyenas steal cheetah's food when they're exhausted from chasing the prey. And they don't give a gazelle's ass whether the cheetah dies of hunger or exhaustion.

And when it comes to cruelty, mammals like lions kill off all cubs when newly taken control of a pride in order to wipe out the previous leader's seeds and to lessen competition by them near future. Birds kill the competitor's young by replacing the competition's egg with their own egg.

So what this video argues has nothing to do with how the actual nature runs things.

Do whatever you wanna do with these animals as you please. Feed'em, help'em, sleep with'em do whatever you want. You might even have an awed sense of respect towards the way nature works. But coming up with a 'rule' that somehow harming animals are wrong, that's just absurd.

Yes, humans are still co-dependent with several other domesticated animals, and still heavily dependent on nature itself. That's all good. But because of this, now we have to treat every animals differently? No. We aid animals that give us benefit. We get rid of animals that do us harm. That's the basic principle, and what the heck is so wrong with that? This seems to be the main focus point. And I say there's nothing wrong with aiding ourselves and exploiting what's around us.

But people may say that sometimes we go too far. I believe torturing animals is wrong, but not because of what this video is suggesting. I believe it's because we shouldn't promote things that allows entertainment from pain and suffering of of others (another reason why I don't like gory movies).

So what if we're torturing the animal to do our bidding, such as moving heavy things and etc, and there's no other means to do it? Well then that's fine by me. Because if it is truly too much for the animal to bear, it would die out or be severely disobedient. But obviously the animal doesn't mind it too much, as long as it's being fed regularly and groomed once in awhile, the good side of being domesticated and sticking with humans. So there's always a give and take. My argument is that the animal, in ecologic terms, wanted to be exploited in return for human protection.

So overall I would say that this video is made with good intentions to achieve a certain goal. It tries to promote as what I believe are the right things, but the reason they give are just plain wrong.

^arsenault

(2)I had never heard of the up-right stance exposing people to less UV-radiation (as Buzdos mentioned), but I do know UV-radiation plays a big role in one common difference between people, melanin aka skin color. The closer you get to the equator (or areas where the ozone layer is naturally weaker) the darker the native inhabitant's skin becomes. UV-radiation has always been around, a thicker atmosphere will block more of it, but not all of it.

(3)Usually changes evolve out of the existing form. Though different ape and human morphology are very similar. Slight changes in the structure of the pelvis, legs, feet and arms are more likely to happen over time than say sprouting two more pair of arms. Between people there are very slight differences in the morphology of these structures. Not enough to make any readily noticeable difference, but they're there. The only instances I'm aware of where people have had extra limbs involves unborn children failing to separate during fetal development.

(4)It was the lack of trees that made being upright and advantageous trait (as far as seeing is concerned). During the earliest stages of human evolution the jungles and forests started receding and gave rise to open grasslands/savanna. Some apes continued to live in what was left of the forests and jungles, being upright wasn't adaptive there so uprightness never evolved in them. For those in the savanna environment where trees were few and far between being able to constantly be upright did prove beneficial.

On the issue of hunting:
Gorillas can move quickly and they are powerful, but this form of behavior is for defensive purposes and not adaptive to hunting. Most prey animals are also very quick, and have the stamina to maintain that quickness longer than a gorrila.

Humans are not exceptionally quick, but they do have the stamina. In modern hunter gatherer societies a common strategy for hunting is to cash an animal into exhaustion. Wolves actually often use a similar strategy. In open grassland the animal can use a quick burst of speed to get away, but the people can still see it and chase after it. Now with most of us our hearts will blow out like the sides of old tires if we run more than 2 miles distance, but we live an extremely sedentary life compared to hunter gather groups. So its easy to look at yourself and say 'there's no way I could run a gazelle into exhaustion', and you'd be right, but if your way of life required you run for long distances, instead of sitting behind a computer, for your survival I can guarantee your body would be in much better shape.

I believe the current theory of why we initially evolved uprightness doesn't include hunting. The ability to see better in a grassland environment and the ability to carry things and move reasonably well at the same were the early motivators. The possibility to hunt, successfully, became more important later on. I'd liken it to ape hands, great for swinging about in the trees but also pretty good for picking up and manipulating things.

On another note I'd like to say I hope nobody takes the things I've said as ridicule, I've been trying to respond to points of contention/criticism by explaining things as I understand them. And if I seem long winded its not because I'm trying to prove how superior/right I am, it is simply because I enjoy talking about the subject.

This just in:

4 Japanese teenagers were brutally mauled and then eaten when they jumped into the lion exhibit at their local zoo. Examination of their remains reveals they were carrying short sticks with plush gazelles connected to one end by a bungee cord. Investigators are still trying to determine their motives for entering the exhibit.

*discard for being a duplicate of firefly's post as deedub81 pointed out
I didn't see it before cause he used tags 'impala' & 'puma' and I at first mistakenly put "gazelle" in the title of the video until xxovercastxx corrected me

http://www.videosift.com/video/Prey-Outwits-Her-Predators

Duplicate

http://www.videosift.com/video/Gazelle-outsmarts-a-Cheetah-and-a-Hyena

No, that's an Impala. Ford makes the Gazelle.

it's not a gazelle, it's an impala.

I cheered! Yay Gazelle!

edit: Yay Impala!