Fun Facts about Primates

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
yeah you could "posit" that "symbiotic" (marketing catch phrase or what?) relationships "outnumber" other kinds, but you'd have no way of quantifying that in reality so it'd be basically a wild guess based on, well, nothing.

things exist. things sometimes need to kill other things to continue existing. end of story.
 

Mr BoShambles

jambiguous
"debatable, but many scientific sources will confirm that symbiotic relationships far out number competitive ones in nature"

Must disagree. Surely parasitic life is the most common and successful, maybe not as competitive as Lion vs Deer, but definitely a one way street.
On symbiosis:

Symbiosis is an intimate association between two different organisms. In fact, most animals and plants live symbiotically with microorganisms. The larger organism is called the host and smaller organism or organisms the symbionts. Examples include bacterial colonization of the skin and digestive tract of animals and the roots of plants. For the microorganism, the benefits of the association can be a stable protective environment provided by the host. The bacteria may also obtain nutrients from the host. On the other hand, the symbionts can "protect" the host by making it more difficult for colonization by pathogenic bacteria. Some symbionts supply the host with nutrients that the host cannot synthesize themself nor obtain from their food.

The original definition of symbiosis by deBary (1879) did not include a judgment on whether the partners benefit or harm each other. Currently, most people use the term symbiosis to describe interactions between the symbiont and the host from which both partners benefit; this is also called a mutualism. If there is negative effect on one of the partners, it is called a parasitic symbiosis and if there is no beneficial or negative effect it is a commensal symbiosis. These clear-cut definitions are not always easy to apply in nature. Take the bacterium Pseudomonas aeruginosa for example. This bacterium can be found on the skin of humans and not cause disease, perhaps we would call it a commensial, but if the person has a severe burn P. aeruginosa can cause an infection and becomes a pathogen (a medicinal term for parasitism). This type of organism is called an opportunistic pathogen.

Whether an association is a mutualism, commensialism or parasitism depends on the relative "strengths" of the partners and the balance of power can change over time.

Parasitic behaviour is thus still a form of symbiosis FWIW.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
yeah you could "posit" that "symbiotic" (marketing catch phrase or what?) relationships "outnumber" other kinds, but you'd have no way of quantifying that in reality so it'd be basically a wild guess based on, well, nothing.
assuming that you are right for now, that there is no way to "quantify the number of co-operative relationships vs. competitive ones":

capitalism/civilization/media's privileging of the hunter over the gatherer, portrayal of the dog eat dog Nature of blood lust and competition, depiction of a ultra violent "human nature", is also "a wild guess based on nothing".

things exist. things sometimes need to kill other things to continue existing. end of story.
but it's more complex than that: our society chooses to focus, stress, and give more weight to the "sometimes need" to kill things, and makes violence seem like the pre-dominant form of interaction in nature -- because it's exciting, because it's good for the box office; and also for deeper ideological reasons.
________________________________________

so nomad, symbiosis is not a "marketing catch phrase". i'm surprised some one as thoroughly learned and possessing of expert level experience in the field of biology is not familiar with such basic terminology.
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
"debatable, but many scientific sources will confirm that symbiotic relationships far out number competitive ones in nature"

Must disagree. Surely parasitic life is the most common and successful, maybe not as competitive as Lion vs Deer, but definitely a one way street.
On symbiosis:

Parasitic behaviour is thus a form of symbiosis.
symbiosis, whether mutualistic, commensal, or parasitic, by definition, is anything but a "one way street".

The biologist Lynn Margulis, famous for her work on endosymbiosis, contends that symbiosis is a major driving force behind evolution. She considers Darwin's notion of evolution, driven by competition, as incomplete and claims that evolution is strongly based on co-operation, interaction, and mutual dependence among organisms. According to Margulis and Dorion Sagan, "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking."
makes sense that 19th century thinking would privilege competition over co-operation: it was a time of dog-eat-dog industrialization. and it also makes sense that it has become the dominant interpretation of evolutionary theory even 100+ years later, for our times is not very different -- how ever this does not mean that most of nature, or human history, is based on competition and violence -- the contrary in actuality.
 
Last edited:
really good book by Robert Eisler called "Man Into Wolf: The Origins of Sado-Masochism" where he argues that humans started as peaceful tree-dwelling apes, but then we started mimicking predatory animals like wolves (the origin of the werewolf myths, and the reason for their resurrection in Nazi imagery). So the humans who were able to imitate carnivores (the original humans were vegetarian) survived, and killed off the ones who couldn't adapt. If this theory is right my guess is that the Neanderthals were exterminated in what you might call an early version of an ethnic cleansing raid, something along those lines.

Lynn Margulis has written some fantastic books about biology and cosmology. Also if you like her work you should read some Stuart Kauffman, a really nice guy who runs the Santa Fe Institute where I used to go occasionally. I added Lynne on FB a few weeks ago incidentally.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
symbiosis, whether mutualistic, commensal, or parasitic, by definition, is anything but a "one way street".
Symbiosis, when in reference to cellular biology, is a little different than the common sense definition of the term, but yes, I don't think anyone's ever denied that sometimes organisms cooperate with one another. Why would they? In fact, most of the time organisms cooperate. Sometimes they don't.


makes sense that 19th century thinking would privilege competition over co-operation: it was a time of dog-eat-dog industrialization. and it also makes sense that it has become the dominant interpretation of evolutionary theory even 100+ years later, for our times is not very different -- how ever this does not mean that most of nature, or human history, is based on competition and violence -- the contrary in actuality.
No, it is not the "dominant interpretation of evolutionary theory", not even close, not by any scientist I've ever read, heard, or met in my entire life. Evolution has nothing to do with "competition" and everything to do with random mutation and environmental cues that happen to make these adaptations sometimes advantageous, other times not so advantageous for survival.

Sometimes, when resources are low, species or organisms compete for these resources, but this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Once again, we've seen how the complete misapprehension of the most basic scientific theories gets repeated over and over and mistaken for "science" to the point of absurdity. By none other than.
 

Mr BoShambles

jambiguous
i'm surprised some one as thoroughly learned and possessing of expert level experience in the field of biology is not familiar with such basic terminology.
Once again, we've seen how the complete misapprehension of the most basic scientific theories gets repeated over and over and mistaken for "science" to the point of absurdity. By none other than.
FFS why don't you two just get married and be done with it :rolleyes:
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
so nomad, symbiosis is not a "marketing catch phrase". i'm surprised some one as thoroughly learned and possessing of expert level experience in the field of biology is not familiar with such basic terminology.
I never said I was an expert in the field of biology--far from it-- but hopefully I will be after I finish my second BaccScience and my MD/PhD. You know that I have my degrees now in humanities, not science. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything.

What I was referring to up there is that there's no proof that "symbiotic" relationships (as in, those between hosts and parasites) OUTNUMBER those between, for example, VIRUSES or BACTERIAL DISEASES and their hosts. In fact, there's proof of the opposite being true.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
The reason I assumed you were using marketing catchphrases, Zhao, is because symbiosis in biology is a VERY SPECIFIC term that does not apply to multi-cellular organisms such as humans in relationship to one another, but only to specific organisms that feed off others. Unless, of course, you're in the fucking board room.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
most of the time organisms cooperate. Sometimes they don't.
this is like prog rock where the tune changes completely mid song.

No, it is not the "dominant interpretation of evolutionary theory", not even close, not by any scientist I've ever read

Once again, we've seen how the complete misapprehension of the most basic scientific theories gets repeated over and over and mistaken for "science" to the point of absurdity. By none other than.
dear nomad, that's not my misapprehension or mistake. what i said is that the primacy of competition in nature is a misapprehension and mistaken interpretation of evolutionary theory by our society/culture at large, (and not the scientific community).
 

zhao

there are no accidents
Nomad's strategic guide to objective, Scientific Truth through reason, logic, and rationality:

1. proclaim differing viewpoints to be "full of shit",
2. call people with differing viewpoints names, such as: "unscientific", "new age crack-pots", "liars", "naive", "hippies", or simply "retarded".
3. attempt to portray self as an expert in the field, with statements such as "i have worked with top professtionals for years"
4. refuse to review information presented, giving reasons such as "i have read a lot of things on this subject"
5. misconstrue the statements of others, and polarize their position for attempted easy dismissal.
6. defile their character, by methods such as proclaiming that they switch positions (even when this is clearly not the case. even when it is the case with herself)
7. continue to refuse to review information presented.
8. when faced with irrefutable evidence that the other point of view is actually not "full of shit" (and indeed backed by peer reviewed work by reputable scientists), zoom in on small perceived inconsistencies while ignoring the larger picture, or simply deny the evidence.
9. when her shameless dishonesty is called on, send mean and threatening PM's.
10. never concede, never apologize, repeat steps 1, 2, 5 and 6
11. if all of that doesn't work, walk away from the discussion without ever looking back.
 
Last edited:

zhao

there are no accidents
FFS why don't you two just get married and be done with it :rolleyes:
I'd rather spend eternity eating shards of broken glass
I'd rather have a hundred-thousand paper cuts on my face,
I'd rather rip out my intestines with a fork
I'd rather slam my fingers in a door, again, and again, and again, and again, and again
I'd rather have my blood sucked out by leaches
Or shove an ice-pick under a toe nail or two
I'd rather clean all the bathrooms in Grand Central Station, with my tongue
I'd rather jump naked on huge pile of thumbtacks
Or stick my nostrils together with Krazy-Glue
I'd rather dive in a swimming pool filled with Double-edged razor blades...

:D :D :D
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
chuckle

yeah, Zhao, everyone in the world is a science Nazi but you okay, you're right.

is that what you want to hear?

this is the most retarded bullshit I've ever heard.

If it's not scientists who believe what you're claiming--and they don't--then who exactly are you talking about? Capitalists? In which case, you know that I am their number one fucking critic, I'm a fucking post-structuralist loving Marxist sympathizing capitalism hater extraordinaire.

I don't agree with capitalists who would say people are "essentially" competitive, but then again, I don't believe people are "essentially" anything.

As I've stated on here probably a million times, I'm not an "essentialist."
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
I'd rather spend eternity eating shards of broken glass
I'd rather have a hundred-thousand paper cuts on my face,
I'd rather rip out my intestines with a fork
I'd rather slam my fingers in a door, again, and again, and again, and again, and again
I'd rather have my blood sucked out by leaches
Or shove an ice-pick under a toe nail or two
I'd rather clean all the bathrooms in Grand Central Station, with my tongue
I'd rather jump naked on huge pile of thumbtacks
Or stick my nostrils together with Krazy-Glue
I'd rather dive in a swimming pool filled with Double-edged razor blades...

:D :D :D
Then let's move on, shall we? And stop dragging every fucking last thread back to this topic? It's stupid.

If it doesn't stop I'm done with this place. It's completely lost any interest to me thanks to this nonsense.
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
Just to make myself abundantly clear, once and for all, I have never once said humans are "essentially" competitive creatures, in fact, I've repeated over, and over, and over, in posts spanning several years, that I don't believe humans are "essentially" anything, because I don't believe in "essences."

When it comes to philosophical allegiances, I tend toward realism and materialism, and prefer post-Marxist critiques of capitalism.

This is my final word on the subject. Any further "extra large" capitals posts detailing imaginary problems you have with me can be sent straight to the mods, or they will be reported to the mods.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
um, those are lyrics written by this man:


that i posted in response to your "i'd rather shoot myself in the face".

(you can watch the video here. for some reason, in addition to funny nazi videos, weird al is also banned on youtube in germany???)

but i suppose it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt and cries to the mods. so, if only so that Woebot will not be bother by this stupid bullshit any more: Nomad I apologize if your feelings were hurt. i honestly thought everyone would recognize those Weird Al Yankovik lyrics.

but that's not the real problem, professing that we don't want to marry eachother, is it?

the real problem is the continued nasty and dishonest way with which you behave. you have repeatedly called my ideas "bullshit", called me "full of shit", "stupid", "new-age moron", "hippie retard", etc, etc., for simply having (not even all that drastically) different points of view as yourself.

that, and the refusal to acknowledge it when i present, time after time, real scientists who back up what i say.

really, Nomad. i have spoken highly of you in the past, but if you don't realize that you have been repeatedly doing all of the things i have listed above in "the strategic guide"... i don't think we are ever going to get anywhere. (but i think you do realize it because you didn't take issue with that list, and only the Weird Al lyrics -- but you are too proud to ever admit it.)

as regard to that list, i hope that it's OK when i point out in public when someone repeatedly makes unfounded accusations about me, attack my character based on fictional claims, and groundlessly ridicule and dismiss my ideas.

I've repeated over, and over, and over, in posts spanning several years, that I don't believe humans are "essentially" anything, because I don't believe in "essences."
but all of this is really unecessary and sad, considering that there is a fuck of a lot that we absolutely agree. so i truly don't understand your vehemence and adverse reaction to my simple proclamations like "civilization paints a skewed picture of pre-history", or "there is more co-operation than competition in nature".
 
Last edited:

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
I don't agree with anything on that list, and my feelings are not hurt. I just find this endless repetition of the same points across dozens of threads tedious, uninteresting, and ridiculous in the extreme.

Has anyone been around to tally up every event in the natural world since the beginning of time in order to decide definitively that there is "more co-operation" than competition in nature? No.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to look at things on a case-by-case basis, and decide whether they are cooperative or not based on their individual circumstances. I also don't think there need be a simple either/or binary between cooperation and competition. Cooperative societies can sometimes benefit from or encourage competition and vice versa.

I'm not interested in broad, sweeping generalizations about "nature" and I never will be. You can post a million ad hominem attacks, and it will never change this.
 

zhao

there are no accidents
I don't agree with anything on that list, and my feelings are not hurt. I just find this endless repetition of the same points across dozens of threads tedious, uninteresting, and ridiculous in the extreme.

Has anyone been around to tally up every event in the natural world since the beginning of time in order to decide definitively that there is "more co-operation" than competition in nature? No.

So as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to look at things on a case-by-case basis, and decide whether they are cooperative or not based on their individual circumstances. I also don't think there need be a simple either/or binary between cooperation and competition. Cooperative societies can sometimes benefit from or encourage competition and vice versa.

I'm not interested in broad, sweeping generalizations about "nature" and I never will be. You can post a million ad hominem attacks, and it will never change this.

that's all very fine, i like to talk to people with different ideas.

but stop the name calling and nastiness and condescension, ok? honestly, how many times have you called me a "new-age retard", etc., and then ignore my citation of real scientists? i'm not going to mention the other threads, but just in the previous pages of this one, your tone is completely condescending and dismissive. and then i quote a biologist who says clearly that she thinks there is more co-operation than competition in nature, and you ignore it, and just keep saying i'm "full of shit".

it's childish. and that's what is getting in the way of the conversation.
 
Top