Humans outside of the Food Chain:

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes, simply by existing we manipulate the chain.

[ZNFYRH]

Do any other creatures alive on this planet manipulate the food chain the way humans do?

[Gods_Mercenary]

What do you mean? like killing more than is needed, or being a super predator almost untouchable, or actively modifying our environment?

[Kamehameha34]

The chain is dictated only by certain animals' abilities to eat other animals.

[sevendogs]

I agree that animal rightism is a form of new religion organized at least politically. There is a serious prerequisite for plant rightism as well. There are publications and believes that plants respond to music, voice of their caretaker speaking to them, etc. Perhaps they hate to be munched by a cow or by a human. To be careful and not to damage our environment beyond repair we do not need religion of any kind. I am a meat eater and plants and animals user and I breed and raise both for my personal consumption as food or just to enjoy them alive and I consider it a part of my natural freedom. I support environmental organizations, but I see animal rights as a nuisance. Here is what their leaders said:
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.
Now, a best part of humankind cares about environment and millions are ready to sacrifice for preservation of animal and plant species from extinction. A serious part of this support comes from "biophily". People do not want just watching animals through the glass; they need animals not only as meat for food; they need alive animals nearby alive, as pets and they need to be aware that wild animals are in woods, swamps not too far from their houses and even in cities. Some people are hunters and this is another legitimate form of using wild nature. Hunting with dogs is particularly ecologically sound. To many hunters hunting is not just consumptive activity, it is rather a dog watching. Some animals may be caught, shot or allowed to go, but watching the dog in action is a major part of the process. Just like dog sledding, herding with asisstance of dog or horse riding, etc. All kinds of live interactions with animals became an important part of our culture and in some groups it became particularly sophisticated. Animal rightism does not help to preserve the environment.
"A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and president, Washingtonian Magazine, August 1986 Is not it crazy?
We need to protect the environment and biodiversity four oourselves and for future generations so our human boys and girls would continue to enjoy animals and wild nature at least as much as we can do it today.

[Osborn F Enready]

Praxius said: Yes, but we're talking about the food chain, not natural selection..... we have no predators above us at the moment..... we don't control our lives, but we don't have to worry about any animals controlling ours or making ours as a whole dangerous.

That's not true. The absence of them (other life forms, animal and plant, predator and prey), which can be self-inflicted as well as naturally inflicted, can remove us from the picture.

We are inherantly tied into the natural food chain.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: Do any other creatures alive on this planet manipulate the food chain the way humans do?

On the planet, alive currently? No.

Before us? After us? Probably, within respect to proportion and population.

What would do more damage with a given equal population to the enviroment, dinosaurs or man, if neither co-existed?

I would think dinosaurs would probably decimate the planet before they could grow to our population, currently.

Nature still crushes us overall, and while we can manipulate small fragments of the edges of natural laws, we are still VERY limited compared to nature.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 The chain is dictated only by certain animals' abilities to eat other animals.

I agree, he is talking more about nature as a whole. We are still eaten by other animals, so we are still part of the food chain.

[Jillamanda]

Quote by: Praxius The Food Chain is related to the concept of "Survival of the Fittest" so to speak.... but wouldn't you considder that humans are no longer in the stage of evolution where we need to worry about our survival from other animals, but ourselves. So if we really don't need to worry about being taken out by another species on our planet, would you considder us out of the food chain? And if this is the case, don't you think we should be in a different category from other animals?

I'd consider 'manipulation of the food chain' as a means of survival. Just because technology came along and allowed us to grow more food more often, doesn't mean we're out of the food chain. We have learnt over time that we need to 'bend' nature here and there to feed the world's population. By doing this, we are firmly at the top of the food chain (while we're alive). We have no general rules about survival as a species, so we have to make them up as we go along.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Praxius I remember a thread a while back about the rights of animals, and how humans are at the top of the food chain, etc. Many humans, or at least some members here in the forums think that since we're at the top of the food chain, we shouldn't care about how many animals we hunt, kill, eat, use for entertainment, etc. Some people here feel that animals shouldn't have the rights or similar rights to life as humans have. Some here think that the animals, plants and the Earth itself are here for our personal use and gain and we can and should do whatever we feel. I thought of an interesting concept. Are we really at the top of the food chain or are we even still a part of it? The Food Chain is related to the concept of "Survival of the Fittest" so to speak.... but wouldn't you considder that humans are no longer in the stage of evolution where we need to worry about our survival from other animals, but ourselves. So if we really don't need to worry about being taken out by another species on our planet, would you considder us out of the food chain? And if this is the case, don't you think we should be in a different category from other animals? Shouldn't we be more concerned with protecting and substaining the planet and animals we live on and with, rather then treating it all as expendable for our own pleasure and holding onto the "Survival of the Fittest" mentality? If there is a God, then we must be between God and animals, even religion states this similarly. So why should we still be considdered in the same category and using natural laws we claim for animals for ourselves as well? Without the planet in a healthy state, and without the animals on this planet we share it with, we will not survive on our own, so why not help increase our chances of survival in the long run, by helping the other animals with their survival?

Well, even with the copious amounts of scripture I could dig up on this, there are also logical reasons to maintain the animal population. If we are to continue to live on this planet, being good stewards of this earth would elongate the usefulness of its resources. The logical conclusion is then to be smart with what we do. I ain't green party or tree hugger, but I ain't stupid either. Considering that we are far from any chance of space exploration or that type of stuff, we should try to maintain the earth as best we can. Otherwise, we could just eat our way into extinction.

[ZNFYRH]

Are humans naturally consumed as a form of sustenance for another animal?

No.

Do humans naturally consume other species in a way that functions in an ecological balance?

No.

We don't need to "naturally" catch and eat chickens. We breed them in isolated environments. We consume plants that we grow ourselves. The food chain is natural; in the wild, so to speak.

Humans are no longer a part of that.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Are humans naturally consumed as a form of sustenance for another animal? No. Do humans naturally consume other species in a way that functions in an ecological balance? No. We don't need to "naturally" catch and eat chickens. We breed them in isolated environments. We consume plants that we grow ourselves. The food chain is natural; in the wild, so to speak. Humans are no longer a part of that.

I`ve tried to tell that a few times here and there in a different way, but some people will cling to reductionism as a defense against what you and I see is pretty much common sense or a rational view on this point.

[Jillamanda]

We mightn't get eaten regularly because we're humans, but because we're the same rotting organic matter as any other animal. What do you think happens to the millions of human bodies that get buried every year? They get eaten by worms, bugs and microbes, which in turn are a food source for other things. Plants may also get their revenge, thriving on the nutrients that flow from these corpses. Someone also mentioned parasites - leeches, intestinal worms, ticks and other unspeakable things that take up residence in our bodies.

Maybe tapeworms are at the top of the food chain - after all, what eats them?

[ZNFYRH]

I think the whole "we're all organic matter anyway" Circle of Life thing is understood. Of course we become dirt eventually, and et cetera. But I don't think that's the point of the discussion.

[Jillamanda]

So what is it then? There's many ways of entering the food chain, we aren't in it just because we're hunters and gatherers.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I never thought of parasites, like mosquitoes, as being part of the food chain. They can feed on anything, really, and ironically few critters can feed on them. I would also think of them as outside the food chain.

Not a fact. Many birds depend upon mosquitoes for food, especially near the north pole during summer migrational seasons. Bats eat them all night long.
Because mosquitoes hang around water to reproduce the fish and frogs often feed on them.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Praxius Yeah they feed like a parasite, but they don't kill their prey, like a wolf to a deer, so I would still considder them at the bottom.

And so what a microscopic organisms, if enough of them attack a human they can kills us. (however unlike other preditors they do not eat us after killing us, or kill us first to eat us. So that would be different.)

If humans went into a wilderness like the Amazon jungle without our weapons of technology, we might in that "primitive condition" be within the food chain. Large cats, preditor fish, large snakes, would look at us as a potenital happy meal. Even Amazon army ants would be a problem.

In the north we got large polar bears that attack people for food. And sometimes wolves or more likely - Eskomo sled dogs. In Africa the Loins and tigers would eat you if you were not prepared to defend your self, and other animals. In the seas you got sharks. We were in fact still humans way back in the prmitive days and were part of the food chain then, but we got smart enough to make it difficult for the peditors to attack us and so they just adjusted by finding animals that are less troublesome to capture.

Also like us, most preditors do not eat other preditors. We do not fancy eating tigers or dogs for food anymore. The preditors normally attack the viggie eaters - those that graze on grass for example - mice, rabbits, deer, cows, plus fish and frogs. So the wolves and lions keep the deer from eating up to many plants, and that keeps things in balance. Nature somehow controls the populaton of the preditors so they do not over-consume the plant eaters. A few animals like us humans will eat many things, both meat and plants, and other stuff. That added greatly to our ability for survival. The swamp gator or crock eats humans. No problem - but we are smart enough to know how to avoid them. So I do not think we are acturally above or apart from the food chain, we have only managed to avoid the preditors or to defend ourself via a number of ways. Everyone knows we are not outside the food chain .... I mean, would you walk into a cage with untame tigers naked and with no weapons in hand? I would think not and the reason why..... is?

[sevendogs]

Quote by: Technosoul And so what a microscopic organisms, if enough of them attack a human they can kills us. (however unlike other preditors they do not eat us after killing us, or kill us first to eat us. So that would be different.) They eat us, when we are still alive; after a human is dead, hordes of diverse microorganisms consume the body. Actually many microorganisms live in our body and eat some during our entire life. If humans went into a wilderness like the Amazon jungle without our weapons of technology, we might in that "primitive condition" be within the food chain. Large cats, preditor fish, large snakes, would look at us as a potenital happy meal. Even Amazon army ants would be a problem. Yes, people of primitive cultures living in wilderness sometimes became food for big predators, but major factors controlling their populations numerically were tribal wars, starvation, microbial diseases and weather elements. They all were important for natural selection in favor of most fit and smart. In the north we got large polar bears that attack people for food. And sometimes wolves or more likely - Eskomo sled dogs. Big predators never depended of humans as their food source; it happened only occasionally. Likewise, humans never depended on predator's meat for their own survival. Humans killed big predators as acts of heroic adventure and for their pelts to make clothing. In Africa the Loins and tigers would eat you if you were not prepared to defend your self, and other animals. By the way, meat of lions was valued by bush people. European travelers also liked it. In the seas you got sharks. We were in fact still humans way back in the prmitive days and were part of the food chain then, but we got smart enough to make it difficult for the peditors to attack us and so they just adjusted by finding animals that are less troublesome to capture. Ecologically, we have never been an important part of food chain as meat for big animals, but all of us return back to earth ground as food for microorganisms, no matter how much treatment and fancy coffins we receive in funeral homes. We contribute as a part of global food chain, when we die, becoming a fertilizer and participate in the total recycling of organic matter. Also like us, most preditors do not eat other preditors. We do not fancy eating tigers or dogs for food anymore. The preditors normally attack the viggie eaters - those that graze on grass for example - mice, rabbits, deer, cows, plus fish and frogs. So the wolves and lions keep the deer from eating up to many plants, and that keeps things in balance. Nature somehow controls the populaton of the preditors so they do not over-consume the plant eaters. A few animals like us humans will eat many things, both meat and plants, and other stuff. That added greatly to our ability for survival. The swamp gator or crock eats humans. No problem - but we are smart enough to know how to avoid them. So I do not think we are acturally above or apart from the food chain, we have only managed to avoid the preditors or to defend ourself via a number of ways. Everyone knows we are not outside the food chain .... I mean, would you walk into a cage with untame tigers naked and with no weapons in hand? I would think not and the reason why..... is?

Some AR, negligent caretakers and entertainers die, being killed by captured tigers, lions, bears and jaguars and wild mountain lions kill joggers. This kind of news is more impressive then killing humans by the bushels, when they are driving automobiles.

[sevendogs]

We all become fertilizers and return to the global life cycle, despite efforts of relatives, bying fancy coffins for the burial ritual. We end by being consumed by microorganisms.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Are humans naturally consumed as a form of sustenance for another animal? No. Do humans naturally consume other species in a way that functions in an ecological balance? No. We don't need to "naturally" catch and eat chickens. We breed them in isolated environments. We consume plants that we grow ourselves. The food chain is natural; in the wild, so to speak. Humans are no longer a part of that.

Are superpredators like orcas ar lions normally consumed as sustenance for another animal?

no, that's a perk of being at the top of the food chain with us.

Do orcas naturally consume other species in a way that functions in the ecological balance?

no, they kill entire whales just to eat the toungue.

There are ants that grow algae for themselves in their colony and "domesticate" other insects, we are not alone in our farming techniques

We are no more outside the food chain then other super predators like lions, tigers, or orcas, we are no more outside the food chain than ants who have been doing what we do for far longer.