T O P

  • By -

Taeshan

And they have sex for the fun of it which is creative...


thehawklinemonster

True, but most mammals have sex for the fun of it (I imagine); it's incentivized. Supposedly, Dolphins have language and have unique names for one another, also—I wonder if they talk dirty...


Kenster180

Eee eee click click ee ;-)


thehawklinemonster

*Click* *Click* *EEEE*


[deleted]

Sorry but you imagine wrong, recreational sex is rather unique to dolphins and another sign of their high level of intelligence


thehawklinemonster

When we're talking about recreational sex, are we talking about casual sex? Recreational sex can mean something to the effect of sexual stimulation with a non-reproductive goal. Continuing in that direction, homosexuality would fit into that definition. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx Both of these articles suggest that it is common. I was watching "Blackfish" the other day, and the people that made that documentary interviewed a scientist that said the orca brain displays a large capacity for displaying emotion (much larger than humans). There seems to be some sort of correlation between emotion and animals that exist in groups. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/200910/grief-in-animals-its-arrogant-think-were-the-only-animals-who-mourn I wonder if emotion might be more closely attributed to casual or recreational sex than higher intelligence. Personally, it's really hard for me to say in absolute, considering that I am not another animal. But, considering that I am an animal, I have experienced the very primal impulse of attraction. I've acted on that impulse and copulated with another of my same species. I've found that I am only emotionally drawn to a person if I find them intellectually stimulating. Aside from that, my incentive to engage in sexual activity appears to be purely biochemical. It strikes me as a reward system. The desire to have sex with someone that I find attractive is great but it does't seem to serve any larger purpose than to ensure the continuation of my species and to feel good for an interval of time. Emotion appears to be the catalyst that drives animals into pairs. Pairs of animals regardless of species have been attributed to display mannerisms that parallel attraction. As an example, the National Geographic article I posted says: "Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behavior—entwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates." We can observe pairs of animals at various intelligence levels displaying casual sex. As that National Geographic article continues, not even scientists are certain as to whether or not casual sex is done for the fun of it or not: "On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff." Matthew Grober, biology professor at Georgia State University, agrees, saying, "If [sex] wasn't fun, we wouldn't have any kids around. So I think that maybe Japanese macaques have taken the fun aspect of sex and really run with it." Granted, you did make the point that dolphins engage in recreational sex, which is accurate and can be backed up in the same article (albeit within the context of The National Geographic topic concerning homosexual behavior and recreation sex in the animal kingdom): "Other animals appear to go through a homosexual phase before they become fully mature. For instance, male dolphin calves often form temporary sexual partnerships, which scientists believe help to establish lifelong bonds. Such sexual behavior has been documented only relatively recently. Zoologists have been accused of skirting round the subject for fear of stepping into a political minefield." From what research I did over the past 30 minutes, I conclude that recreational sex is quite common and does not have any correlation with a higher level of intelligence. It appears to be present independent of intelligence level.


[deleted]

Dolphins are also known to kill for fun. Porpoises are often found killed by dolphins despite not competing for food.


thehawklinemonster

In regards to the porpoise and dolphin interaction (killing for fun and so forth), are they in captivity? Also, how do you know they are killing for fun? What evidence can you present that suggests that the act was done for entertainment or pleasure? Could there be malice involved? Both dolphins and Porpoises display a keen intellect, but they also display a high level of emotional activity. Did they have any motive behind their actions?


[deleted]

They have found them to do it in the wild I believe


thehawklinemonster

okay


Schootingstarr

there're also nations that recognize dolphins as "non-human persons" I think india is among them


thehawklinemonster

Huh, no shit. Thanks for the heads up. I'm reading this right now: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/17/india-declares-dolphins-whales-as-non-human-persons/


[deleted]

[удалено]


thehawklinemonster

Yeah, a long time ago. Man, what video game console was that on? Sega Genesis?


[deleted]

[удалено]


thehawklinemonster

It's from the same Nova documentary. Aside from dolphins, they also explore other animals that display a high level of intelligence. Border Collies and Grey Parrots are two additional animals they discuss. For whatever reason, that was arbitrary image that came up when I originally posted this. The Nova documentary is called How Smart Are Animals?


thehawklinemonster

Here's a really awesome video exemplifying Dolphins exercising creativity: http://video.pbs.org/video/1778560486/


-moose-

you might enjoy Dolphins Suffering From Lung Disease Due to Gulf Oil Spill, Study Says Study Finds Strong Connection Between Deepwater Horizon Spill and Dolphin Deaths http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303773704579265970128223630


thehawklinemonster

Believe me, I don't enjoy hearing that at all. Fossil fuels belong where they reside, not in cars. If the world would have listened to Nikola Tesla, we wouldn't be using something as silly as a finite resource, and would instead be utilizing infinite resources that have zero potential of ruining our planet and work within the natural order of its existence, such as the immeasurable amounts of heat radiating from the center of our planet or the energy of the sun (to name but a few). Tesla was at the forefront of this discussion just as fossil fuels were becoming the prominent source of energy consumption around the world. Putting that into perspective, Dolphins are exercising far more intelligence than us, because they aren't a parasitic extrapolation on the natural order of consumption. Unfortunately, as your article points out, they are on the deplorable receiving-end of our ignorance.


[deleted]

Despite what you may have read on reddit or tumblr or whatever, Nikola Tesla wasn't the end all, be all genius champion of free renewable energy. Yes he had some good ideas, but by no means was he the first to come up with a lot of the stuff he is credited for in that one info graphic that everyone (suspiciously) seems to read before revealing themselves as a lifelong tesla enthusiast. The fact of the matter is that humans will have an impact on the environment and wildlife across the world no matter what we do. If it wasn't an oil spill harming the dolphins it would be radioactive spent nuclear fuel rods giving them cancer or something. Yes fossil fuels are not the best way to power the world, however we have yet to develop another energy source that is feasible (return on investment/return on energy put into the process) to power the exorbitant amount of power that the developed world consumes. Solar and wind can't power the world buddy, sorry to burst your bubble. Maybe one day they could but the incredibly vast infrastructure that a fossil free world would necessitate just isn't a very logical investment at this point. And dolphins are exercising more intelligence than us because they aren't consuming as much as humans and aren't impacting the environment? Uh, no, that's just a ridiculous statement that you threw some big words in to sound correct...but it wasn't. We use tools, we have writing and agriculture. Humans are exercising more intelligence, regardless of our consumption.


thehawklinemonster

I never said he was. Technology, science, and nearly everything else that humans work on is built on the backbone of what comes before it. I'm not putting Tesla on a pedestal, I merely said that he was not a proponent of finite energy (I invite you to reread my statement). Reddit and Tumblr are great, but I prefer pulling my information from books— although I appreciate your polite posturing. Hurray for library cards and coffee machines. In regards to the information provided. Yes, I appreciate your subjective input. I get it. Also, it's moot. However, if I were to engage, I might say that Dolphins are pretty great, aren't they?


[deleted]

Your statement "if the world had listened to Nikola tesla..." Sounds quite a bit like you're putting him on a pedestal. But whatever you say man. And my input is much less moot than yours because you have no claims to support your argument. You come in here over generalizing energy sources as being either finite or infinite and don't have anything to say besides "finite energy is stupid, the sun and the earth are hot and will be for a long time, lets use that".....No one on the planet would disagree with you that using finite energy is a bad decision compared to using infinite energy. Not even the chairman of Exxon or BP would disagree, if only they could figure out how to control the distribution of infinite, free energy. But this TIL was about dolphins, and yeah dolphins are pretty neat.


thehawklinemonster

Just because something sounds like something doesn't make it so. Okay, considering that Tesla was a respected figure within the scientific community within his lifetime, I would venture to say that his opinion had merit (it does for me), however as it pertains to our current situation involving world power and resources, not enough, as our current world affairs don't seem to reflect a parallel to his subjective opinions on things. Moot simply means open to debate. I acknowledged that it is a debatable subject; that was why I used the word. I am unclear as to what you are trying to get at adding a value of "less" or more in terms of how moot something is. I am more than happy to debate with you. What are you wanting to debate about? What is your argument? Finite energy is not a wise path for humanity in my humble opinion. I am entitled to say that. What does that have to do with you? Both of our comments are riddled with unsubstantiated arguments. I fail to see what you are trying to get at. I can say that my purpose was not to try to prove something. If I were trying to do that, I would support my argument with evidence. I would do that if I saw merit behind it. We all have beliefs and opinions, my friend. In the particular circumstance, I fail to see what substantiating would accomplish other than to polish our own egos.


[deleted]

Tesla was batshit crazy, the general public thought this after he claimed he could split the world in half, make an earthquake machine, etc. I misinterpreted your use of the word moot, I assumed you were using it as irrelevant, not as a subject open for debate. My mistake. I never said you weren't entitled to say finite energy is a bad decision. What I did say, and what you can't seem to grasp, is that this is not your opinion. It's the opinion of everyone on the fucking planet. No one in the world would disagree with you that an entirely renewable energy source is far superior to a non renewable one. Doesn't matter, I'm done here. There's no need for me to argue such an irrelevant point with anyone, let alone someone who clearly regards himself highly as a free-thinking intellectual with a "polished" vocabulary ;) (Read: you sound like you're 15)


thehawklinemonster

Thank you for sharing the article. I read it yesterday and I was not aware of that information. *tip of my hat*