this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2025
33 points (90.2% liked)

Asklemmy

48471 readers
776 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Iunnrais@lemm.ee 4 points 1 day ago

Beavers fuck up habitats and ecosystems about as much as humans used to before factories, which accelerated what we could fuck up. Beavers wreck shit up. Sometimes elephants do too, for that matter. And let’s be clear, the modifications these animals cause can have overall eventual benefits for an ecosystem, but they change the ecosystem extensively over a huge area, and any benefits you can ascribe to their actions could as easily be applied to human ecosystem modification too. “Oh yeah, the forest is completely gone, but now there’s new homes for different kinds of creatures that couldn’t live there before.” This sentence applies 100% to elephants, beavers, and yes, humans.

Some animals change their environment. We are one of them. Our tool use and brains allow us to do so on a pretty wide scale, but the destruction the elephants caused was pretty darn huge too. Humans also have the capacity to do with intention towards actively helping an ecosystem… elephants don’t have the ability for that kind of intentionality.

Of course, humans are also fully capable of acting without that intentionality too. It is pure coincidence that new ecosystems appear in the wake of elephant or beaver devastation— they weren’t actively trying to help other animals, they just wanted what they wanted. Our destruction can also have unintentional new ecosystems arise in our wake— the problem is that often we don’t LIKE the new ecosystems (bacteria and viruses, for example), and we often DO LIKE the stuff we destroyed.

But it’s not really different from what animals do. Because we aren’t separate from nature, we are nature. If we are bad, nature is bad. If nature is good, we are good. But this kind of binary thinking is too simplistic, life is more complicated than that, and we as humans have an ability to make value judgements and moral distinctions in a way that most animals cannot. We shouldn’t use that power in such a reductive way.

[–] phantomwise@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Malaria. Cholera. The black death. Syphilis. I could go on but you probably get the point...

[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Tell them to look up how ducks, mate.

[–] Hyphlosion@lemm.ee 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] Jerb322@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Make babies.., guy.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago

Ouch. Rape. Sometimes gang rape. Bloodied female. Sometimes drowned female. https://misfitanimals.com/ducks/how-do-ducks-mate/

Awful.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Humans are part of nature.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I agree. The boundary can easily become diffuse or even silly.

However, there’s a reason I asked what I asked. My ultimate purpose is to show that existence is not perfectly designed, that sometimes it is brutal and grotesque. Unfortunately, people often retort saying nature is brutal and grotesque because of humans. So, by focusing on non-human nature, I’m sidestepping the retort.

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] Iunnrais@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Not to me. Sounds more like someone who’s been in a lot of social media arguments, has a vague understanding of the counter arguments, and is trying to solidify their answer to it.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago
[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I always though the distinction between natural/unnatural is completely meaningless. We do not consider animal intelligence and its products "unnatural" but we somehow do this for humans.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know, plastic feels fairly unnatural

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

It's just long dead bio matter with few extra steps.

[–] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Some examples in no particular order:

  • Cowbirds lay eggs in other birds' nests, and if the other bird kicks their eggs out, the cowbird will come back and destroy the nest.

  • You've probably heard of female black widows eating the male after mating, but did you know that this is so common among spiders that the males of some species are literally hardwired to automatically die during or after mating? Makes the whole process easier and prevents the male from getting away.

  • Toxoplasmosis mind controls mice and makes them seek out cats so they get eaten and the parasite can move on to the cat.

  • The hyena birth canal. If you think human childbirth is excruciating... you'd be right actually, we're pretty high up there on the list of animals with the worst birthing experiences, but hyenas have it even worse.

  • There's a parasite that goes into a fish's mouth, eats its tongue, and attaches itself to where the tongue used to be and essentially becomes the fish's tongue.

  • Hamsters eat some of their own offspring if they have too many to ensure they have enough resources to properly care for the rest.

  • Baby sharks try to kill and eat each other in the mother's uterus.

[–] dom@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Til fish have tongues

[–] 0x01@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Predators eating prey alive, like lions eating bison from their bellies first.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago

Ouch. Looked it up. Its brutal. https://enviroliteracy.org/do-lions-eat-their-prey-alive/

TIL lions eat some prey alive because it saves the lions energy. They avoid spending too much energy killing a prey that is difficult to kill. Instead, they incapacitate (but not kill) a prey and start eating right away.

[–] KittenBiscuits@lemm.ee 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Dead and desiccated bodies around a body of water that has dried up. Fish, antelope, wildebeest, etc.

[–] KittenBiscuits@lemm.ee 9 points 2 days ago

Also, I saw an eagle try to catch a snake once, and the snake was a constrictor. The snake wrapped itself around the eagle, grounding it. Neither were letting go, neither were going to survive. It was pretty metal, and it wasn't beautiful. Definitely grotesque and brutal.

[–] gothiccwaifu@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

There have been a few significant mega-extinction events which have wiped out nearly every living thing on this earth.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Here’s some I know:

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 7 points 2 days ago

Some species of ants invade neighboring colonies and carry away larva to work as slaves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave-making_ant

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Pigs. Pigs take one generation to revert to feral state and are naturally pack hunting, intelligent, omnivores. Right now Texas and Florida is dealing with cases of hogs pulling apart horses to eat. There are cases where the hogs followed hunters home and trashed the place in retaliation.

It's a testament to our hubris that we've kept pigs and dogs for so long. Dogs won't recover, but pigs only need a year to come back for blood.

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

otters. baby otters. otters offering baby otters to be eaten first by predators.

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Don't forget that adult otters are known to maul and rape baby otters for fun.

[–] hansolo@lemm.ee 7 points 2 days ago

The insect world is a tiny nightmarish hellscape of armor, weapons, and sudden death.

Also, evolution isn't maximally efficient, it's just barely efficient enough. Eyes are a janky, often low-fi is good enough, affair. 99.9% of species that have ever existed are extinct. 99.9999999999% of species alive today do the bare friggin' minimum to throw DNA into either the wind or a hole and maaaaybe do nothing more than reproduce.

The Helicoprion existed.

Jellyfish. WTF?

[–] RagnarokOnline@programming.dev 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Cordyceps fungus. Prion diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease.

Both are horrible

[–] Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's currently a case being studied in the US south that looks like CWD jumped to humans.

[–] TORFdot0@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

With RFK jr in charge of HHS we are probably doomed

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Cordyceps fungus

Holy crap. This gave me the creeps. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis This opened the door to the broader category of parasitoids https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitoid

Prion diseases

Truly scary stuff. I vaguely knew that genetic problems are a thing, but I didn’t know the specifics. Thanks for sharing this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

[–] NONE_dc@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Any documentary that talks about the life of insects and smaller animals is a horror film.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago

Wild animals end up covered in ticks and sometimes even die from it

[–] HookedSiren@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

First thing that comes to mind is reproduction/labor/birth. Especially ducks, otters, hyenas in no particular order of brutality. Add in spiders, preying mantis, angler fish.

[–] DeathsEmbrace@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

Insects are the most brutal species. Parasitic wasps are literally top 10 worst ways to die.

[–] Hyphlosion@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Waterfalls.

Edit: Sorry, I missed the grotesque part. I read that as deadly for some reason.

[–] bassicvgyn@lemmy.vg 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think there probably are some things that we could agree are universally disgusting , but it would still be a subjective opinion, just one that no one would argue. What I mean to say is that beauty and ugliness are human constructs, they don't actually exist. It would be kind of pointless to go back and forth with someone countering examples of beauty with examples of ugliness.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I agree that there’s a layer of human subjectivity in this whole discussion. Within that layer, I think it’s okay to get a gut sense that nature is brutal and grotesque. My goal is to avoid romanticizing nature.

Once we’re able to avoid our human bias of romanticizing nature, we can take the discussion to another layer, a layer that could be called more objective.

For example, we could talk about entropy and evolution’s attempts to fight against it. We could talk about evolution occurring at multiple scales and dimensions simultaneously, such as atomic structures, cells, and multicellular organisms. These are examples of assemblages, and they expand the possible behaviors of the parts. In other words, assemblages make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

So, how does entropy, evolution, and assemblages connect with our discussion? Well, brutality and grotesqueness can usually be translated into the language of entropy and assemblages. Killing someone destroys an assemblage and increases entropy. Torture and trauma reduce the probability of an organism exhibiting variation in their behaviors. They reduce the emergent properties of the assemblage.

Is it always better to choose the language of entropy and assemblages over brutality and grotesqueness? No. Context matters. Again, if the goal is merely to avoid the romanticization of nature, the brutality and grotesqueness layer is appropriate.

[–] bassicvgyn@lemmy.vg 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Definitely some interesting thoughts here. I do think you need to ask yourself if you aren't romanticizing in the opposite direction.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

After reading what I have posted, it's totally fair to believe that I do not find beauty or inspiration in nature. However, I can give you some reassurance.

How? Well, I actually I find the battle against entropy amazing and inspiring. A while ago I was sipping tea while my dog nestled next to me, and I was moved thinking about how we make each other so happy. I am also moved by people, people who look beyond their belly button, people who are kind, people who are good at what they do.

It's not just that we're doomed to accept brutality and appreciate tiny slivers of beauty. There's actually steps that we can take to support life. For example, we can become a part of an assemblage that we like. Sometimes that assemblage is a group of friends, a political group, or an organization. You know you're in the right place when your incentives align with that of the group. There's an alignment around shared values, shared goals. Your atoms are keeping your structural integrity. Your cells are keeping you alive. Your thoughts are aiding you in problem solving and connecting with others. And your friends are connecting with you.

There's quite a bit more to this, so if you're interested in this way of understanding the world, you can check out Prosocial by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson and psychologists Paul W. B. Atkins and Steven C. Hayes.

[–] mranachi@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have to ask what you mean by fight against entropy? Are you referring to the apparent paradox that complex life goes against the idea of entropy tending to increase?
It is, however, only apparent. Assembleages, as you call them, are just possible expressions of energy in the system. Like if you put energy into a double pendulum in can swing in complex patterns. When you make any local reduction to entropy, by assembling order, it necessarily comes at the cost of increased 'global' entropy. That's the meaning of the second law. Nobody can fight against it, without reversing the direction of time.

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'd say the fight against entropy is an attempt to retain specific expressions of energy in the system. The expressions of energy are assemblages that have created order. And yes, as you said, the creation of order has a cost: greater global entropy.

In case you're interested, this way of looking at entropy and life comes from Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

[–] terminhell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 days ago

A lot of other organisms will eat their young. Kinda messed up. Some apes try ripping each other's genitals off during fights. The insect world in general is pretty brutal tbh.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 3 points 2 days ago

The sphex wasp laying its larva in living, paralysed prey.

[–] fulcrummed@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Jeeze, I’m an outlier - my first thought was the beautiful spiral of a pine cone. Anything that has the Fibonacci spiral, but picking up a pine cone from a quiet, rain-soaked forest path where every footstep is cushioned by fallen needles and leaves. There are many types of cones, but the hard ones that have spread all their seeds form the most beautiful and uniform spirals. To a non-believer, it feels like one of the greatest arguments for the existence of an intelligent higher power

[–] snek_boi@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Pinecones are indeed beautiful. However, they are decidedly not one of the greatest arguments for the existence of an intelligent higher power. In fact, the whole claim about pinecones having the Fibonacci sequence is false https://youtu.be/1Jj-sJ78O6M

Additionally, I wouldn’t think that cones having nice shapes are an example of nature being brutal and grotesque. But I suppose you wanted to make the opposite argument: that nature is perfect and beautiful.