7 posts • Page 1 of 1
I have to complie a list of examples in nature (non human) of the '7 deadly sins' to link to human behaviour .
Gluttony: The ornate horned frog. It will eat anything in their path. Even if it is larger/unmanagable.
Envy: recent study into capuchin monkeys suggest they display envy when another monkey is seen to be fed 'better' food
I have more but I was wondering if any others spring to mind? Ideally looking for more unusual/less obvious examples.
Thanks so much for your help!
I don't know but some pythons are in the same catogries. They eat anyting, whatever come into thier way and even size does not matter to them. I have seen many python's images they have eaten sheeps and goats. Imaginage the pythns and sheeps. They need more than two days to digest it so, they only remain on the same place ehere they have eaten their food.
Last edited by JackBean on Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: spam removed
but for the pythons it's not glutony, but need to survive because they may not meet any other feed for months
you may find examples which look like sins from human perspective, but they are usually clearly explainable by real scientists and not clerics.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
Aberrant behaviour usually happens as a result of bad upbringing in animals as it does in humans. The best examples of gluttony occur in domestic dogs and cats, where humans take over their education at an early age. In nature an animal that eats more than it needs to would not last long. Ditto for lazyness. (though it is often part of the culture for males esp. lions.)
Most social animals have strict codes of conduct, and if an animal breaks this or 'sins' it is attacked and ostracised by the group. It is sometimes difficult to make out quite what the transgression was. Their rules of conduct are difficult to make out because we do not understand their languages or social layers. For instance an animal can half kill a subordinate and not be ostracised but if it even argues with a superior it can be thrown out. Finding evidence of 'false witness' or subterfuge (within a species, not as a hunting technique) or revenge is also difficult, but I think it is a very worthwhile exercise to look for it, as I am pretty sure that all seven sins exist in most social birds and mammals.
There are two kinds of sins in Nature --individual and collective sins-- and here only the former have been mentioned. Overpopulation is of the latter kind and literally the mortal sin, whatever the species, because the wages of sin is death. Overpop leads to brutal solutions involving intraspecific aggression (includes war and slavery in the case of humans, whereas war and slavery in the ant world is not linked to crowding, and chimp "wars" are not really wars but something else for which a new term is needed) and pandemics that will eventually bring down our numbers and save life on Earth in the course of the next few centuries. Cities will be abandoned. The few survivors will settle down in collective farms, and the Fourth Millennium will be the Golden Age of the Kibbutz©. In the case of the human species the word "lust" tends to be used when striving to explain the present megacrowding, yet it is mainly overall cleanliness that is to blame. Cleanliness is next to godliness but also the most outstanding feature of a godless era. One of my greatgrandmothers got married when she was 13, her husband drowned shortly after that as he tried to ford a river on horseback and suddenly she was a 14-year-old widow with a child. She married again and begat several more. In those days people grew up quickly, but they also died young, and so a balance was achieved. Now only drastic events will redress the balance, and the new dress will fit very few, like maybe only about 144 million to start with.
I do not agree that overpopulation is a collective sin. It is very much up to the individual how many children they have. Every individual with even the most basic education knows that the world is overpopulated.Therefore it is up to them to decide whether to do the right thing and limit the size of their families. Having said this is it is not quite so easy because it takes two to make a baby. In the 'western world.'the choice of how many to have tends to be mainly the woman's; in many Eastern or third world countries it is the man's. So an individual of either sex might not be given the choice. They are in effect made to sin, even when they know it is wrong. Governments and religions also take a hand in determining the size of families. I suppose this is where the 'collective' issue appears. But ultimately the individual should always try to do the right thing although it is vastly easier to do in the 'West'.
Often people claim it as a human right to have as many children as they want. It is not. Every child extra to the replenishment of the population is creating starvation elsewhere in the world. Nothing which damages others can be claimed as a 'right'.
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest