Birds are humanwatchers
Jim
individual people.
Jerry Avins
Pigeons also recognize people. The military during WWII had a program to
train pigeon suicide-bombers on photographs of their intended
assassination victims, but although the training was a success, no
pigeons were deployed. I once raised a pigeon I from dropper feeding to
release. A year later, a pigeon of the same coloring peeled out of a
high-flying flock and landed on my shoulder.
Crows drop walnuts onto streets in Tokyo to be cracked by passing cars.
They confine the drops to intersections and retrieve the meats when
traffic is stopped by lights.
Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Gary
--
Gary
Visit Lucy & Gary and do the jigsaw puzzle at
www.under-1-roof.com/PuzzlePage.html
"Jerry Avins" <j...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:6fidnb4pp_dHbiTV...@rcn.net...
Lanny Chambers
"Gary" <ga...@under-1-roof.com> wrote:
> And we call the "dumb animals" why?
Because they can't speak. "Dumb" does not mean "stupid." Evolution
insures that every organism is smart enough to survive in its
environment. I would guess that generalists, which need to solve new
challenges regularly, tend to be more intelligent than animals with
narrow, highly-specialized niches, for which instinct is good enough.
--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
Laurence Sheldon
I'm not sure where that puts us.
You don't see birds spending zillions-of-labor-hours-equivalent (zlhe)
on fancy binocs, shoes, just-right-jackets, etc.
You don't see horses betting zlhe on which humans can run around in a
circle the fastest.
Ditto dogs.
and so on.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
Lanny Chambers
Laurence Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure where that puts us.
>
> You don't see birds spending zillions-of-labor-hours-equivalent (zlhe)
> on fancy binocs, shoes, just-right-jackets, etc.
Sure, because birds don't accumulate piles of surplus, disposable zlhe.
Neither, of course, do most of the planet's humans. Like birds, many
humans aren't sure where their next meal is coming from.
Jerry Avins
> And we call the "dumb animals" why?
Because the Bible gives us dominion over them?
Gary
it comes from a language that's been virtually unused for centuries.
"Jerry Avins" <j...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:OfudnT7Z85WShibV...@rcn.net...
Jim
> Don't get me started on how anyone knows exactly what the Bible meant
> when it comes from a language that's been virtually unused for centuries.
Remember, we're dealing with a translation made almost 400 years ago.
IIRC, that was written in Hebrew, which is still widely taught, and very
much in use. The "dominion" bit is from the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1,
verses 26-28:.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him;
male and female created he them.
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing
that moveth upon the earth.
"Dominion" in the time of King James, when the "Authorized Version" was
published (1611), likely meant "ownership." In those days, private
ownership of land was not as common as today. I believe the king still
owned a large portion of the land, and this translation _may_ (I'm not a
Biblical scholar) have supporedt the idea that kings served at the will
of god. (To keep birders, environmentalists and other riff-raff at bay.)
With ownership comes responsibility, a notion that has been sadly
overlooked both in human relations and environmental stewardship ever
since. I'm sure everyone reading this group agrees that responsible
ownership also requires leaving something decent for future generations.
Shalom.
Grdner
I finally had a chance to read the article and view the video -- very
interesting but not surprising to me.
Apologies to long timers as I've mentioned this before. Years ago, dad
planted grape vines in our back yard and a for a couple of years in a
row, Northern Mocking birds nested there. One year dad tilled an area
by the vine for a new garden and not wanting to disturb the nesting
mockers, he removed the beginnings of a nest to encourage the birds to
build elsewhere. The birds were determined as was dad.
The beginning, tear-down went on for a couple of times and finally, when
dad would leave the house, the birds would attack him. Dad even began
wearing his old army helmet so they wouldn't hit him. Anyone else could
go into the backyard undisturbed but not dad. No matter what he wore,
the birds attacked him.
We have an old video of the attacks somewhere that I really want to
find. If I do, I'll upload and post a link to this site.
Happy Labor Day,
Pat
in Central Virginia
Martin Jensen
> Gary wrote:
>
>> Don't get me started on how anyone knows exactly what the Bible meant
>> when it comes from a language that's been virtually unused for
>> centuries.
>
>
> multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
> over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
> every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
Those words were written by a succession of men claiming human authority over
all other living things, apparently limiting God to expressing divine power
through non-living things, such as Katrina, Gustav, great tidal waves and
earthquakes, etc.
"Ownership" is too strong a connotation for "dominion." Human experience over
the millenia doesn't support that, or effective control over living things, for
that matter. "License" (as in license to exploit) is probably a better
connotation of "dominion." And that's why Jim is correct when he writes as
follows:
Martin Jensen
> Jim wrote:
>
> Apologies to long timers as I've mentioned this before. Years ago,
> dad planted grape vines in our back yard and a for a couple of years
> in a row, Northern Mocking birds nested there. One year dad tilled
> an area by the vine for a new garden and not wanting to disturb the
> nesting mockers, he removed the beginnings of a nest to encourage the
> birds to build elsewhere. The birds were determined as was dad.
>
> The beginning, tear-down went on for a couple of times and finally,
> when dad would leave the house, the birds would attack him. Dad even
> began wearing his old army helmet so they wouldn't hit him. Anyone
> else could go into the backyard undisturbed but not dad. No matter
> what he wore, the birds attacked him.
>
Apparently the Mockingbirds were teaching us a lesson: There is a fundamental
moral rule against invading the home and the privacy of an individual, and this
rule doesn't rely on scripture or constitution to be so.
Martin Jensen
Virginia Piedmont
38.8N
77.6W
Jerry Avins
> Don't get me started on how anyone knows exactly what the Bible meant
> when it comes from a language that's been virtually unused for centuries.
Or that was translated from ancient Hebrew to Aramaic to ancient Greek
to Latin to archaic English. Mistranslation along the way converted
"young woman" to "virgin" (vide "Yungfrau"), "crocus of Sharon" to "rose
of Sharon", "dove" ("turtur") to "turtle", "big fish" to "whale", and more.
Lanny Chambers
Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > Don't get me started on how anyone knows exactly what the Bible meant
> > when it comes from a language that's been virtually unused for centuries.
>
> Or that was translated from ancient Hebrew to Aramaic to ancient Greek
> to Latin to archaic English. Mistranslation along the way converted
> "young woman" to "virgin" (vide "Yungfrau"), "crocus of Sharon" to "rose
> of Sharon", "dove" ("turtur") to "turtle", "big fish" to "whale", and more.
Not to mention the intentional political editing that found its way into
each translation, according to who was paying for it. King James was
arguably the most notorious for slanting the translation to support his
power.
As an opportunity to consolidate control, it was too good to pass up.
The English peasants and most of the priests couldn't read English, much
less Hebrew, Aramaic, et al.
Not too many whales in the Middle East, were there? :-)
Jim
> Not too many whales in the Middle East, were there? :-)
Didn't you hear about the WMDs (Whales of Mass Destruction)?
Jim, Stuart, FL
http://birding.kearman.com/
Lanny Chambers
Jim <diesp...@diediedie.tv> wrote:
> Didn't you hear about the WMDs (Whales of Mass Destruction)?
You just reminded me of my second-favorite Bob & Ray skit, the editorial
reply about saving whales.