• Smells like bacon: Humans Share Food Chain Level With Pigs
    51 replies, posted
[quote]Where do humans fall in the food chain? You can probably already guess it's somewhere between cows and polar bears, but a new study now puts a number to it: Somewhere between 2.0 and 2.6, depending on where you live. That's on a scale of 1 to about 5, in which plants are 1s and carnivorous apex predators like killer whales are 5.5s. In other words, humans are in kind of the same plane as anchovies and pigs.[/quote] [url]http://www.popsci.com/article/science/humans-share-food-chain-level-pigs-study-finds?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=2&con=humans-share-food-chain-level-with-pigs-study-finds[/url]
Well, I do like to eat like a pig.
How? We are the top of the food chain. We eat anything and everything we want.
I'm at the top of mine. I'm not going to let some shark or bear or giant spider push me around!
[QUOTE=KnightVista;43051391]How? We are the top of the food chain. We eat anything and everything we want.[/QUOTE] [quote]The technical term for the number the researchers calculated is the "trophic level." A species' trophic level is based on the balance of meat and plants it consumes, and whether that meat comes from herbivores or animals higher up in the food chain. (Eating tuna gives you a bigger trophic level boost than eating sardines.) This is why people fall in the middle, although unlike pigs, they have the technology to take down animals in higher trophic levels, such as lions and tigers. Ecologists calculate species' trophic levels to help them get a handle on how energy and edibles move through different ecosystems.[/quote]
Seems pretty stupid. We're the smartest species, and we can do whatever we please. Just like Knightvista said.
What has happened here is that the article has mistaken Trophic Number for being a ranking on the food chain. In reality, they just coincide for the majority of species. We are the top of the food chain, but we're not the species with the highest Trophic Number.
[QUOTE=KnightVista;43051391]How? We are the top of the food chain. We eat anything and everything we want.[/QUOTE] apex predators eat only animals. lower level animals eat both plants and animals or exclusively plants.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43052120]What has happened here is that the article has mistaken Trophic Number for being a ranking on the food chain. In reality, they just coincide for the majority of species. We are the top of the food chain, but we're not the species with the highest Trophic Number.[/QUOTE] It's popsci, don't expect the article to reflect the scientific paper, or terms relating to it.
also humans evolved as being a ways from the top of the food chain. we have a bunch of natural predators(a lotta big cats i think, including our old nemesis the sabre-tooth). humans do fill a similar role to pigs. we are omnivores. our survival strategy is mostly "we can eat a bunch of different shit so we don't have to be good hunters or specialized foragers". hell, our ancestors were also scavengers. i think homo habilus was a scavenger. [editline]3rd December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43052120]What has happened here is that the article has mistaken Trophic Number for being a ranking on the food chain. In reality, they just coincide for the majority of species. We are the top of the food chain, but we're not the species with the highest Trophic Number.[/QUOTE] oh ok well now i know more about biology n stuff
[QUOTE=yawmwen;43052164]apex predators eat only animals. lower level animals eat both plants and animals or exclusively plants.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=elitehakor;43051410][quote]The technical term for the number the researchers calculated is the "trophic level." A species' trophic level is based on the balance of meat and plants it consumes, and whether that meat comes from herbivores or animals higher up in the food chain. (Eating tuna gives you a bigger trophic level boost than eating sardines.) This is why people fall in the middle, although unlike pigs, they have the technology to take down animals in higher trophic levels, such as lions and tigers. Ecologists calculate species' trophic levels to help them get a handle on how energy and edibles move through different ecosystems.[/quote][/QUOTE] That is a seriously fucking idiotic scale to use if you want to talk about a food chain outside of the broadest of terms. There are dozens of animals that are omnivores that are at the top of their chains. Grizzly Bears are one of the big ones that spring to mind. Hell, there are dozens of herbavores that are effectively at the top of their chains too. Elephants essentially have no natural predators. Fuck, you can even find some plants that are near the top. There isn't exactly much that does anything to kudzu.
also is this article coming out to cash in on the dailymail article that made the outrageous claim that humans evolved from a chimp/pig hybrid?
According to cannibals we also taste like pork, apparently.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;43051410][QUOTE]The technical term for the number the researchers calculated is the "trophic level." A species' trophic level is based on the balance of meat and plants it consumes, and whether that meat comes from herbivores or animals higher up in the food chain. (Eating tuna gives you a bigger trophic level boost than eating sardines.) This is why people fall in the middle, although unlike pigs, they have the technology to take down animals in higher trophic levels, such as lions and tigers. Ecologists calculate species' trophic levels to help them get a handle on how energy and edibles move through different ecosystems.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] For humans, this is a pretty poor was to gauge how energy moves through an ecosystem, considering the energy we use to obtain the food we eat is to the moon in comparison with other species.
I always get that....weird Amnesia vibe whenever we get put on the same level as pigs.
Trophic level is the same as placement on the food chain. It is a measure of the path calories take from sunlight to apex predator. We are, by definition, the top of the food chain because we are apex predators. We even eat other apex predators regularly. Calories do not, except by freak accident, go further than us.
[QUOTE=GunFox;43053847]Trophic level is the same as placement on the food chain. It is a measure of the path calories take from sunlight to apex predator. We are, by definition, the top of the food chain because we are apex predators. We even eat other apex predators regularly. Calories do not, except by freak accident, go further than us.[/QUOTE] we are now, but that is relatively recent. we evolved to fill a lower spot in the food chain. it just so happens we got lucky and dominated the world.
Actually, humans are at the top of the food chain because of our intelligence and technology. Nothing short of unfair will wipe humans of the face of this planet.
So to be on top of the trophic scale I have to eat a proportional amount of vegetables and killer whales? [I]Challenge accepted. [/I]
Wrong. Modern humans are 5.5s. Why? We've got rifles. We can do whatever the fuck we want to whatever animal we want to with absolute and total impunity. Nature is our bitch and has been for a couple hundred years now. We can eat whatever we damn well please and we have no natural predators anymore. We are the apex predator of apex predators. This may have held true a few thousand years ago before we figured out boomsticks, but today? Nah. Our brains let us invent the tools necessary for us to take whatever seat we wanted on the food chain, and we chose the very top. Human innovation: 1. Nature: 0.
mosquitoes.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43054355]Wrong. Modern humans are 5.5s. Why? We've got rifles. We can do whatever the fuck we want to whatever animal we want to with absolute and total impunity. Nature is our bitch and has been for a couple hundred years now. We can eat whatever we damn well please and we have no natural predators anymore. We are the apex predator of apex predators. This may have held true a few thousand years ago before we figured out boomsticks, but today? Nah. Our brains let us invent the tools necessary for us to take whatever seat we wanted on the food chain, and we chose the very top. Human innovation: 1. Nature: 0.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but it's the actual scientists that get to determine where species sit on the scale. You're precisely as qualified to say where humans are as you're qualified to say where anchovies are.
Are they actually trying to say we're not apex predators? We can literally kill any animal on Earth to the point where there are none left, lets see a fucking polar bear wipe out seals.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43054355]Wrong. Modern humans are 5.5s. Why? We've got rifles. We can do whatever the fuck we want to whatever animal we want to with absolute and total impunity. Nature is our bitch and has been for a couple hundred years now. We can eat whatever we damn well please and we have no natural predators anymore. We are the apex predator of apex predators. This may have held true a few thousand years ago before we figured out boomsticks, but today? Nah. Our brains let us invent the tools necessary for us to take whatever seat we wanted on the food chain, and we chose the very top. Human innovation: 1. Nature: 0.[/QUOTE] You vs Lion without a gun. Human innovation: 0. Nature: 1.
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;43054509]Sorry, but it's the actual scientists that get to determine where species sit on the scale. You're precisely as qualified to say where humans are as you're qualified to say where anchovies are.[/QUOTE] Erm...you're ignoring a very important thing. We have rifles. Johnny Polar Bear does not. We have nuclear weapons. Burmese Tigers do not. We have fighter jets. Orangutans do not. We've been to the freaking moon. Gorillas haven't. And when was the last time you saw an african lion driving an M1 Abrahms? A Cheetah at the helm of the USS John C Stennis? Are meerkats running nuclear power plants? Are otters running nuclear submarines? We are the top of the food chain because we decided to be. We control the fates of entire species. We have a way to annihilate all life on the surface and most life below the surface. We can leave the planet entirely. That makes us the king of the hill under the international law of "Go fuck yourself, Nature". No other species that has ever existed on Earth can even remotely claim that.
wtf... Humans should be 5.5s. Or 6. We kill everything and eat everything wtf. We have the top of the food chain in big tanks and watch them do tricks. How the fuck are we not on top of the food chain lol. Weird scientists... I might agree if this was 2000 yrs ago, but its not. It's now. Edit: the only way to find out whats on top of the food chain is just to see who eats the most and who gets eaten the least. And who is that? Us. As i said, this study is 2000 yrs old. They[I] have[/I] to include [I]our[/I] intellect, the tools [I]we[/I] made with it and our way of organizing and planning things out.
no one is arguing the fact that humans kill everything, don't take this as an insult. individually, we don't eat a whole lot on the scale of things. if you read the article, you'll see the study was done based on diet.
[QUOTE=ViralHatred;43054865]You vs Lion without a gun. Human innovation: 0. Nature: 1.[/QUOTE] honestly i don't think a lion would need a gun to kill someone
[QUOTE=TestECull;43054882]Erm...you're ignoring a very important thing. We have rifles. Johnny Polar Bear does not. We have nuclear weapons. Burmese Tigers do not. We have fighter jets. Orangutans do not. We've been to the freaking moon. Gorillas haven't. And when was the last time you saw an african lion driving an M1 Abrahms? A Cheetah at the helm of the USS John C Stennis? Are meerkats running nuclear power plants? Are otters running nuclear submarines? We are the top of the food chain because we decided to be. We control the fates of entire species. We have a way to annihilate all life on the surface and most life below the surface. We can leave the planet entirely. That makes us the king of the hill under the international law of "Go fuck yourself, Nature". No other species that has ever existed on Earth can even remotely claim that.[/QUOTE] I wasn't denying that we're the top dog (huehue), but we're not a 5.5 on this scale. The people that decide if a species is a 5.5 have decided that humans aren't, and as has already been said, the scale is not the same as the food chain. The scientists who spend their time in and around these figures haven't somehow forgotten that Humans have nukes, they're simply not paying attention to that fact because it's not relevant to they research and by extension doesn't affect the position of Humans on the scale.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43054355]Wrong. Modern humans are 5.5s.[/QUOTE] No, we're not, and frankly I don't think you understood the article if you even read it. The rating is not a measure of arbitrary position on a hypothetical food chain, which most scientists don't even take seriously since it's an extremely limited, narrow, and just plain inaccurate view of relationships between different species. This rating is a measure of energy requirement and population sustainability. Predators must always maintain a much smaller population than their prey, since the time required for an individual prey animal to mature and reproduce is much longer than the period a predator can wait between meals. If the predator is an apex predator feeding on [I]other[/I] predators, then their numbers must be extremely limited so as not to outpace their prey. So for every shark you have ten tuna, and for every tuna you have a hundred sprats, and for every sprat you need an enormous amount of plankton. That's what the scale is measuring- where on this ecological pyramid it lies. If a shark is rated higher than a tuna but the populations are roughly equal, then you have an ecological problem and the population is not sustainable. If humans were a 5 we would have mostly died of starvation long ago due to a lack of suitable prey animals. The fact that we can sustain ourselves with plants and low-level animals allows us to sustain a large population relative to the populations of the prey animals we feed upon, and consequently we have a lower number. Some groups, like the natives of northern Canada, have a higher rating because they feed on exclusively animals and mostly predators at that. Their populations are small, because they need a large and constant supply of prey animals to stay fed. But some, like Mesoamerican agrarian societies, have lower ratings because of a vegetarian diet, so that they can (or could) exist in very large numbers relative to the local wildlife as long as they could maintain their crops. What this scale allows scientists to do is recognize the different energy niches in the environment, and determine what populations can produce a balanced and stable ecosystem. It has nothing to do with who the biggest badass in the jungle is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.