# Mantis eats goldfish, again



## OGIGA (Sep 6, 2008)

Hello everybody. I thought I'd share my mantis eating a goldfish video. Some of you might not want to watch an insect eat a fish, so be warned!

(Click to go to Metacafe)







Download;


----------



## ABbuggin (Sep 6, 2008)

Nice!


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 6, 2008)

great! lmfao.. but i remember giosan making a threat on that and getting ppl mad..


----------



## OGIGA (Sep 7, 2008)

idolomantis said:


> great! lmfao.. but i remember giosan making a threat on that and getting ppl mad..


Oh really? Sorry Giosan...

I think my first video of this was up before I knew Giosan though.


----------



## Andrew (Sep 7, 2008)

That's crazy! I figured you'd have to handfeed it, but she just snatched it of the water...awesome.

And who cares if someone doesn't like it? You have nothing to apologize for.


----------



## Rob Byatt (Sep 7, 2008)

idolomantis said:


> great! lmfao.. but i remember giosan making a threat on that and getting ppl mad..


That would be me :angry: 

*I am sick and tired of saying why this is a bad idea.* If you want to feed vertebrates to mantids then fine, but don't air it on the internet. I do not agree with this practice at all as it is cruel and unnecessary, but more over it will cause damage to this hobby.

If you are ignorant enough to believe that animal rights etc' will not use these videos as leverage to stop our hobby then you need to go back to school.

I hope this WHOLE thread does not get delted again and that at least some useful information remains.

Rob.


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 7, 2008)

Totally agree Rob, not only that but its cruel and immature :angry:


----------



## mantidsandgeckos (Sep 7, 2008)

Someone better stop this thread! :mellow: :mellow: :blink: :blink:


----------



## mantidsandgeckos (Sep 7, 2008)

Wow, birdfly, we posted at the same time! :blink:


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 7, 2008)

Just seconds out mate.

Sorry Rob i reported it before you posted and i wish i hadnt, it would be good to keep it going as a lesson as to why this sort of thing cannot be accepted.

Mods and admin, please leave this thread, despite what i said in my report


----------



## Rick (Sep 7, 2008)

I fed a fish once but it was an already dead fish that died of natural causes in my tank. In this case they do sell feeder fish to be used as food for other animals. Course fish are not a normal part of a mantids diet. No different than when I buy these feeder fish to feed my turtles. Damaging to the hobby? Possibly, but like I said certain fish are sold as feeders same as mice are sold as snake food.


----------



## Ian (Sep 7, 2008)

People can voice their opinions, but there's no point in throwing personal remarks.


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 7, 2008)

I agree, mantids are predators and as such feed on other living animals but as responsible owners we either buy frozen (already dead mice) or have them killed humanely before feeding them to our predatory pets, this works both ways with mice as captive reptiles can be injured as easily as the mouse in the wrong circumstances.

Not so with a fish, its very one sided.

The fish is a low order of life but it is way more advanced than a cricket or fly, to me this means it has a much more advanced nervous system and is feeling excruciating pain with every mouthful the mantis takes from it, compared to an invert (some thing to think about when we call ourselves animal lovers)

I can understand why some one might want to feed vertibrate meat to an invert, perhaps they feel it is a better food than an invert, which i dont think it is, to much fat compared to a much better balanced food such as another insect (which is naturally what makes up 99.9% of a mantids diet anyway) but not a live vertibrate, especially when we know that all we have to do is touch the mantids mouth parts with the vertibrate meat (dead already) and it will eat it, without inflicting pain and suffering to a higher order of life with a correspondingly more evolved nervous system.

A lizard will crush or shake and break the back of a mouse and a snake will envenomate or constrict its prey, not super quick (nature is cruel) but much much quicker than being slowly minced to death in the arms of a mantis, still these actions take place in the wild all the time but imo shouldnt have a place in animal husbandry because we recognise the cruelty. over...


----------



## Rick (Sep 7, 2008)

Birdfly said:


> I agree, mantids are predators and as such feed on other living animals but as responsible owners we either buy frozen (already dead mice) or have them killed humanely before feeding them to our predatory pets, this works both ways with mice as captive reptiles can be injured as easily as the mouse in the wrong circumstances.Not so with a fish, its very one sided.
> 
> The fish is a low order of life but it is way more advanced than a cricket or fly, to me this means it has a much more advanced nervous system and is feeling excruciating pain with every mouthful the mantis takes from it, compared to an invert (some thing to think about when we call ourselves animal lovers)
> 
> ...


I agree with most of what you say however fish are sold as feeders and most are not killed prior to being fed to herps or another fish.


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 7, 2008)

Yeah, i know what your saying Rick and we have to have them like mice, rabbits, crickets n locusts etc as they are integral to keeping predatory pets, a snapping turtle, axolotyl, monitor lizard or pirahna or oscar can engulf or despatch a small dead or live fish quite quickly and its a natural food to them. my thought are this, that fish could have been fed to the mantis dead so as to spare it a slow and painful death by mantis, it would still eat it if that was the reason for doing it. mantids apart from certain parasites are amongst, if not the cruelest feeders on the planet so imo that fish being fed alive was unnessasary.

The fish would have asphixiated before it was fully eaten too, its just inhumane to me.

Im no ponce i put things to death by mantis and lizard every day but they are inverts and sized up for the size of the animal they are fed too but i dont have a problem feeding a large grasshopper to a small mantis either but only inverts, may be im wrong its just the way i see it concerning vertibrates . .

-


----------



## Rick (Sep 7, 2008)

I don't know. One could say the same about the insects we feed them too. Yeah crickets may not be as advanced as a fish but they too are being eaten alive.


----------



## mrblue (Sep 7, 2008)

Rick said:


> I don't know. One could say the same about the insects we feed them too. Yeah crickets may not be as advanced as a fish but they too are being eaten alive.


its not the same. that the fish is being eaten alive is not the main issue, the main issue is that it has a more evolved nervous system so being eaten alive is not the same experience for the fish as for something with a less developed nervous system.


----------



## Rick (Sep 7, 2008)

mrblue said:


> its not the same. that the fish is being eaten alive is not the main issue, the main issue is that it has a more evolved nervous system so being eaten alive is not the same experience for the fish as for something with a less developed nervous system.


Not saying they don't. I said that some could argue the same towards their typical food. Being eaten alive is being eaten alive regardless of what type of animal it is.


----------



## The_Asa (Sep 7, 2008)

What's the big deal? I don't want to offend, and this is just my opinion, but I see nothing wrong with feeding a fish to a mantis. If these insects can catch other animals in the wild then preventing that in the husbandry seems contradictory to me. As for these fish being a higher form of animal, i have my doubts. Goldfish have no long term memory and they're short term memory is about 3 seconds. If something has a 3 second memory I don't think it can feel pain. They seem to be on the same scale or below of some of the other feeder insects we use.

I also feel uncomfortable comparing humans and other animals. Some may regard human beings as animals themselves but everyone (except maybe the dolphin lovers :lol: )will at least concede that we are far more advanced than any other life form on this planet. I don't think animals display pain in the same sense of the word as humans. Perhaps more of a sensory devolopment.

Don't let the last paragraph make you think that I don't think it's pathetic to see another animal suffering and would try to avoid that at all costs, just not a fish :lol:


----------



## mrblue (Sep 7, 2008)

Rick said:


> Being eaten alive is being eaten alive regardless of what type of animal it is.


i personally think thats an oversimplistic way of looking at it but i do agree that some could see it that way.



> I don't think animals display pain in the same sense of the word as humans. Perhaps more of a sensory devolopment.


i think certainly in many creatures it is only sensory reflex action, but i dont think its fair to say it is this way for all animals in general. anyway, i think the whole "are we animals?" question is a whole different discussion  



> If you want to feed vertebrates to mantids then fine, but don't air it on the internet.


i agree with this, things can so easily be spun twisted to fit agendas unfortunately.


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 7, 2008)

Goldfish have been trained to swim through hoops for food, the training was left out for three months and when the hoops were introduced they swam through and expected food again. They are no Alberts but a 3 second memory would simply make an animal extinct. All animals have to have a good memory its a survival tool

My mrs is a dog behaviourist/trainer/nutritionalist i will see if we can find the paper work.

I argue with anti anglers that a hook through the mouth is not cruel, they certainly feel it in my estimation but it is not pain like we would experience it, but to be slowly minced alive is a totally different matter, even if this animal felt pain at half the level we do still makes it cruel considering that a quick flick on the head would humanely euthanize it and it could still be fed to the mantis.

http://nootropics.com/intelligence/smartfish.html


----------



## The_Asa (Sep 7, 2008)

Birdfly said:


> Goldfish have been trained to swim through hoops for food, the training was left out for three months and when the hoops were introduced they swam through and expected food again. They are no Alberts but a 3 second memory would simply make an animal extinct. All animals have to have a good memory its a survival tool


Never believe trivia I guess...  :lol:


----------



## OGIGA (Sep 8, 2008)

Oh boy. Didn't know I would start such a thread when I posted...


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 8, 2008)

what kinda mantis was that?


----------



## collinchang635 (Sep 8, 2008)

Poor fishy.   Normally, I would put the prey in such a position that the mantid starts eating at the head first so that it doesn't suffer so much. BTW do insects feel the same amount of pain as humans and animals?


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 8, 2008)

I Like Mantis said:


> BTW do insects feel the same amount of pain as humans and animals?


i don't know, i think everyone will feel it if something starts eating you alive  

BTW insects are animals, so are humans.(&lt;-- don't start a drama about my opinnion.. please.)


----------



## Ian (Sep 8, 2008)

OGIGA said:


> Oh boy. Didn't know I would start such a thread when I posted...


A little bit of drama never harms.


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 9, 2008)

there something on youtube.

you guys havent seen it?

National geographic or discovery or something was recording and documenting a mantis

a snake comes outta nowhere, and the mantis picks it up and starts to go at it and eat it,

luckily the snake got away.

Isnt a snake "more advanced" than a fish?

and snakes eat fish outta water as well, (live)

i've seen a terrarium with a small boa and a some feeder goldfish,

the snake will eat some of the fish when it gets hungry.

Isnt a snake a vertebrae as well?


----------



## muleyyy (Sep 9, 2008)

d0rk2dafullest said:


> Isnt a snake "more advanced" than a fish?


i dont like this talk of vertibrates being "more advanced" than invertibrates, the evolution of animals isn't hierarchical, its simply a process of creatures adapting to fill unfilled niches, if, in order to do that they need a spine and to dispose of the exoskeleton then that is what they do.

remember if the dinosaurs had never become extinct mammals would never be able to fill the same niches

insects fill niches in an advanced way that not many mammals are able to, the evidence that they dont fill all the same niches speaks for itself, invertibrates can adapt much faster to changing environments, the fact that they have changed little over the millions of years of thier existance is proof of this, when an animal finds a form that is supremely successful it will change little, look at the crocodile.

also i would like to point out that humans dont even consider fish as meat, some vegitarians will eat it

however many people would find graphic video's of a mantid consuming a fish a little distasteful, especially when its still wriggling


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 9, 2008)

well there is 2 points of this thread i guess

1. Mantids will can attack anything and eat it.

2. You shouldnt record what u did and put onto this thread like that i guess haha


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 9, 2008)

mantis eating a rat?

Mantids are vicious period.

they eat anything man.


----------



## Quake (Sep 9, 2008)

I understand your argument, and even if fish had a sensory system (which they don't, they can feel very little being that they live in thick liquids and are touched all day by debris, but not extreme pains, especially suffocation. trust me I am a bio major.) I think it is completely okay to feed him fish.

Mantids are predators, and predators are animals of opportunity, not being picky of their kill, if a large mantis stumbled upon a small pond one day, and he was hungry, you bet your ###### he would grab a fish. Every predator is this way, so while in captivity giving him a new food source every now and again shouldn't be a problem. I personally think it is inhumane to give a captive animal a steady diet of crickets or flies, which is why every animal I have ever had (except my dog) has had a variety of wild feed I catch myself when the weather is up.

On the other hand, I do completely agree with the fact that videos can harm us if one of those insane vegans who have no idea what they are talking about tries to submit it to the animal rights people. So be careful what you show.


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 9, 2008)

I think your all missing the point, yes mantids, just like a lot of predators kill and eat other living things, some are quick killers, Crocs, peregrine, pythons and boas etc some are slow, mantids etc, mantids dont care, if its no threat it will be eaten any old way, arse first quite often, if it is bigger and potentially dangerous prey a mantis will suspended it in space and make a concious effort to remove its head or legs to make the prey impotent.

( uk ) Its not illegal to feed live food invertibrates or vertibrate animals to predatory "pets" but it is illegal to cause unnessasary suffering to any vertibrate, you can be had for any animal cruelty and prosicuted (dont know the laws on this in the US) and can be banned from keeping animals. The video of the fish would be good evidence of cruelty over here. The cornsnake and mouse and other animals that are shown being eaten *slowly* by mantids would also be considered cruelty imo and if staged in this country, they are all or at least most of them staged in arenas for film despite how natural it looks, there set ups.

Robs point above is more serious, we have had shows stopped among other things because certain people of an animal movement think the whole process of keeping any animal in captivity is cruel, with amunition like some of these inverts feeding on vertibrates vids showing animals fighting (also illegal...called baiting) killing and eating one another in ways that can easily be proved as cruelty or unnessasary suffering (because the mantis, if hungry would eat the fish dead 100% of the time) eg mantis eating live mouse/snake/fish, tarantula stabbing live mouse over and over are causing an animal (vertibrate) unnessasary suffering, this could get some one banned from keeping animals but worse it could just be another nail in the coffin of herp/invert culturing etc etc


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 9, 2008)

to me: the fish just dies, and in the food chain, it doesn't matter if the predator is a bigger fish, cat, or praying mantis.

the fish still dies, and if bought as feeder, i would ie anyway.

*this is not something that i would do often tho.*


----------



## Quake (Sep 9, 2008)

Degree of specialization

Further information: Generalist and specialist species

Among predators there is a large degree of specialization. Many predators specialize in hunting only one species of prey. *Others are more opportunistic and will kill and eat almost anything* (examples: humans, leopards, and dogs). The specialists are usually particularly well suited to capturing their preferred prey. The prey in turn, are often equally suited to escape that predator. This is called an evolutionary arms race and tends to keep the populations of both species in equilibrium. Some predators specialize in certain classes of prey, not just single species. Almost all will switch to other prey (with varying degrees of success) when the preferred target is extremely scarce, and they may also resort to scavenging or a herbivorous diet if possible.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 9, 2008)

Quake said:


> I understand your argument, and even if fish had a sensory system (which they don't, they can feel very little being that they live in thick liquids and are touched all day by debris, but not extreme pains, especially suffocation. trust me I am a bio major.) I think it is completely okay to feed him fish.


Its called a Lateral line, In fish, the lateral line is a *sense* organ used to detect movement and vibration in the surrounding water. Lateral lines are usually visible as faint lines running lengthwise down each side, from the vicinity of the gill covers to the base of the tail.

Other senses include sight, touch, smell, taste etc :blink:


----------



## The_Asa (Sep 9, 2008)

So is the problem the fish anymore?


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 9, 2008)

The_Asa said:


> So is the problem the fish anymore?


we are talking about a fish who's already dead.


----------



## The_Asa (Sep 9, 2008)

:lol: I guess now we all know not to post any of our gruesome kills on the internet. Do you guys think it's that much a danger that animal rights activist will actually place inhumane (irony) behaviour on an insect? Just curious.


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 9, 2008)

The_Asa said:


> So is the problem the fish anymore?


No mate, imo its still cruel but it can be seen by any body else as unnessasary suffering as a mantis doesnt kill quickly, the fish would suffocate (suffering?) before being completely eaten but before it expires its been slowly minced.

It doesn't matter wether its a fish a mouse a bird or a snake, its all unnessasary sufferering because the mantis would happily eat a dead one if offered (meat on mouth parts) or better still what they have evolved to mostly eat, insects, and they do perfectly well on this, imo there is absolutely no difference between insect feeders and vertibrate meat and, again in my opinion i'd go so far as to say insects are better especially if gut loaded with other goodies for a week or so prior too offering.

Reptiles are different, they, if offered the correct prey size and if live food is all they'll take for what ever reason, kill much more quickly an efficiently than a mantis could care about.  

Idolomantis, when you say "the fish is already dead" do you mean now or when the mantis caught and started eating it, as when i saw it, it was swimming and wriggling.


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 9, 2008)

the fish is dead NOW okay, i'n not saying i would do this myself and i know the fish feels more(?) then a fly...)

i'm not freally sure what to find to find of this...

headache-.-


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 9, 2008)

Nobodies pointing any fingers mate, were just discussing it here aren't we?


----------



## Rick (Sep 9, 2008)

None of us have spent any time as a fish or a fly therefore we really don't know what each one feels. To me it is all the same. Being eaten alive is probably painful regardless of what you are.


----------



## Mantidmaniac95 (Sep 9, 2008)

I believe feeding a fish is the same as feeding a bug and I think they feel pain. I feel bad for what ever i feed my mantis bu I get over it.


----------



## The_Asa (Sep 9, 2008)

Birdfly said:


> No mate, imo its still cruel but it can be seen by any body else as unnessasary suffering as a mantis doesnt kill quickly, the fish would suffocate (suffering?) before being completely eaten but before it expires its been slowly minced.It doesn't matter wether its a fish a mouse a bird or a snake, its all unnessasary sufferering because the mantis would happily eat a dead one if offered (meat on mouth parts) or better still what they have evolved to mostly eat, insects, and they do perfectly well on this, imo there is absolutely no difference between insect feeders and vertibrate meat and, again in my opinion i'd go so far as to say insects are better especially if gut loaded with other goodies for a week or so prior too offering.


Here I agree with you. The line kinda crossed between fish bio and animal rights so I wasn't sure which one we were still concerned about


----------



## Rob Byatt (Sep 10, 2008)

Quake said:


> I understand your argument, and even if fish had a sensory system (which they don't, they can feel very little being that they live in thick liquids and are touched all day by debris, but not extreme pains, especially suffocation. trust me I am a bio major.) I think it is completely okay to feed him fish.


Did you do a degree before coming to this conclusion ?  If you really think fish don't have a sensory system, then you've been reading the wrong books/journals :mellow: 



Quake said:


> Degree of specializationFurther information: Generalist and specialist species
> 
> Among predators there is a large degree of specialization. Many predators specialize in hunting only one species of prey. *Others are more opportunistic and will kill and eat almost anything* (examples: humans, leopards, and dogs). The specialists are usually particularly well suited to capturing their preferred prey. The prey in turn, are often equally suited to escape that predator. This is called an evolutionary arms race and tends to keep the populations of both species in equilibrium. Some predators specialize in certain classes of prey, not just single species. Almost all will switch to other prey (with varying degrees of success) when the preferred target is extremely scarce, and they may also resort to scavenging or a herbivorous diet if possible.[4]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predation


I'm not trying to start an argument here, there are far more important issues, but this quote is irrelevant. I agree that predators often specialize, but mantids have evolved to specialize in the capture of terrestrial prey; they do not enter the water to eat fish ! The last sentance of the above quote suggests to me that is is based on mammalian behaviours. Mantids will not eat plants and will not scavenge.



Birdfly said:


> Robs point above is more serious, we have had shows stopped among other things because certain people of an animal movement think the whole process of keeping any animal in captivity is cruel, with amunition like some of these inverts feeding on vertibrates vids showing animals fighting .......... this could get some one banned from keeping animals but worse it could just be another nail in the coffin of herp/invert culturing etc etc


This is the exact point I am trying to make. I am well aware that people do and always have had the morbid curiosity to watch a vertebrate being eaten by an invertebrate. I know it happens and I know it always will, the point is you should *KEEP IT TO YOURSELF*. Have some responsibilty and don't air it on the net.



The_Asa said:


> :lol: I guess now we all know not to post any of our gruesome kills on the internet. Do you guys think it's that much a danger that animal rights activist will actually place inhumane (irony) behaviour on an insect? Just curious.


A couple of years ago the RSPCA was trying to stop invertebrate fairs as they deemed it as animal cruelty. They kicked up a stink at some beetles that were dying on one of the stalls. There was a rumour that they were trying to stop invertebrates being sent in the post.......because it emotionally scars them.

Imagine what would happen if they used vertebrate cruelty as prove of irresponsible keeping.

Maybe I'm wrong or maybe I'm just one of the few people left in this hobby that actually cares about its future.

Rob.


----------



## mantidsandgeckos (Sep 10, 2008)

Doesn't anyone think this thread should be stopped? :huh:  :blink:


----------



## OGIGA (Sep 10, 2008)

friendofgeckos said:


> Doesn't anyone think this thread should be stopped? :huh:  :blink:


Unfortunately, yes. Ugh...


----------



## Christian (Sep 10, 2008)

I have managed to read through this thread. All major arguments were already posted by Rob and Birdfly, so there is no need to add something. I am just shocked by the level of ignorance exhibited by some of the others. Even if explained for the Xth time, they just don't find anything about it. The hobby is attacked at various fronts by so-called "animal lovers" and some still think they can do everything without consequences. I remember a time when there were animals offered as pets which you will never get again. Did the people know then that they would never get them again, maybe they would have engaged more in breeding or conservation efforts. Now, as there are lesser potential pets left that can be achieved regularly, by posting such s**t on the net, you're passing a good ball to those who intend to stop exotic pet-keeping completely. I am really curious to see the future of this hobby.

Another point is that that documentary is indeed a rather bad one and all those "natural" encounters were actually set up in arenas. Or have you seen an Asiatic _Hierodula_ ever meet a N-American cornsnake?


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 10, 2008)

I've noticed most of the ones caring extremely about the hobby, are in EUROPE.

I guess they have stricter laws than the US


----------



## Christian (Sep 10, 2008)

It's not as simple as this. The import laws are much more severe in the US. Europeans are still allowed to keep most stuff, but the CITES laws may be applied more severely. The US government doesn't care a lot about the international conventions on climate or biodiversity, so the conservation laws may be less severe at moment, I don't know; this will certainly change soon.

However, there is a trend from a fundamentalist corner over here to restrict or stop keeping exotics as a whole. The problem is that they have some influence on dumb politicians who follow their "advices". We had such a debile law a year ago in one of the federal states in Germany. The "data" were falsified (!) and untrue, nevertheless, once such a law is proclaimed, it is almost impossible to be rejected afterwards. People are dumb: they are afraid of spiders etc., of the "freaks" keeping them, of venomous stuff whatsoever (even if most poisonous animals are harmless to man, except of some snakes and 3-4 spiders), of pythons in the bath tub and crocs and snapping turtles in lakes, and so on. It's on our own responsibility to avoid any behaviour that eases their public cries for prohibiting everything. Such bull***t like feeding verts to mantids or conducting invert fights is exactly the stuff they need to enhance their arguments. And we, instead of building up a public lobby explaining what we are doing and what's the use of it, feed their fear with vidoes like this.


----------



## Fisherman_Brazil (Sep 10, 2008)

Christian said:


> I have managed to read through this thread. All major arguments were already posted by Rob and Birdfly, so there is no need to add something. I am just shocked by the level of ignorance exhibited by some of the others. Even if explained for the Xth time, they just don't find anything about it. The hobby is attacked at various fronts by so-called "animal lovers" and some still think they can do everything without consequences. I remember a time when there were animals offered as pets which you will never get again. Did the people know then that they would never get them again, maybe they would have engaged more in breeding or conservation efforts. Now, as there are lesser potential pets left that can be achieved regularly, by posting such s**t on the net, you're passing a good ball to those who intend to stop exotic pet-keeping completely. I am really curious to see the future of this hobby.Another point is that that documentary is indeed a rather bad one and all those "natural" encounters were actually set up in arenas. Or have you seen an Asiatic _Hierodula_ ever meet a N-American cornsnake?


I respected Christian's experties, but never feel (or dare) I shall after him. But this is something I parallel his opinion.


----------



## Meiji (Sep 10, 2008)

I am happy to learn that mantis don't find fishy taste displeasing. For a while I have been thinking of using tuffies (little feeder fish) as food food for larger mantises since crickets really do stink and I have housemates. Per some of the concerns raised here, when I do try this out I'll execute the lil fishies painlessly before they become food.


----------



## yeatzee (Sep 10, 2008)

Wow now i know why no one wanted to see the lizard pics  

I personaly think its great to feed your mantids a couple new and different meals once in a while. I try to catch a variety of bugs for mine atleast and i *have tried *feeding mine feeder fish also due to what meiji said. They are feeder fish and are meant to be fed...everyone needs to chill for sec lol. Another point is that they're only 12 cents where i live which is a cheap meal thats different and not stinky for my mantids......sounds good to me.

Also maybe his mantid is like all mine where it refuses to touch dead things NO MATTER WHAT!


----------



## MantidLord (Sep 10, 2008)

I agree with "both sides".

1) I don't think its wrong to feed a feeder fish to a mantis. And I don't see the point in killing it first. It's going to die anyway, and whether or not it feels the pain is irrelevant to me. And please don't compare this to torturing a human being, because that is totally different. I wouldn't feed a fish to my mantis, but once again, I don't find it "immoral" in the sense that some might.

2) I think this can be used as fuel to stop the hobby, and I do think that some people shouldn't put things on the web because of this. But I think those "animal lovers" should chill out a bit.

So for the sake of the hobby, NOTHING ELSE (not feelings, or morals), don't post that stuff on the web. It makes everyone associated with mantids look bad. And it spreads the sterertype that mantids are bloodthirsty killers who are mean and evil. When in reality, they are just trying to survive. In short, it's not wrong to feed a fish to your mantis, it's stupid to post that video on the web. Especially if you are trying to keep the hobby going. I believe someone allready said that.

BTW, this isn't directed toward Ogiga in any way, just those who like posting this stuff on the web constantly and think this will help the hobby.


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 11, 2008)

this actualy reminds me of a video: sunspider eating a pinky mice.

everybody had comments like "you sad ###### go die!!!"

i thought it wasn't wrong but not a smart idea to place that on utube.

i agree with mantidlord and his oppinion pretty much counts for me.


----------



## Christian (Sep 11, 2008)

> And I don't see the point in killing it first. It's going to die anyway, and whether or not it feels the pain is irrelevant to me.


You still haven't understood anything. Considering the stuff written above you don't deserve any creature as pet.


----------



## Rob Byatt (Sep 11, 2008)

Christian said:


> You still haven't understood anything. Considering the stuff written above you don't deserve any creature as pet.





MantidLord said:


> But I think those "animal lovers" should chill out a bit.


I'll never stop trying to keep this hobby alive  

Christian, I think our advice is falling on deaf ears......again


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 11, 2008)

> I personaly think its great to feed your mantids a couple new and different meals once in a while. I try to catch a variety of bugs for mine atleast and i *have tried *feeding mine feeder fish also due to what meiji said.


 Yes insects are the best thing you can give them and variety is also good. This is why i breed cockroaches, crickets (for my reptiles only, UK) flies, locusts, phasmids, katydids etc in an effort to give my pets a good variety of food, its all they need.



> They are feeder fish and are meant to be fed...


Yes but not specifically to mantids.



> everyone needs to chill for sec lol.


Why, no one is irrate just disapointed.



> Another point is that they're only 12 cents where i live which is a cheap meal thats different and not stinky for my mantids......sounds good to me.


You shouldnt be feeding "stinky" crickets to any thing, this suggests to me you are keeping them wrong.



> Also maybe his mantid is like all mine where it refuses to touch dead things NO MATTER WHAT!


All mantids will exept dead prey if they are hungry and the dead prey is touched against their mouth parts, they wont pick a dead insect up from the ground as a dead animal does not move and so the mantid cannot recognise it as food.


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 11, 2008)

i understand all of you guys

you guys got mad love for this hobby

so do i

i just happen to run across that stuff on the youtube,

just thought hey i saw this in "nature" hahaha but i guess not =P


----------



## nympho (Sep 15, 2008)

the topic of invertebrate pain came up on this forum (WARNING site may cause extreme annoyance to certain people)

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic....f=5&amp;t=51072

my opinion is that insects respond to the stimulous of tissue damage by following a hard wired behavioral pattern that may help them survive/have evolutionary benefits, but are not consciously aware of the stimulous in any significant way and act in more or less robotic way towards it. In fact they do not appear to be consiously aware of anything as they make stereotypical responses to all stimuli. There is nothing about insects that makes me think they are any more capable of 'experiencing' anything, any more than a complex computer program whose responses to stimuli of external sensers seems intelligent - but the robot is actually experiencing nothing. An important point is they dont need to either. Just responding in simple stereotypical ways has enormous survival benifits.

Of course I may be completely wrong and fruit flies may scream in agony and be totally aware as a mantis chews its face off (and aware of everything else in its daty to day life, but im pretty certain their nervous systems are not sufficiently intricate to allow them the luxury of 'experience'.

About the goldfish, i think its cruel and right to condemn it (or would be more so if it wasnt feeding another animal)but then so are billions of natural predatory encounters that happen every day. little fish, and birds and just about everything else get chewed up alive by all sorts of bigger things. Its normal. in captivity its not to be encouraged as we have a moral duty of care not to allow unnessary suffering, but got to keep these things into perspective too i suppose. human nature is often to be cruel i'm afraid as required, we are top predators and can be pretty ruthless with our prey at times.


----------



## Rick (Sep 15, 2008)

I think mantids feel pain as it is quite obvious that they do. Get ones leg trapped in a lid and they sure act like it hurts. I think it is ignorant to think that they don't. It may not be the same as how we feel pain though.


----------



## Volvagia2 (Sep 15, 2008)

OGIGA said:


> Hello everybody. I thought I'd share my mantis eating a goldfish video. Some of you might not want to watch an insect eat a fish, so be warned!
> 
> (Click to go to Metacafe)
> 
> ...


----------



## Volvagia2 (Sep 16, 2008)

The_Asa said:


> What's the big deal? I don't want to offend, and this is just my opinion, but I see nothing wrong with feeding a fish to a mantis. If these insects can catch other animals in the wild then preventing that in the husbandry seems contradictory to me. As for these fish being a higher form of animal, i have my doubts. Goldfish have no long term memory and they're short term memory is about 3 seconds. If something has a 3 second memory I don't think it can feel pain. They seem to be on the same scale or below of some of the other feeder insects we use.
> 
> I also feel uncomfortable comparing humans and other animals. Some may regard human beings as animals themselves but everyone (except maybe the dolphin lovers :lol: )will at least concede that we are far more advanced than any other life form on this planet. I don't think animals display pain in the same sense of the word as humans. Perhaps more of a sensory devolopment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 16, 2008)

Have you read any thing on this thread ??!!


----------



## Rob Byatt (Sep 16, 2008)

Birdfly said:


> Have you read any thing on this thread ??!!


Or maybe humans have a 3 second memory :lol:


----------



## idolomantis (Sep 16, 2008)

Rob Byatt said:


> Or maybe humans have a 3 second memory :lol:


LOL but some people have a 1 minute memory...

sorry for the off topic.


----------



## collinchang635 (Sep 16, 2008)

d0rk2dafullest said:


> I've noticed most of the ones caring extremely about the hobby, are in EUROPE. I guess they have stricter laws than the US


No kidding. I tried to ship an ooth to Europe using FedEx but they didn't allow me to. What should I do? Should I pack it first and say it is a vase? My friend recieved a mantid in a package that stated it was a vase. Should I do the same for the sake of mantids? Do they open up an check the package? Do they send it throught an X-ray?


----------



## d0rk2dafullest (Sep 16, 2008)

i dont think they open it up

when our packages go thru customs, it just gets checked to see if it has all the paper work it needs.

yeah you can say it is a vase or a plastic critter keeper =P that has nothing in it.

but internationl....i have never sent a mantis international before.

IMO and for safety, ship at your own risk if you are attempting to say it is a vase.

=)

Good luck.


----------



## Meiji (Sep 16, 2008)

Meiji said:


> I am happy to learn that mantis don't find fishy taste displeasing. For a while I have been thinking of using tuffies (little feeder fish) as food food for larger mantises since crickets really do stink and I have housemates. Per some of the concerns raised here, when I do try this out I'll execute the lil fishies painlessly before they become food.


I also should have mentioned this is a contingency plan in case a time comes when mealworms are unavailable. I like to keep things as simple and clean as possible.

Meiji (John in Boston)


----------



## rayg (Sep 17, 2008)

Compound eyes taste better. :huh: 

Seriously though, everything thing that is living has some form of consiousness, including plants. Pain is a reaction to something that causes physical harm, it is a survival mechanism. In order to stay alive a living organism has to be able to feel pain. It's all relative. Maybe those grey guys in the flying saucers think that our central nervous systems aren't developed enough to feel real pain, so its okay for them to shove tubes up our hind quarters.


----------



## nympho (Sep 17, 2008)

rayg said:


> Compound eyes taste better. :huh:
> 
> Seriously though, everything thing that is living has some form of consiousness, including plants. Pain is a reaction to something that causes physical harm, it is a survival mechanism. In order to stay alive a living organism has to be able to feel pain. It's all relative. Maybe those grey guys in the flying saucers think that our central nervous systems aren't developed enough to feel real pain, so its okay for them to shove tubes up our hind quarters.


not necessarily, if consiousness needs a critical amount of machine complexity. Just saying 'its alive therefore its conscious' is blatantly untrue as some life functions perfectly well without it - ie are bacteria, protozoa, plants or fungi consious ? Thats 4 kingdoms that in all probability we can conclude 'feel' nothing and need not. Life is simply long sequences of biochemical reactions that 'work'. Consiousness is not a requirement of life, but *sometimes* life has found it useful. Most living things do respond to stimuli, true but it is obviously not a necessity that they 'feel' anything to respond -any more than computer programs. If we can conclude bacteria dont need to be consious of anything it is reasonable to conclude more complex forms dont HAVE too, esp if they don't appear to, up to a critical 'tipping point' of necesary complexity, ie one that is tied to aiding the machines survival in that they can 'consider' appropriate actions, instead of mere stereotypical instincts.

'feeling consiously' without being able to take appropriate considered action would unlikely to evolve as it has no useful function and cannot aid the organism.

For example. A tree does not need to 'feel' being cut down, as it cannot respond appropriately by hitting out or running away. there would not have been an evolutionary process to develop consciousness in trees. Hormonal responses to damage are appropriate in that case. likewise, non consious instictive reactions are only necessary in insects as they are functionally appropriate to their place in nature -consiousness would be an expensive unnecessary additional burden.

trouble is, its impossible to say when the light of consiousness has switched on. whether fish have reached that level its hard to conclude. Their instinct driven lifestyle would suggest not. I would only say with certainty some mammals and birds have a level of experience we call consiousness. Others may well be mere automata going on the behaviour they show


----------



## rayg (Sep 20, 2008)

Nympho, you have a defendable and valid definition of consciousness, but it is very limiting. You seem to be defining consciousness as a multi-cellular biochemical process above a certain threshold of complexity, and since pain is a function of consciousness, living organisms that are not sufficiently complex cannot “feel” anything because life is nothing more than automated biochemical reactions engaged in the sole purpose of collecting more energy than it is spending.

I know that what we are talking about is something that is very subjective; it has feet in the scientific, philosophical, and spiritual realms, so I will propose that these biochemical reactions are a function of life, and consciousness is an inherent part of being alive, not the other way around.

A few points-

The Native Americans, probably most aboriginal cultures, held that everything possessed consciousness, even the rocks and water. These were rational people who were just as intelligent and observant as we are in this day and age, and to discount their wisdom and knowledge is, in my opinion, extreme foolishness. Aboriginal peoples have an understanding of the functioning of ecosystems,

sustainable land management practices, and the usage of untold plant resources on a level that Western civilization, after five hundred years of science, is only now beginning to grasp.

There was a fair amount of scientific research happening in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries dealing with the concept of aether, life force, which was hypothesized to be another force in the same vein as the electromagnetic, gravitational, and strong and weak nuclear forces. It couldn’t be quantified therefore the concept fell into obscurity and the realm of metaphysics. Rudolf Steiner did develop the principles of Biodynamic agriculture based around harnessing this life force, and Biodynamic farming works. It produces amazing results in plant productivity and soil health. A few other interesting people- Nikoli Tesla and Edgar Cacey.

This leads me to “The Secret Life of Plants” by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. It has been documented that plants do respond in a verifiable way (polygragh) to their environment, not just to temperature or water stress but if someone yells at it or threatens to cut it or even another plant in the room or down the hall!

I do appreciate the beauty of cellular physiology. It is absolutely mind blowing that the same DNA molecule, depending on the base pair arrangements, can define a bacterium living in a sulfur jet a mile beneath the ocean, a venus flytrap, or me. The process of translation and transcription is a molecular dialogue with the outside environment. DNA chooses to express itself in whichever way is needed for its particular setting. A cell in my stomach lining has the exact same DNA as a cell in my brain, it just expresses differently. I simply can’t accept that it is something that just “works”. Life is something that is struggling against the laws of thermodynamics. Chemical reactions have the tendency to dissapate, while living organisms try to accumulate. That to me is consciousness; life is more than a chemical process. A computer will not struggle to keep itself turned on and it won’t compete against the toaster for outlet space. So I do believe that all living things have consiousness, maybe not self-awareness.

Sorry for getting so off topic, a mantis eating a fish leads to a discussion of the nature of consciousness.  It’s all in good fun. By the way,to bring it all back, I feel that there is nothing wrong with an invertebrate eating a vertebrate. It happens all the time. But the animal rights types can be seriously motivated and vocal, and once something gets regulated or made illegal it is hard to get it back.

May it rest in peace,

Ray


----------



## nympho (Sep 20, 2008)

rayg said:


> and consciousness is an inherent part of being alive, not the other way around.


An invalid assumption/starting point will just lead to more problems. You would have to argue for consiousness in bacteria and pre bacteria. A Self aware virus? What about the building blocks of life like proteins, carbohydrates or DNA? I don't think so. Put non consious chemical machines together into a slightly more complex machine and i dont see why consiousness need spring into being automatically at that level.

As I implied before, self consciousness is but one useful possible strategy/outcome of life, like wings or eyes. It aids survival of the genes that code it. But not a pre requisite of life any more than wings or eyes are. You could argue that basic things like a replication mechanism or heredity are but not consciousness or eyes.

Consiousness of pain or anything is a function of INCREDIBLE neural complexity. It requires brains. If not why are brains necessary. Why did brains evolve if their function could be replicated without going to the all expense of making one?

Humans have billions of neurons. Insects have thousands. The order of complexity difference between human brains (or chimp/dolphin/elephant or... even dare i say goldfish) and insect brains is staggering.

You already know programs can react to stimuli. That obviously does not make them consious. Imagine a machine with some heat sensors. Program it to move away from heat, and move faster the hotter it got. Now, what happens in a fire? A machine that frantically tries to escape the heat - seemingly in pain. But we know its just obeying a program and is not really in pain. It does not need to be in pain to work and survive. This is how a bacteria behaves to stimuli. It is only your preconceived notion that life is somehow different 'in kind' from a machine that makes you think life has inherant special qualities.

And the 'noble savage' idea is entirely fanciful in the light of current knowledge about the almost universal destructive impact they had on their environment. They actually displayed no great wisdom and knowledge and only seem kinder to nature due to the more primative technology at their disposal. They sure knew how to use it though (fire, spears, deforestation). The colonisation of their respective land masses by australian aboriginals and native american people led to a catastrophic mass extinctions of the megaforna found there. The same applies to islands such as hawaii and new zealand. The 'native' people killed off most of the exciting endemic wildlife well before white people arrived. Thousands of mammals and birds were wiped out by these so called 'guardians of nature' wherever they went. The idea that native peoples are the guardians of some great wisdom and knowledge is a total myth i'm afraid. They are just like us.

And i'm also sorry to inform you there is no 'life force'. Shouldn't need to explain why in the light of current knowledge but i will anyway.

Science knows virtually everything about a few study organisms such as white mice and fruit flies. There is one little lab worm that has been deconstructed to its very core. Every part of its dna has been mapped. We know how these worms work, where every part of its dna does, where cell goes, all the chemicals in its cellular activity known. They work entirely mechanistically. There is no 'ghost in the machine', unknown entity, spirit, or life force or the requirment for one. The worm is but a complex, if understandable cause and effect outcome of biochemistry. Sorry, but 'life force' has left the building. It is a dead parrot. It is not 'asleep' or pining for the fiords!

This is a fact. If you want to try and shoehorn cutting edge 19th century conjecture into 21st century knowlege thats fine. But its just woo mongering bullshit. :angry:


----------



## Christian (Sep 20, 2008)

The two latter posts were interesting. Although I am aware of the mechanistical nature of life, I doubt that life can be cored entirely to a simple interaction of molecules. As often, the truth may lay somewhere inbetween.

The size of the brain (= the amount of neurons) isn't the only factor determining intelligence, self-conciousness or whatever.

Humans, or "higher" mammals in general, have larger brains that they require. Some regard it as a form of preadaptation. Insects, and even that boring _Caenorhabditis elegans_ nematode require less neurons to be able to compute astonishing amounts of information leading to an likewise astonishing diversity of outputs. Polypes have sensory and computational abilities (even if just minor ones) without a nervous system. I just wanted to say that is premature to restrict life to biochemical processes alone. I am also a scientist and, as every scientist, searching for elegant (and possibly simple) answers in a complex world. However, the difference between gene-regulated processes in the lab and in a living organism is undenyable and perplexing. As a ecologist, I am often amused about the output the "lab fraction" often yealds, being oh so proud of the stuff discovered. If it only would apply to complete organisms or environments...  

Anyway, as long as no human has succeeded in creating a functioning, reproducing multicellular organism de novo (not by just exchanging some genes) I would be cautious reducing life simply to the sum of its parts.

Regarding the "mantis-eats-verts" stuff, it was never the point that mantids do this in nature, too. I witnessed it two times by myself in the tropics. The question is whether 1. we as humans should do this to any vert, and 2. what the consequences for the hobby may be. Both questions were answered exhaustively. Some just don't seem to care, though.


----------



## nympho (Sep 20, 2008)

I realise that the output from a certain level of complexity can often 'seem' greater than what would be expected, but the question that then raises is how is that output level to complexity ratio quantified. For example, how can it be proven that mozarts brain was under or over complex for the works of mozart, or in your example the worms behaviour was out of proportion to its simplicity.

You'd have to find another worm, with exactly the same complexity (it would probably have a different physical arrangment so making it hard to quantify) and note whether its behaviour was more sophisticated than the other (again how do you quantify this).

What im trying to say is how do we calculate output level and complexity match up and remove subjectivity. Is there an equation for this. The fact that you are suggesting there are other (unknown) factors at play actually negates us knowing enough to create an equation to prove that the ratio isnt correct. Its self refuting and becomes conjecture.

You say human brains are larger than they require as a form of 'preadaptation'. Apart from not being able to prove they are too large (i mean compared to what -there is only one species of human, and your 'unknown aspects' making it impossible to assess they are anyway), i'm not sure what you mean by preadaptation. Are you suggesting natural selection has precognition. Natural selection can logically only work by the selection of ancestors. Therefore the brains of animals become adapted to their past environment, not the future. But complexity will march in step with behaviour as a necessity as changes in one reflect the other as they are essentially two sides of the same coin.

Of course, no objective test can really determine whether complexity matches output. The harsh accountant mother nature constantly whittles life and will assure that in the worm and the human, the brain size matches the basic requirment of that species in terms of its behaviour. Thats not to say there isnt variation, some humans probably dont use their brain to its ability, although its a moot point as its not exactly a real choice to use it or not, there not being true free will n all. But thats another issue.  

Another thought - im not suggesting patterns from simplicity cant end up totally unexpected and pretty complex. Randomness can play an important part too. for example beautiful and complex fractals out of the simple formula they come from. But it still has a material explanation regardless and doesnt require anything else (not withstanding there not being anything else than the material if you take it to the reductionist conclusion). Did you mean randomness when suggesting the worms behaviour was not consistent with its complexity? There could be random patterns built in, like simple computer games.

"The question is whether 1. we as humans should do this to any vert, "

the above sounds a little contradictory (in showing favoritism to vertibrates specifically) as you are earlier suggested to some degree invertibrates have a capacity somewhat greater than their structure implies. If you think so, shouldnt ethical treatment embrace both?


----------



## Christian (Sep 20, 2008)

> "The question is whether 1. we as humans should do this to any vert, "the above sounds a little contradictory (in showing favoritism to vertibrates specifically) as you are earlier suggested to some degree invertibrates have a capacity somewhat greater than their structure implies. If you think so, shouldnt ethical treatment embrace both?


These were two different arguments. Arguing that life may be more than the sum of its parts (I said no more than this) doesn't imply that insects aren't a subject of ethical concern. It is just that we know more about verts and this should be sufficient to not cause any unnecessary pain to other verts - particularly as they are not usual diet for mantids and any natural occurrence has still to be regarded as rare. We can only badly assess what "pain" means for an insect. I do not argue that they can't feel pain - we simply don't know it. But as usual part of mantid diets I have to accept that they are eaten this way. If not, I couldn't keep mantids. The difference is that as a human, one shouldn't do similar things to insects either, as it simply is not necessary.



> i'm not sure what you mean by preadaptation. Are you suggesting natural selection has precognition. Natural selection can logically only work by the selection of ancestors. Therefore the brains of animals become adapted to their past environment, not the future. But complexity will march in step with behaviour as a necessity as changes in one reflect the other as they are essentially two sides of the same coin.


Of course selection has no precognition. Preadaptation simply means a trait that evolved as a consequence of some other trait without having an immediate evolutive value. It can become important though if evolution takes another direction. I won't go into human evolution here, as this is too exhaustive. One point should be sufficient in this regard: we (say _H. sapiens_) don't have the very largest human brains. Some population of _H. neanderthalensis_ had larger ones. Despite this, they were not able to deal with a changing environment as well as with the newly arriving _H. sapiens_. Nor did they (as far as it is known) have any kind of art. Thus, brain size isn't in every single case a good indicator of intelligence or evolutive success. Of course noone would compare a human with a fish brain.



> You'd have to find another worm, with exactly the same complexity (it would probably have a different physical arrangment so making it hard to quantify) and note whether its behaviour was more sophisticated than the other (again how do you quantify this).


No, I don't have to. It is of no importance if a nematode is sophisticated or not. I just pointed out that as an organism, it exhibits traits that are not exhibited by simple organs or organelles of it under lab conditions. Maybe we will some day find out every single aspects of life. However, knowing all the stuff doesn't mean we can reproduce it de novo. As long as we don't succeed in creating life de novo we should be careful with generalizations. And by no means should we imply that we can define life. We can't (yet). We can just define partial aspects of it.

This is what I wanted to say. I never talked about stuff like auras or spirit or a universal conciousness or something. This stuff is for philosphs.


----------



## rayg (Sep 21, 2008)

> An invalid assumption/starting point will just lead to more problems. You would have to argue for consiousness in bacteria and pre bacteria. A Self aware virus? What about the building blocks of life like proteins, carbohydrates or DNA? I don't think so. Put non consious chemical machines together into a slightly more complex machine and i dont see why consiousness need spring into being automatically at that level.


I am arguing that bacteria and archea have some level of consciousness. They reproduce, exchange genetic material among individuals, compete for resources, and protect themselves when environmental conditions are not favorable. I never said they were self aware. Self awareness is something different from consciousness. I’m was not using the words interchangeably in my earlier post. I don’t claim to have some rock solid explaination that will change your beliefs. Viruses and prions are strange things, but they don’t actually carry on any biochemical processes on their own, if you need my hypothetical line in the sand.



> You already know programs can react to stimuli. That obviously does not make them consious. Imagine a machine with some heat sensors. Program it to move away from heat, and move faster the hotter it got. Now, what happens in a fire? A machine that frantically tries to escape the heat - seemingly in pain. But we know its just obeying a program and is not really in pain. It does not need to be in pain to work and survive. This is how a bacteria behaves to stimuli. It is only your preconceived notion that life is somehow different 'in kind' from a machine that makes you think life has inherant special qualities.


Machines can be programmed to do all kinds of seemingly intelligent things, but they cannot program themselves; at least not yet, and even then we would still have to program them to do that. That’s the point, there has to be input from somewhere outside the system. You can’t just take C, O, H, P, and N and shake them together and have DNA. Even bacteria is something more than just some sort of perpetual motion machine. It is keeping itself alive against the universal law of entropy.



> And the 'noble savage' idea is entirely fanciful in the light of current knowledge about the almost universal destructive impact they had on their environment. They actually displayed no great wisdom and knowledge and only seem kinder to nature due to the more primative technology at their disposal. They sure knew how to use it though (fire, spears, deforestation). The colonisation of their respective land masses by australian aboriginals and native american people led to a catastrophic mass extinctions of the megaforna found there. The same applies to islands such as hawaii and new zealand. The 'native' people killed off most of the exciting endemic wildlife well before white people arrived. Thousands of mammals and birds were wiped out by these so called 'guardians of nature' wherever they went. The idea that native peoples are the guardians of some great wisdom and knowledge is a total myth i'm afraid. They are just like us.


I did say they we are the same. I really have no idea what you mean about the catastrophic and universal destruction they had on the environment. It would be cool to see wooly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers, but compared to the rate of extinction now? When the Europeans came to North America they did not find a charred landscape littered by carcasses with spears and arrows sticking out of them, they found a land of “inexhaustible” resources. I agree that the limitations of stone age technology prevented massive exploitation, but if that was their cultural aim they certainly could have developed more efficient ways to subdue the environment and one another like the more ‘civilized’ cultures did. Perhaps you could point me to some of the sources for your information.



> And i'm also sorry to inform you there is no 'life force'. Shouldn't need to explain why in the light of current knowledge but i will anyway.Science knows virtually everything about a few study organisms such as white mice and fruit flies. There is one little lab worm that has been deconstructed to its very core. Every part of its dna has been mapped. We know how these worms work, where every part of its dna does, where cell goes, all the chemicals in its cellular activity known. They work entirely mechanistically. There is no 'ghost in the machine', unknown entity, spirit, or life force or the requirment for one. The worm is but a complex, if understandable cause and effect outcome of biochemistry. Sorry, but 'life force' has left the building. It is a dead parrot. It is not 'asleep' or pining for the fiords!


We have mapped the human genome as well. So there it is, we know everything now? Having a map of a worm’s genome it not adequate proof against a life force, it really doesn’t have anything to do with it. We still can’t put it all together and have it start up. Something still has to put gas in the tank. From my point of view parsimony is in my corner; you have demonstrable facts, but in the end it is just a stack of papers on a desk. Neither of us can prove anything, but I’m not really trying to either, and I’m not just talking out of my @$$. Science never proves anything beyond a doubt, that is the nature of scientific rigor. If you stand six inches infront of Monet’s Waterlilies and study that spot of blue inexhaustibly, what have you learned about the picture?

I’m still learnig and I hope I never get to a point where I feel there is no more mystery. Don't believe everything you read or science can become bad religion too.


----------



## Christian (Sep 21, 2008)

rayg said:


> I did say they we are the same. I really have no idea what you mean about the catastrophic and universal destruction they had on the environment. It would be cool to see wooly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers, but compared to the rate of extinction now? When the Europeans came to North America they did not find a charred landscape littered by carcasses with spears and arrows sticking out of them, they found a land of “inexhaustible” resources. I agree that the limitations of stone age technology prevented massive exploitation, but if that was their cultural aim they certainly could have developed more efficient ways to subdue the environment and one another like the more ‘civilized’ cultures did. Perhaps you could point me to some of the sources for your information.


Im also against that noble savage myth. Humans caused mass extinctions in almost every continent they arrived except Africa. There is a theory that Africa retained most of its megafauna because it co-evolved with man and was able to deal with those strange bipedals using weapons. Most other megafauna vanished after humans did their first step on the respective island or continent. They overexploited most meat sources until the larger species went extinct. The ones that left were able to deal better with hunting or fire. The reason that savage cultures seem to live in harmony with their landscape is not because the willingly wanted it but because they have to (after having brought to an end the easier way of life). At the arrival of Europeans most natural landscapes except boreal and innertropical ones only carried those species that survived earlier human settlement. Man was and still is a catastrophe for biodiversity on this planet.


----------



## nympho (Sep 21, 2008)

Christian said:


> These were two different arguments. Arguing that life may be more than the sum of its parts (I said no more than this) doesn't imply that insects aren't a subject of ethical concern. It is just that we know more about verts and this should be sufficient to not cause any unnecessary pain to other verts - particularly as they are not usual diet for mantids and any natural occurrence has still to be regarded as rare. We can only badly assess what "pain" means for an insect. I do not argue that they can't feel pain - we simply don't know it. But as usual part of mantid diets I have to accept that they are eaten this way. If not, I couldn't keep mantids. The difference is that as a human, one shouldn't do similar things to insects either, as it simply is not necessary.


I think we more or less agree christian. its just wording and im more of a ruthless materialist in my outlook than you, at least in the way i word things. We have to be careful if people of a woo persuasion are not to jump to the wrong conclusion. Anyway, semantically nothing can be more than the sum of its parts, by shear definition. Something is always only the sum of its parts. I think we are just arguing semantics here because I obviously agree effects generated the sum of the parts can be impressive and be more impressive than the machine that generates it, if thats what you mean by 'more than'. Its still the 'sum of its parts' overall. Where we differ is you favour certain complexity being probably able to generate effects out of proportion to its inherent possibilities, as a more likely scenario than the more prosaic expectation of it being totally in accordance with it. but dont worry about it, im probably misreading you.



Christian said:


> Of course selection has no precognition. Preadaptation simply means a trait that evolved as a consequence of some other trait without having an immediate evolutive value. It can become important though if evolution takes another direction. I won't go into human evolution here, as this is too exhaustive. One point should be sufficient in this regard: we (say _H. sapiens_) don't have the very largest human brains. Some population of _H. neanderthalensis_ had larger ones. Despite this, they were not able to deal with a changing environment as well as with the newly arriving _H. sapiens_. Nor did they (as far as it is known) have any kind of art. Thus, brain size isn't in every single case a good indicator of intelligence or evolutive success. Of course noone would compare a human with a fish brain.


ok cool, i understand. i forgot what preadaptation meant.

i did read somewhere that some human have smaller but more efficient brains than bigger brained people too. and are more intelligent. Size does not nesessarily equate with complexity. In other words, neanderthaths may have been more inefficiently structured brains which meant they had to be bigger.



Christian said:


> No, I don't have to. It is of no importance if a nematode is sophisticated or not. I just pointed out that as an organism, it exhibits traits that are not exhibited by simple organs or organelles of it under lab conditions. Maybe we will some day find out every single aspects of life. However, knowing all the stuff doesn't mean we can reproduce it de novo. As long as we don't succeed in creating life de novo we should be careful with generalizations. And by no means should we imply that we can define life. We can't (yet). We can just define partial aspects of it. This is what I wanted to say. I never talked about stuff like auras or spirit or a universal conciousness or something. This stuff is for philosphs.


ok, we cant define all life everywhere in the universe, but we can now describe cellular activity on earth to an acceptable level of accuracy, as much as its feasable to do so. i was just saying they know just about everything about that worm within bounds of acceptability of making judgments about its capabilities and i disagree we have to make one from scratch to do this. Observations are sufficient. im not saying it wont suprise us with many new discoveries, but so far its known abilities are totally in order with what would be expected from its known complexity. You seemed to be saying they it did things out of proportion to its complexity which couldnt be accounted for. I'm saying everything is accounted for.

what are the 'undefined' aspects of life that science need to look for. is there any evidence there ARE any undefined aspects left. surely science starts with observations and then comes up with theories, not make theories without an observation. please, let there be a problem first before you jump to the conclusion theres any huge issues left unresolved.


----------



## rayg (Sep 21, 2008)

I agree with you both that Homo sapiens is and always has been a ruthless and self aware top predator, and I am certainly not trying to imply that primitive cultures held some kind of special or secret knowledge that made them inherently better than modern man. I will not defend the notion of the noble savage. I feel the whole concept is romanticized racism.

There is a considerable expanse of time between the wave of extinctions that followed the end of the last ice age and the North American Indian cultures that existed here in the last millennium, and to equate their culture and society with one that existed ten thousand years prior is not a fair assessment. I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization such as “most aboriginal cultures”, but the native people of North America did not pillage at the maximum level their technology would allow. They only took what they needed. That was a fundamental part of their belief systems. Perhaps those beliefs developed because they saw food disappearing, but those were core beliefs. Even after horses and guns came to the continent they did not go on a massive killing spree. It was the white man who shot the passenger pigeons out the sky and packed them into barrels by the millions and shot bison from trains to let them rot in the prairie so the Indians would starve in the winter. The Native Americans existed within their ecosystem, as a part of it, and they were aware of that relationship. I am not trying to glorify their lives, but I am holding them up as an example of a people that found a balance within the environment. That is what we were missing then and now. It is only now with impending catastrophic climate change that modern society as a whole is being forced to come to terms of what is means to exist in balance and not in excess. But now I’m preaching to the choir.

As far as the charges of woo mongering are concerned, if you send me a credit card # I can give you a psychic reading, but I'm not always right.


----------



## Christian (Sep 22, 2008)

rayg said:


> I agree with you both that Homo sapiens is and always has been a ruthless and self aware top predator, and I am certainly not trying to imply that primitive cultures held some kind of special or secret knowledge that made them inherently better than modern man. I will not defend the notion of the noble savage. I feel the whole concept is romanticized racism. There is a considerable expanse of time between the wave of extinctions that followed the end of the last ice age and the North American Indian cultures that existed here in the last millennium, and to equate their culture and society with one that existed ten thousand years prior is not a fair assessment. I was wrong to make a sweeping generalization such as “most aboriginal cultures”, but the native people of North America did not pillage at the maximum level their technology would allow. They only took what they needed. That was a fundamental part of their belief systems. Perhaps those beliefs developed because they saw food disappearing, but those were core beliefs. Even after horses and guns came to the continent they did not go on a massive killing spree. It was the white man who shot the passenger pigeons out the sky and packed them into barrels by the millions and shot bison from trains to let them rot in the prairie so the Indians would starve in the winter. The Native Americans existed within their ecosystem, as a part of it, and they were aware of that relationship. I am not trying to glorify their lives, but I am holding them up as an example of a people that found a balance within the environment. That is what we were missing then and now. It is only now with impending catastrophic climate change that modern society as a whole is being forced to come to terms of what is means to exist in balance and not in excess. But now I’m preaching to the choir.
> 
> As far as the charges of woo mongering are concerned, if you send me a credit card # I can give you a psychic reading, but I'm not always right.


Directly before the arrival of so called "civilized" Europeans, most aboriginal cultures had learned to use nature carefully. But this is not due to ethical beliefs, but a relic from past failures, the consequences of which were so severe that they became part of their mythology. There are a lot of good examples of how humans ravaged native environments after settlement. Most animals survived several Ice and Warm Ages, but died after the onset of the last warm phase. This is not consistent with usual evolutive processes. In N-America, Australia, New Zealand and Polynesia there is good fossil and subfossil evidence of the rather drastic decline of native fauna directly after human impact. Some taxa persist longer, other only a short time, nevertheless in the longterm humans caused their extinction.

By the way, most people have a wrong impression on how taxa get extinct. It was certainly not that a blood-thirsty bunch of prehistoric hunters encyrcled the last frightened family of, say, giant sloths, and killed them alltogether. Extinction works at population level, and hunting is only a part of the reasons. Human settlement alone makes a region unfavorable for most megafaunal species, thus diminishing their territories, interrupting travelling routes or destroying food sources. Fire was the worst novel "technology" humans used for hunting or clearing landscapes, and there is evidence that more than half of the plants of large geographical (even tropical) areas died out after charcoal was found in (sub)fossil layers.

All these factors, including direct hunting, caused a substantial population decline, mostly easened by low reproductive abilities, to a level at which the remaining population was sensitive to stochastic extinction factors. Most large animals vanished quietly, and people were aware of it only after a certain time following the last encounter.


----------



## MantidLord (Sep 27, 2008)

Christian said:


> You still haven't understood anything. Considering the stuff written above you don't deserve any creature as pet.


Look. I respect you alot Christian, and I know you have overwhelming knowledgde of not just mantids, but other arthropods as well. But I'm not going to stand by and allow you to say things like I don't deserve any creature as a pet. I understand alot, and realize what you guys are saying. If someone buys a feeder fish and intends to feed it to their mantis, what sense does it make to kill it first? It's there money, and their fish. If the fish's fate is death, then it should come at whatever way possible. i'm not saying torture it, but if it is fed upon just like a FEEDER FISH, then it is fed upon, period. If I want to voice my oppinion, I don't think its right for you or anyone else to undermine it. No matter how much you may know about mantids. People are going to do whatever they want to their mantids, and yelling at them won't make a difference. The point is not to put the sh#t on the web, which ruins all mantid hobbiest's credibility. So stop arguing with each other about stuff that we all agree on, and go tell the idiots posting garbage like this on the web. :angry:


----------



## Birdfly (Sep 27, 2008)

Mantidlord, everybody has opinions and the right to express them. If you put your opinion to the world the world will read it and voice there opinion back, thats how it works.  

Back to feeding fish or any other vertibrate to mantids, my question is this, why is it so appealing to feed a live fish to a mantis ? whats the appeal, it cant be the eating of it as people would happily feed dead fish sooo it must be, imo, that people like to watch them killing some thing, slowly, a kind of torture if you will, to me thats wrong especially when insects (a much better and totally natural food) will give the same results, a full mantis.

The other thing, as you put it was seeing this sort of stuff on the net and ruining "mantid keepers credability" well my friend it could lead to a lot worse than that, it could lead to ruining mantid/exotic pet keeping full stop.

I know we have spoken about insects/fish/other vertibrates feeling pain/discomfort etc and all the different levels of it etc, and discussed if its wrong to feed a live fish its wrong to feed a live insect, ok thats a fair point, in this country its not illegal to feed live verts to other animals but it is to put them through unnessasary suffering (which is what is happening when a live vertibrate or invert is fed to a mantis) but most people, the people that count any way, couldnt give a stuff about a bug getting chomped or its wings pulled off or tortured in any way but they do about seeing a mouse eaten alive or a fish or what ever and eventually they will react, they will get petitions together, they will campaign to relavent governments to put a stop to "these cruel people who feed lovely cute animals to horrible ugly invertibrate monsters" and our hobbie could well be put into great jeopardy!!

This is why some of us have made our opinions, not to insult or ridicule other members but to get the point across so its understood what it could lead too


----------



## Christian (Sep 27, 2008)

That post was from the 11th.

Wow, that's what I call a quick answer... :lol:


----------



## mr nick (Oct 5, 2008)

Rick said:


> I agree with most of what you say however fish are sold as feeders and most are not killed prior to being fed to herps or another fish.


There is absolutely no point in feeding live 'feeder' fish to reptiles/amphibians,not only is it cruel but the chances of passing disease are high as they are when you feed them to large species of fish such as Cichlids,which will always succumb to a diet of 'frozen' fish such as whitebaits,spratts etc with time and patience.Although their stomach/digestive acids are strong,it is not worth the risk to your 'pet' for the sake of a live meal..It is an absolute mistruth to suggest that these animals have to be fed on live food,as is also the case with snakes. Snakes will always feed on a diet of frozen rodents defrosted at the correct (feeding) temperature,turtles will always accomodate whitebaits and prawns (shells on) and if need be,defrosted pinkie mice.

There's tons of videos on youtube showing the feeding of live mice to spiders,centipedes,frogs and other 'aggressive' feeding animals,all are absolutely unecessary and like Rob says,fuel for the anti's.


----------



## Rick (Oct 5, 2008)

Mr Nick said:


> There is absolutely no point in feeding live 'feeder' fish to reptiles/amphibians,not only is it cruel but the chances of passing disease are high as they are when you feed them to large species of fish such as Cichlids,which will always succumb to a diet of 'frozen' fish such as whitebaits,spratts etc with time and patience.Although their stomach/digestive acids are strong,it is not worth the risk to your 'pet' for the sake of a live meal..It is an absolute mistruth to suggest that these animals have to be fed on live food,as is also the case with snakes. Snakes will always feed on a diet of frozen rodents defrosted at the correct (feeding) temperature,turtles will always accomodate whitebaits and prawns (shells on) and if need be,defrosted pinkie mice.There's tons of videos on youtube showing the feeding of live mice to spiders,centipedes,frogs and other 'aggressive' feeding animals,all are absolutely unecessary and like Rob says,fuel for the anti's.


Yes I know. I am not saying I do this personally but many people do. I was more trying to make the point that these fish are sold as FEEDER fish. I don't see too many getting in an uproar over that fact. Since you say there is no point in feeding live fish or mice to other animals why is it ok for us to feed live insects? One in the same to me.


----------



## mr nick (Oct 5, 2008)

Rick said:


> Yes I know. I am not saying I do this personally but many people do. I was more trying to make the point that these fish are sold as FEEDER fish. I don't see too many getting in an uproar over that fact. Since you say there is no point in feeding live fish or mice to other animals why is it ok for us to feed live insects? One in the same to me.


Ok,i see the point but as we all know,its damn near impossible to feed mantis 'dead' prey,however,it is entirely possilble to do this with fish,reptiles and amphibians..fish and frog species become addicted very easily to certain food-types in captivity and become very difficult to wean off them once hooked. I suppose then we do it because its easier for us to feed a diet we can keep in the freezer but will still offer correct nutrition (with suppliments) without having to go too far for it?


----------



## Morpheus uk (Oct 5, 2008)

Thats just wrong, why do you want to feed it a fish when a cricket will do unless your gone in the head?

Theres no point to this.

Im seeing too much of this,

USA keepers seem to only keep mantids to see whats the biggest thing they can tackle next for some retarded blood lust


----------



## Morpheus uk (Oct 5, 2008)

Ooops, doubly


----------



## Rob Byatt (Oct 6, 2008)

Rick said:


> Since you say there is no point in feeding live fish or mice to other animals why is it ok for us to feed live insects? One in the same to me.


Animal rights groups. I'm getting writers cramp with these three words  



Morpheus uk said:


> Im seeing too much of this,USA keepers seem to only keep mantids to see whats the biggest thing they can tackle next for some retarded blood lust


Well said mate.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 6, 2008)

Morpheus uk and Rob Byatt,

Let's not color all "USA Keepers" with the same brush. I am sure there are keepers on both sides of the pond that are into blood lust. All these misguided comments can do is lead to anger and hurt feelings.

S-


----------



## Morpheus uk (Oct 6, 2008)

No no, i now several USA keepers who are great keepers, but i dont know any keeper outside the USA who do this, which is what i was simply pointing out


----------



## Morpheus uk (Oct 6, 2008)

Oh yeah somthing ive put up on videos like that are

If i had a snake i would feed it feeder mice, albiet pre killed, this is their natural food after all, but if had a mantis, which i do, id feed it other insects which is what its natural food is.


----------



## sidewinder (Oct 7, 2008)

Morpheus uk,

You wrote:

"USA keepers seem to only keep mantids to see whats the biggest thing they can tackle next for some retarded blood lust"

That statement is not "simply pointing out" that you "dont (sic) know any keeper outside the USA who do this".

That statement generalizes the entire US mantid keeping population. I can guarantee that there are keepers outside the US that do as many bad things with mantids as those inside the US. So don't play the "we are better than the USA" card...

S-

P.S. Some constrictor snakes will not take dead food. So feeding live food is the only option.


----------



## Morpheus uk (Oct 7, 2008)

Woops i phrased something wrong  but then i corrected it &lt;_&lt; 

There may be people who do the same thing outside the USA, i just havent heard of anyone, and im not playing "we are better than the USA" card, i save that card for online gaming


----------



## idolomantis (Oct 7, 2008)

Morpheus uk said:


> Woops i phrased something wrong  but then i corrected it &lt;_&lt; There may be people who do the same thing outside the USA, i just havent heard of anyone, and im not playing "we are better than the USA" card, i save that card for online gaming


Ever heard of japanese?


----------

