Mantis eats goldfish, again

Mantidforum

Help Support Mantidforum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
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

 
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&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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 
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)

MVI_3637.gif


Download;

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:

quote name=volvagia2 I totally agree I'll do what's ever is necessary to feed a mantis especially if it's a balanced diet fish is good for everyone including for most animals high protein, especially if raw same with Sushi for people.
 
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?

 
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.

 
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)

 
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.

 
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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :rolleyes: 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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:

 
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.

 
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
Top