Every Year, A Penguin Swims Thousands Of Miles To Visit A Man Who Saved Him

[haidut]

I would argue this not an example of intelligence, but of instinct. Penguins already migrate long distances each year for mating, as many birds do. This penguin developed a familial bond with the gentleman due to the extended period of time he was being cared for, thus his innate migration shifted to his new "home". This is actually observable in zoology, as birds caught in the wild and brought long distances into captivity, after remaining in captivity long enough to integrate the new place as a home, will not migrate back to the original home in the wild.

This story, while interesting and sweet, does not demonstrate an intelligence previously unknown to penguins.

The example with birds is probably not the best one as it demonstrates domestication. This penguin went back into the wild and swims back to this man every year. You can argue that it is instinct, but we don't know if the penguin did not find another family among the penguins down at the tip of South America. For all we know, this penguin breeds every year and most likely has a "real" penguin family. Yet it still comes back, every year, to hang out with a creature it undoubtedly knows is NOT his kin. It does not look like him, does not smell like him, does not move like him, feed like him, his companions do not look like penguins, etc.
Unless they GPS tag this penguin and it turns out he is a loner rejected by his penguin peers (and thus without penguin family) travelling solely because the man is his only family, then I would not jump to conclusions. Just think about it, if the penguin was indeed without family and the man is his only family why would it go back to Patagonia every year? Clearly something is drawing him to other penguins too. Just because something is likely/logical, does not mean it is the case. The evidence so far is that the penguin has found other penguins and hangs out with them for 7 months of the year and swims back to meet this man and spend 4 months with him.
Now, find me a human that has ever done a similar feat for his/her (non-human) friend

 

[tankasnowgod]

I have mixed feelings about this story. If animals are indeed more like humans and are intelligent, then how ethical is it to consume animal flesh? If chickens, cows, pigs, and fish are just dumb animals then it doesn't matter if we eat them. Sorry, this is a bit off topic but I have this on my mind lately. How do you all view this topic if it's ethical to eat other living intelligent creatures?

A couple thoughts on this.... first, animals do indeed eat other animals. Birds will eat worms or fish (the penguin in the story got fed sardines, for example), fish eat other sea creatures, and pigs are also omnivores. And as haidut has brought up on this forum before, plants as well may have conscious or intelligence as well-

Plants Can Be Anesthetized, May Have Electronic Consciousness Like Humans
Plants Recognize Their Own Relatives And Are Kind And Altruistic To Them

Plants don't necessarily want to be eaten, either, and have developed a whole host of toxins to punish animals that do. Some plants are even carnivorous (the Venus Fly Trap and others will eat insects).

On the flip side, when we pass, we will likely end up as food for some other creature. Maybe a gator, lion, or other huge predator, but most likely, as food for worms and bacteria or other microbial species.

The only things that I see from nature that are purely intended to be food are milk and honey, although I think there are some arguments for fruit being in that category as well.

 

[haidut]

The only things that I see from nature that are purely intended to be food are milk and honey

I think eating eggs (if humanely sourced) does not hurt chickens either. It's just a pre-fetal formation, consisting of nutrients. But it does not amount to killing (probably).

 

[Vinero]

A couple thoughts on this.... first, animals do indeed eat other animals. Birds will eat worms or fish (the penguin in the story got fed sardines, for example), fish eat other sea creatures, and pigs are also omnivores. And as haidut has brought up on this forum before, plants as well may have conscious or intelligence as well-

Plants Can Be Anesthetized, May Have Electronic Consciousness Like Humans
Plants Recognize Their Own Relatives And Are Kind And Altruistic To Them

Plants don't necessarily want to be eaten, either, and have developed a whole host of toxins to punish animals that do. Some plants are even carnivorous (the Venus Fly Trap and others will eat insects).

On the flip side, when we pass, we will likely end up as food for some other creature. Maybe a gator, lion, or other huge predator, but most likely, as food for worms and bacteria or other microbial species.

The only things that I see from nature that are purely intended to be food are milk and honey, although I think there are some arguments for fruit being in that category as well.

Just because animals do something, doesn't mean humans should do so. Animals kill each other and are violent for example, that doesn't mean humans should. I agree milk, honey and fruit seem to be foods designed to be eaten.

 

[tara]

I like the penguin story. :)

For those who eat meat even occasionally, I think there is also an ethical case as well as the health benefits of collagen and organ meats for eating most of the animal , and not just the muscle meat.

Whether vegan, vegetarian or omnivorous, having food grow in ways that sustain and enrich the environment and ecosystem rather than deplete it seem like a good way to go, and all three modes can be done more or less extractively or more sustainably. Growing large areas of monoculture plants kills a lot of animals.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Just because animals do something, doesn't mean humans should do so. Animals kill each other and are violent for example, that doesn't mean humans should.

Oh, I absolutely agree. I brought it up because your first point was "If animals are indeed more like humans and are intelligent, then how ethical is it to consume animal flesh?"

 

[yerrag]

I can't help but see Dindim being fed live fish by Joao, and see the web of relationships and each species' role in it. There is a sense of order in one species enabling the survival of another. It matters less that one is eaten by another, as much as it contributes to establishing a balance. This balance includes the idea that lessening a prey's population ensures the maintenance of a population small enough to ensure robustness of that species. There is a sacrificial element as well, as one species serves its role to be fodder for another.

In cleaning my pond filter, I make sure I don't discard the snails, but find it better to take the extra effort to save it and feed it to my koi, instead of just flushing it to the drain. When I leave my cup on the table after drinking fruit juice, ants would come and feed off the liquid left, and I let them be. They're doing their role, and the least I can do is to not get in the way. Before I get the cup washed, I shoo off whatever ants are left.

Do they show gratitude? Yes they do. One day, up the attic, where there was a water leak going on for a year from rain slowly dripping into the marine plywood ceiling, when I lifted the fiberglass insulation, I saw ants feeding on termites. The ants were keeping the termites off my back, and my house!

I'm not so sure yet, but it seems to me if I made the ants feel like this is their home, they would treat it as their home, and defend it. My termite exterminator retired due to being worn out by the chemicals he was being exposed to, and I haven't found anyone to replace him. I'm thinking I didn't need to.

And one more thing- the red ants no longer bite me anymore.

 

[Runenight201]

Just because animals do something, doesn't mean humans should do so. Animals kill each other and are violent for example, that doesn't mean humans should. I agree milk, honey and fruit seem to be foods designed to be eaten.

Vegan ethics hinges on the assumption that we unnecessarily eat other animals, given that we can eat plants and sustain ourselves.

I believe we can sustain ourselves, but not have optimal health, and for many people’s cases, degeneration occurs without animal consumption.

In the case of the individual who experiences degeneration without consumption of animal flesh, they have a primary obligation to the maintenance of their own health when considering what foods must be eaten. For this individual, there is no alternative, either kill and eat another animal, or suffer physical degeneration. The morality gets thrown out every time in starvation scenarios, I think it’s fitting to extend similar dispossession of morals in the context of maintaining good health. It happens to be an unfortunate natural consequence, but it is seen all throughout nature, and we only second guess flesh consumption because of our success as top predator and the security from being prey for so long.

I’ll refrain from generalizing to humans at large, but as far as im concerned, and after extensive experimentation with different dietary protocols, I experience physical degeneration without the consumption of other animals, and so I do not feel bad at all for the animals I consume. I pay my respects, and would like to see a system where we can minimize their suffering, but I have no moral hang ups about their eventual death by our hands.

 

[Braveheart]

You are a good man, Mr. Giorgy...

 

[Vinero]

Vegan ethics hinges on the assumption that we unnecessarily eat other animals, given that we can eat plants and sustain ourselves.

I believe we can sustain ourselves, but not have optimal health, and for many people’s cases, degeneration occurs without animal consumption.

In the case of the individual who experiences degeneration without consumption of animal flesh, they have a primary obligation to the maintenance of their own health when considering what foods must be eaten. For this individual, there is no alternative, either kill and eat another animal, or suffer physical degeneration. The morality gets thrown out every time in starvation scenarios, I think it’s fitting to extend similar dispossession of morals in the context of maintaining good health. It happens to be an unfortunate natural consequence, but it is seen all throughout nature, and we only second guess flesh consumption because of our success as top predator and the security from being prey for so long.

I’ll refrain from generalizing to humans at large, but as far as im concerned, and after extensive experimentation with different dietary protocols, I experience physical degeneration without the consumption of other animals, and so I do not feel bad at all for the animals I consume. I pay my respects, and would like to see a system where we can minimize their suffering, but I have no moral hang ups about their eventual death by our hands.

That has been my experiene too. My health was in a bad place when trying veganism years ago. No doubt animal products are great for health. I still think meat is not neccesary in a Peat diet. You could be healthy eating cheese, milk, eggs, fruits and other carbs. Meat is way to high in phosphate, iron and inflammatory amino acids. There is no nutritional reason to eat meat if you can eat dairy or eggs.

 

[tara]

I was vegetarian for a few years. Thought Iif I didn't need to eat animals to be healthy, I could abstain. I idn't manage to be healthy that way, probably because I was trying to eat too much cheese etc, and it didn't agree with me personally. I think some people can do fine without meat, but I don't know if everyone can - or that everyone has access to the resources to get a good enough vegetarian diet to sustain themselves well.

 

[tankasnowgod]

That has been my experiene too. My health was in a bad place when trying veganism years ago. No doubt animal products are great for health. I still think meat is not neccesary in a Peat diet. You could be healthy eating cheese, milk, eggs, fruits and other carbs. Meat is way to high in phosphate, iron and inflammatory amino acids. There is no nutritional reason to eat meat if you can eat dairy or eggs.

Milk actually has quite high amounts of tryptophan, cysteine, and methionine. The Glycine to Methionine ratio in beef is far superior to milk, cheese or eggs- most cuts are 2:1 or 3:1 (including New York, Ribeye, Chuck, and ground beef). Milk is 1:1, I think eggs are close to that, and cheese is 1:2, although cheese is much lower in tryptophan and cysteine. Here, see for yourself, just scroll down to protein and load "More Details" Beef, rib, eye, small end (ribs 10-12), separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, choice, cooked, broiled [ribeye] Nutrition Facts & Calories

Everytime I look at the AA breakdown for any cut of beef, it always looks excellent.

 

[Vinero]

Milk actually has quite high amounts of tryptophan, cysteine, and methionine. The Glycine to Methionine ratio in beef is far superior to milk, cheese or eggs- most cuts are 2:1 or 3:1 (including New York, Ribeye, Chuck, and ground beef). Milk is 1:1, I think eggs are close to that, and cheese is 1:2, although cheese is much lower in tryptophan and cysteine. Here, see for yourself, just scroll down to protein and load "More Details" Beef, rib, eye, small end (ribs 10-12), separable lean and fat, trimmed to 0" fat, choice, cooked, broiled [ribeye] Nutrition Facts & Calories

Everytime I look at the AA breakdown for any cut of beef, it always looks excellent.

I agree the amino acid profile of beef is better as milk. But the high iron and phosphate slow your metabolism when eaten in large amounts. Milk actually boosts your metabolism because of the high calcium. I supplement with BCAA anyway to counter tryptophan and methionine.

 

[Steven Bussinger]

But at least its early steps were based on older studies from the 1960s showing negative health effects from consuming animals subjected to abuse, torture, and (obviously) toxic living conditions that ended up in the meat/milk/eggs.

Do you have those studies?

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

That has been my experiene too. My health was in a bad place when trying veganism years ago. No doubt animal products are great for health. I still think meat is not neccesary in a Peat diet. You could be healthy eating cheese, milk, eggs, fruits and other carbs. Meat is way to high in phosphate, iron and inflammatory amino acids. There is no nutritional reason to eat meat if you can eat dairy or eggs.

I also tried going vegan a few years ago, but didn't like either. What about creatine though? I read that the only good source was animal flesh.

https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2017/12/20/consuming-creatine-in-foods-and-supplements/

"Creatine is most abundant in red meat, pork, poultry, and fish. There is much less in dairy, eggs, and shellfish. Creatine is mostly in muscle meat; organ meats such as liver, heart, and kidney have very little."

Also, according to food databases, milk has far more phosphorus than muscle meats for the amount of protein that it contains. The ratio of phosphorus to calcium isn't good, so a calcium supplement is probably needed to keep a good proportion.

Regarding the iron, it may be a problem. @tankasnowgod has emphasized the role of iron fortication in diseases in other threads. I wonder what to make of it when it comes to red meat. If one eats a lot of it everyday, their iron comsumption is going to be higher. If this iron gets absorbed, it can cause problems( liver problems, insulin resistance, lipofuscin etc.). If it isn't absorbed( by using caffeine or calcium with the iron-containing meal), won't it stimulate bacterial growth in the intestines?

 

[lvysaur]

although I think there are some arguments for fruit being in that category as well.

The only food purposefully intended for consumption by others is fruit.

After that comes milk and honey (intended for consumption by offspring, but can be harvested without harm to offspring theoretically).

And after that eggs (any consumption of eggs hijacks the hen's reproductive potential completely).

 

[Broken man]

The thing is that the animals that are raised this way have one purpose, to be food for all the masses. Human gave them life, food and space to live without obstacles for obtaining it. The question about if its healthy or moral is another thing. I am writting this because even Hans Selye wrote that human is species that do things which should improve or make bigger chance of survival for next times. Its just a way how to have food everyday without much effort but its price is that its not healthy as wild animals. Its same like with people. My parents were born during communist era and I think I can compare them to animals raised on farm, their regime is about work, food, sleep and repeat. That is all.

 

[Amazoniac]

Thanks. Not sure if you can get in touch with this man but I think it would make for a very cool report for you to post on the forum

Zeus, what very few people know is that Africa and South Africa are not countries, but continents. You might actually be calculating the distance between Luanda in Angola and Angra dos Reis in Brazil. But this alone would require me to swim perhaps more than the penguin. And then we have to consider how much I'll have to walk to get to the coast.

Straight line is for the penguin.
The curve is my path.​

That's a pretty tough walk and swim. And also, how am I supposed to pass through the Congo without knowing french?

The thing is that the animals that are raised this way have one purpose, to be food for all the masses. Human gave them life, food and space to live without obstacles for obtaining it. The question about if its healthy or moral is another thing. I am writting this because even Hans Selye wrote that human is species that do things which should improve or make bigger chance of survival for next times. Its just a way how to have food everyday without much effort but its price is that its not healthy as wild animals. Its same like with people. My parents were born during communist era and I think I can compare them to animals raised on farm, their regime is about work, food, sleep and repeat. That is all.

Guru, I don't know if I understooded your post right, but if you's implying that humans gave those animals their lives therefore it's less of an issue to eat them, with this idea your parents gave you life, they can do whatever they want with it as long as there's no abuse. So if you were raised to be a conditioned worker similar to them, you also can't expect to be something else or responsibilize them; just like the animals that were born and raised for a purpose.

 

[Runenight201]

1)Is it possible to sustain all of humanity on grass-fed, open-air, happy until premature death livestock?

If yes, then strive for it

If no, then is it the fault of any one member of society who was born into the system, who has to propagate it simply because they are making the healthiest choice for their body? What about the very poor, who can not afford the more expensive less cruel meats, but have to take what they can get, who need the vitality and energy that flesh provides so that they can drive to overcome their situation? Are they at fault for propagating the system?

After all, we didn’t ask to be placed into the world we live in, perhaps participation in modern factory farming may have to be a necessary evil. If the world can’t be sustained with happy, grass fed, open-air livestock, then the only other options I see are lab grown meat or factory farming, perhaps with measures taken in place to ensure the animals receive better food, living conditions, air, light, etc...

 

[Broken man]

Guru, I don't know if I understooded your post right, but if you's implying that humans gave those animals their lives therefore it's less of an issue to eat them, with this idea your parents gave you life, they can do whatever they want with it as long as there's no abuse. So if you were raised to be a conditioned worker similar to them, you also can't expect to be something else or responsibilize them; just like the animals that were born and raised for a purpose.

No, I think that farmers gave them life, food, water, medications and some space which is secured against predators in exchange for their meat. So the animals dont need to find food, care about predators etc...I didnt wrote that it is not an issue, I think that its not moral but is it wrong? I dont know. Would you be happy that you have intelligent cow but you are starving? Also, nature is full of killing but its part of the system so the system is functioning. For example, dairy products are main particle in the food list of europeans, do you know why? Because cows can eat grass and we could store dry grass so we can feed them whole year and drink their milk, we cant eat fruit whole year like africans do, the amount of fruit growing here is limited and seasonal, the environment for fruit to grow is hard to create when winter is here so people found other way. Cows and other species have mechanisms for defense or for getting their goals like getting food. The difference between cow and human is that I believe the weapon of human is brain, to be more precise ingenuity or intelligence but for me, intelligence is the ability to adapt to environment. So I believe that cows could change their destiny through using horns, legs or tongue to escape but will it be enough against intelligence of farmers that will do everything to keep them locked? And if somebody gave them freedom, will cows be able to live in this ennvironment without antibiotics or warm space after so much time spended on farm? Its same like with people, will people be able to live without all the medication and electronics? I think that we are near a point when the people will be so degenerated that we will be unable to live without pharmaceutical corporations. And about my situation with my parents, thanks to my curiosity and experience, I am trying to escape from the life of factory worker but my 2 brothers are living the same life like my parents. What I want to say is that when person dont know or never experienced other way of living, there is high chance that he will be living same like his environment. I think experience is big player here. I hope that I wrote it grammarly right because its big amount of text for me.