Can obligate carnivore ETs exist?

[Loren Pechtel]

(Note that I have David Weber's Out of the Dark series in mind, the relationship is not a coincidence but I have a different factor in mind.)

In nature there are many species that have boom & bust cycles that appear to be evolved as predator defense. The prey has a much shorter generation time than the predator, when their population crashes their predators starve and their population crashes. The prey species rebounds much faster and enjoys a period of limited predation before the predator species recovers, eats them and repeats the cycle.

What happens when the predator species becomes intelligent, though? They will be much better at hunting down the prey species. The cycles would become even more extreme. Long before they reach the point of understanding the need to restrict their population would not one of those cycles crash one of the populations below survival? (If the survivors are too few and far between they won't find each other to reproduce.)

 

[Keith&Co.]

Very long-lived, maybe?
I mean, long enough to personally witness a few boom-bust cycles and begin to understand that unrestricted consumption might be bad in the long run.

"Yes, Longtooth, this whole valley was once full of biglegs. Herds as big as the city. Odd, you never see big herds and big cities at the same..... Hey, wait a minute."

 

[skepticalbip]

Or, if they are an intelligent species, they may stumble on the idea of animal husbandry fairly early.

There couldn't be enough wild chickens to feed the human population but humans raising them for food has made the chicken one of the most evolutionarily successful species on the planet.

 

[Politesse]

(Note that I have David Weber's Out of the Dark series in mind, the relationship is not a coincidence but I have a different factor in mind.)

In nature there are many species that have boom & bust cycles that appear to be evolved as predator defense. The prey has a much shorter generation time than the predator, when their population crashes their predators starve and their population crashes. The prey species rebounds much faster and enjoys a period of limited predation before the predator species recovers, eats them and repeats the cycle.

What happens when the predator species becomes intelligent, though? They will be much better at hunting down the prey species. The cycles would become even more extreme. Long before they reach the point of understanding the need to restrict their population would not one of those cycles crash one of the populations below survival? (If the survivors are too few and far between they won't find each other to reproduce.)

One of my favorite science fiction novels, Mary Doria Russell's "The Sparrow", suggested a Queen's Gambit type situation in which two intelligent species, one obligate carnivorous and the other an herbivorous herd species, slowly adapted to each other over time, with the carnivores eventually becoming conscious of the necessity to maintain their prey herds more carefully.

 

[Jayjay]

The human species is omnivore. Not dependent on any single other animal, and able to survive with plants also. Maybe this is one reason that spurred the development of our brains, because we had to be able to adapt to different environments? Would a predatory species that has specific prey species ever need advanced intelligence? Maybe like wolves or orcas, they could be a social species.

 

[steve_bank]

If the cycle gets too extreme then one or the other o both fails.

Predator fails and prey suffers overpopulation.

As to ET if evolution is constant than anything is possible. Life fills available energy niches.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Very long-lived, maybe?
I mean, long enough to personally witness a few boom-bust cycles and begin to understand that unrestricted consumption might be bad in the long run.

"Yes, Longtooth, this whole valley was once full of biglegs. Herds as big as the city. Odd, you never see big herds and big cities at the same..... Hey, wait a minute."

I don't think they would reach the point of cities before things fell apart.

 

[Jarhyn]

Obligate carnivores can absolutely exist on earth, they can absolutely become intelligent given time and accident, and they can definitely achieve anything we can.

I would hazard to say though that in many cases saying what they are "carnivores" of is going to be a point of contention. If your specie's lifecycle is to shed spores that grow into mushrooms that you then eat, and if those mushrooms are also one part of the gametes they use to reproduce, say like an egg (maybe do the nasty on the mycelium, and it gestates a child?) Then you have a species that technically eats it's own species, as its own species eats dead and/or living plant matter, but is somehow in my mind not seeming carnivorous.

And that's not even getting into how they might attempt to redesign their own lifecycle.

The fact is, alien life is going to be ALIEN.

Eventually, human life will seem pretty alien to most humans on their first time through, if we don't all eradicate ourselves with some great filter.

 

[steve_bank]

Termites, bees, birds, Meerkats and others form 'cities'.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Long before they reach the point of understanding the need to restrict their population would not one of those cycles crash one of the populations below survival? (If the survivors are too few and far between they won't find each other to reproduce.)

Also, given those cycles, wouldn't something else (i.e., something not limited by those cycles) become intelligent first, then block their path?
I'd say very probably. But then, if the universe is infinite, it happens.

 

[bilby]

Obligate carnivores are observed to exist on Earth. There's absolutely zero reason to imagine that the Earth is in any way unique in its ability to support the existence of this set of evolutionary niches.

The OP question is as absurd as asking whether the Earth might be flat.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Obligate carnivores are observed to exist on Earth. There's absolutely zero reason to imagine that the Earth is in any way unique in its ability to support the existence of this set of evolutionary niches.

The OP question is as absurd as asking whether the Earth might be flat.

The question, as I understand it, is about obligate carnivores with at least human level of intelligence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obligate carnivores can absolutely exist on earth, they can absolutely become intelligent given time and accident, and they can definitely achieve anything we can.

I would hazard to say though that in many cases saying what they are "carnivores" of is going to be a point of contention. If your specie's lifecycle is to shed spores that grow into mushrooms that you then eat, and if those mushrooms are also one part of the gametes they use to reproduce, say like an egg (maybe do the nasty on the mycelium, and it gestates a child?) Then you have a species that technically eats it's own species, as its own species eats dead and/or living plant matter, but is somehow in my mind not seeming carnivorous.

And that's not even getting into how they might attempt to redesign their own lifecycle.

The fact is, alien life is going to be ALIEN.

Eventually, human life will seem pretty alien to most humans on their first time through, if we don't all eradicate ourselves with some great filter.

Obligate carnivores are observed to exist on Earth. There's absolutely zero reason to imagine that the Earth is in any way unique in its ability to support the existence of this set of evolutionary niches.

The OP question is as absurd as asking whether the Earth might be flat.

The question, as I understand it, is about obligate carnivores with at least human level of intelligence.

Someone finally gets it! Of course obligate carnivores exist--I used to have a cat, she certainly existed. They certainly could develop some degree of intelligence.

What I'm wondering is if a primitive intelligent obligate carnivore is inherently going to wipe itself out from being too effective at hunting during the end of the boom part of the cycle.

 

[skepticalbip]

The question, as I understand it, is about obligate carnivores with at least human level of intelligence.

Someone finally gets it! Of course obligate carnivores exist--I used to have a cat, she certainly existed. They certainly could develop some degree of intelligence.

What I'm wondering is if a primitive intelligent obligate carnivore is inherently going to wipe itself out from being too effective at hunting during the end of the boom part of the cycle.

Not if they are intelligent enough to hit on the idea that they can raise their food source instead of only hunting for it. You are talking about an intelligent species that is capable of planning future actions, right? At least I would include the ability of thinking of and planning future actions in the definition of intelligent.

 

[bilby]

The question, as I understand it, is about obligate carnivores with at least human level of intelligence.

Someone finally gets it! Of course obligate carnivores exist--I used to have a cat, she certainly existed. They certainly could develop some degree of intelligence.

What I'm wondering is if a primitive intelligent obligate carnivore is inherently going to wipe itself out from being too effective at hunting during the end of the boom part of the cycle.

No. That behaviour would require the absence of intelligence.

 

[fromderinside]

Well , is it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The question, as I understand it, is about obligate carnivores with at least human level of intelligence.

Someone finally gets it! Of course obligate carnivores exist--I used to have a cat, she certainly existed. They certainly could develop some degree of intelligence.

What I'm wondering is if a primitive intelligent obligate carnivore is inherently going to wipe itself out from being too effective at hunting during the end of the boom part of the cycle.

Not if they are intelligent enough to hit on the idea that they can raise their food source instead of only hunting for it. You are talking about an intelligent species that is capable of planning future actions, right? At least I would include the ability of thinking of and planning future actions in the definition of intelligent.

What I'm wondering is if they would live to reach that point.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not if they are intelligent enough to hit on the idea that they can raise their food source instead of only hunting for it. You are talking about an intelligent species that is capable of planning future actions, right? At least I would include the ability of thinking of and planning future actions in the definition of intelligent.

What I'm wondering is if they would live to reach that point.

Possibly we are imagining different levels of intelligence. Lions are intelligent enough to plan and execute hunting strategies but I was thinking of intelligence as being a bit more. Lions can go days without a successful hunt even during periods when their prey is plentiful. They go hungry until they do have a successful hunt.

Hunting (even today with high power rifles) quite often goes without success. I would think that an intelligent species would consider how they could eat during the days that their hunts were not successful. Humans were fortunate as they could eat vegetation so didn't have the pressure to find a reliable food source of meat for when their hunts failed. However, there were groups that did resort to raising goats, rabbits, or guinea pigs as food sources. Once a species had the idea of keeping live animals as a fallback plan, it should be quickly realized that the resource was much less dangerous and difficult than hunting. Intelligent species, to my way of thinking of intelligence, would be those species that can find novel solutions, even better, solutions that require less effort.

In effect, I would consider an intelligent species to be a species that at least had a fallback plan for nourishment for those days (even during the boom times for prey animals) when the hunt was unsuccessful. Lions just go hungry until a successful hunt since they have no backup plan.

 

[Jayjay]

Intelligence isn't an on/off switch. It evolves slowly. A species would have to go through quite a lot boom and bust cycles while going from dumb animals to human level intellect. So either they would evolve ways to compensate for increasingly harder crashes (due to increasing intelligence and hunting efficiency), or simply not become intelligent.

A predatory species that is smart enough to realize that it's causing periodic crashes, could also try to cull its own population to avoid it.

 

[Treedbear]

...
A predatory species that is smart enough to realize that it's causing periodic crashes, could also try to cull its own population to avoid it.

Or simply produce fewer prodigy. Intelligent lions wouldn't need to have large prides for a successful hunt they'd have more time to watch NatGeo.