Can obligate carnivore ETs exist?

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

What I'm picturing is late hunter gatherer (although an obligate carnivore isn't going to gather) stage. We saw what happened to humans then: We wiped out most all the megafauna, groups would hunt out the area they were in and have to move on. An obligate carnivore can't make up for a lack of hunting by gathering, you will reach a point the various bands hunt the area out. They have the intelligence to track down prey far better than an animal could, the cycle will be far more extreme. Humans killed off many species, will they kill everything big enough to be worth hunting?

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

What I'm picturing is late hunter gatherer (although an obligate carnivore isn't going to gather) stage. We saw what happened to humans then: We wiped out most all the megafauna, groups would hunt out the area they were in and have to move on. An obligate carnivore can't make up for a lack of hunting by gathering, you will reach a point the various bands hunt the area out. They have the intelligence to track down prey far better than an animal could, the cycle will be far more extreme. Humans killed off many species, will they kill everything big enough to be worth hunting?

I understood your scenario. What I think you don't understand is that even great hunters, even in times when game is plentiful, go days without a successful kill. Estimates I have read is that about 70% of hunts by lion prides are unsuccessful. I am proposing that, if they were what I would recognize as intelligent, the many days of hunger would make them consider those periods to be a problem. Intelligent species consider possibilities of how to solve what they see as problems. OTOH, you seem to assume that they would just continue like lion prides to stay with the feasting when they have a kill then just endure the hunger for days until they finally have another successful hunt. That doesn't sound like the kind of reasoning an intelligent species would use. Us humans didn't confront a problem that needed consideration of feast with a kill and famine between kills since we could supplement with vegetation with and between kills. If humans had experienced the problem carnivore alpha predators have then we may have become goat herders much earlier than we did.

There are many ways that an intelligent hunter could hit on the idea of raising live animals to solve the problem of feast and famine alpha predators experience in the real world... if they are intelligent.

 

[Treedbear]

...
What I'm picturing is late hunter gatherer (although an obligate carnivore isn't going to gather) stage. We saw what happened to humans then: We wiped out most all the megafauna, groups would hunt out the area they were in and have to move on. An obligate carnivore can't make up for a lack of hunting by gathering, you will reach a point the various bands hunt the area out. They have the intelligence to track down prey far better than an animal could, the cycle will be far more extreme. Humans killed off many species, will they kill everything big enough to be worth hunting?

Isn't animal husbandry the obvious next step? It's possible that in our own case it preceded raising crops. I would think that if we were intelligent enough to make weapons such as spears with flint tips and atlatls we could also herd goats and cattle. I doubt that species were wiped out by advances in hunting strategy alone. Technology played a big part. Also getting through lean times was necessary in most environments, so curing meat was a pretty basic skill early on. But you might be right that there could be a gap where intelligence isn't quite there yet.

On the other hand there are examples such as in the arctic where humans are pretty much obligate carnivores since nothing much in the way of flora grows there. Actually that might play an important role. When game is fairly abundant year round humans would prosper and multiply without control. But where the environment is harsher then nature has an advantage and is able to rebound. So maybe the ice age played an important role in that respect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

What I'm picturing is late hunter gatherer (although an obligate carnivore isn't going to gather) stage. We saw what happened to humans then: We wiped out most all the megafauna, groups would hunt out the area they were in and have to move on. An obligate carnivore can't make up for a lack of hunting by gathering, you will reach a point the various bands hunt the area out. They have the intelligence to track down prey far better than an animal could, the cycle will be far more extreme. Humans killed off many species, will they kill everything big enough to be worth hunting?

I understood your scenario. What I think you don't understand is that even great hunters, even in times when game is plentiful, go days without a successful kill. Estimates I have read is that about 70% of hunts by lion prides are unsuccessful. I am proposing that, if they were what I would recognize as intelligent, the many days of hunger would make them consider those periods to be a problem. Intelligent species consider possibilities of how to solve what they see as problems. OTOH, you seem to assume that they would just continue like lion prides to stay with the feasting when they have a kill then just endure the hunger for days until they finally have another successful hunt. That doesn't sound like the kind of reasoning an intelligent species would use. Us humans didn't confront a problem that needed consideration of feast with a kill and famine between kills since we could supplement with vegetation with and between kills. If humans had experienced the problem carnivore alpha predators have then we may have become goat herders much earlier than we did.

There are many ways that an intelligent hunter could hit on the idea of raising live animals to solve the problem of feast and famine alpha predators experience in the real world... if they are intelligent.

Isn't animal husbandry the obvious next step? It's possible that in our own case it preceded raising crops. I would think that if we were intelligent enough to make weapons such as spears with flint tips and atlatls we could also herd goats and cattle. I doubt that species were wiped out by advances in hunting strategy alone. Technology played a big part. Also getting through lean times was necessary in most environments, so curing meat was a pretty basic skill early on. But you might be right that there could be a gap where intelligence isn't quite there yet.

On the other hand there are examples such as in the arctic where humans are pretty much obligate carnivores since nothing much in the way of flora grows there. Actually that might play an important role. When game is fairly abundant year round humans would prosper and multiply without control. But where the environment is harsher then nature has an advantage and is able to rebound. So maybe the ice age played an important role in that respect.

You need both intelligence and a fairly large-scale government to manage the animals and until you have birth control what are you going to do about overpopulation?

 

[Treedbear]

...
You need both intelligence and a fairly large-scale government to manage the animals and until you have birth control what are you going to do about overpopulation?

How would the case for carnivores be different than for omnivores?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...
You need both intelligence and a fairly large-scale government to manage the animals and until you have birth control what are you going to do about overpopulation?

How would the case for carnivores be different than for omnivores?

Omnivores can survive on plants and it's a lot harder to drive plants to extinction.

 

[skepticalbip]

...
You need both intelligence and a fairly large-scale government to manage the animals and until you have birth control what are you going to do about overpopulation?

How would the case for carnivores be different than for omnivores?

Omnivores can survive on plants and it's a lot harder to drive plants to extinction.

Maybe I didn't understand your posed problem. I assumed you meant a planet with a very diverse biota (like Earth) with one of the many carnivore species being intelligent (I assumed you meant like early humans). Were you instead proposing a planet with only one predator species, one prey species, and plants?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Omnivores can survive on plants and it's a lot harder to drive plants to extinction.

Maybe I didn't understand your posed problem. I assumed you meant a planet with a very diverse biota (like Earth) with one of the many carnivore species being intelligent (I assumed you meant like early humans). Were you instead proposing a planet with only one predator species, one prey species, and plants?

Once they've eaten one prey species they'll switch to another so long as there is anything they can eat that's worth the energy it costs to get it.

 

[skepticalbip]

Omnivores can survive on plants and it's a lot harder to drive plants to extinction.

Maybe I didn't understand your posed problem. I assumed you meant a planet with a very diverse biota (like Earth) with one of the many carnivore species being intelligent (I assumed you meant like early humans). Were you instead proposing a planet with only one predator species, one prey species, and plants?

Once they've eaten one prey species they'll switch to another so long as there is anything they can eat that's worth the energy it costs to get it.

That is your premise but why do you conclude that an intelligent species would, like lions, continue to endure days of hunger between successful hunts rather than consider and find a reasonable solution to that problem? And why didn't your conclusion happen with humans since they likely took as much game as they could with their weapons, only didn't go hungry between successful hunts?

 

[skepticalbip]

Afterthought:
Following your reasoning, humans should have wiped out all prey animals in Africa since humans could survive quite well during the crash of prey animals making it impossible for the prey to rebound... this would have killed off all African carnivores too since they would have no prey animals left to hunt.

 

[bilby]

Afterthought:
Following your reasoning, humans should have wiped out all prey animals in Africa since humans could survive quite well during the crash of prey animals making it impossible for the prey to rebound... this would have killed off all African carnivores too since they would have no prey animals left to hunt.

Yeah, I can't see any justification whatsoever for even raising the OP question; To my mind, based on observations of both obligate carnivores on Earth and intelligent species on Earth, the answer is "Duh. Yes, obviously. Why couldn't they?" and I have yet to see any reasonable attempt to answer that. Why would intelligence - even limited intelligence - drive an obligate carnivore species to wipe out its only source of food? How does intelligence make any significant difference at all? Intelligent hunters have caused some extinctions, but they certainly haven't wiped out every last prey species, or even come close. And it's a certainty that there are more domesticated meat animals alive today than would have ever been around in the absence of domestication.

Is the OP seriously suggesting that intelligence would necessarily lead to sufficient hunting success as to cause all prey to become extinct, without (or before) developing to the point where domestication becomes an achievable strategy?

Domestication doesn't require much intelligence, just ask the ants that farm aphids.

 

[steve_bank]

Consider that to a life form on a distant planet we are the ETs.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Consider that to a life form on a distant planet we are the ETs.

My Engineer in a Star Trek Role Playing game, EVERY TIME we beamed down to the planet, i announced, "You realize, here WE are the aliens?"

I ended up permanently assigned to running the transporter panel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once they've eaten one prey species they'll switch to another so long as there is anything they can eat that's worth the energy it costs to get it.

That is your premise but why do you conclude that an intelligent species would, like lions, continue to endure days of hunger between successful hunts rather than consider and find a reasonable solution to that problem? And why didn't your conclusion happen with humans since they likely took as much game as they could with their weapons, only didn't go hungry between successful hunts?

Lions don't have the intelligence to take down everything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Afterthought:
Following your reasoning, humans should have wiped out all prey animals in Africa since humans could survive quite well during the crash of prey animals making it impossible for the prey to rebound... this would have killed off all African carnivores too since they would have no prey animals left to hunt.

Africa is a hotbed of diseases, more of a threat than the food supply.

 

[bilby]

Once they've eaten one prey species they'll switch to another so long as there is anything they can eat that's worth the energy it costs to get it.

That is your premise but why do you conclude that an intelligent species would, like lions, continue to endure days of hunger between successful hunts rather than consider and find a reasonable solution to that problem? And why didn't your conclusion happen with humans since they likely took as much game as they could with their weapons, only didn't go hungry between successful hunts?

Lions don't have the intelligence to take down everything.

Humans don't have the intelligence to take down everything.

Intelligence is a useful feature, but it's not magic, and doesn't endow it's users with omnipotence.

You might as well declare that cheetahs should eliminate their prey and go extinct, because nothing can outrun them. Or that eagles should eliminate their prey because flight confers a massive advantage over earthbound prey species.

Evolutionary strategies only need to be good enough. If you don't go hungry too often, then there's no real pressure to increase your level of predation; Population growth is slowed by starvation long before food is completely exhausted, in the vast majority of cases, with the notable exceptions being interesting precisely because they're exceptional.

 

[steve_bank]

Does intelligence equate to survival? I'd say yes.

Birds survive in the wild.

 

[skepticalbip]

Does intelligence equate to survival? I'd say yes.

Birds survive in the wild.

Flat worms and fungi survive. I would say that intelligence would have more to do with understanding cause and effect well enough to predict possible futures then plan and manipulate events to achieve the best outcome. The more that is understood, the longer links of understood causes and effects, and the more can be predicted, planned for. and controlled, the higher the intelligence. A critter that can only predict a cause and effect chain of one link would then be less intelligent than a critter that can predict a cause and effect chain five links long. OTOH, I wouldn't consider a critter that has no understanding that any particular event will have a given effect to have any intelligence.

But then that is just my measuring stick.

 

[skepticalbip]

Once they've eaten one prey species they'll switch to another so long as there is anything they can eat that's worth the energy it costs to get it.

That is your premise but why do you conclude that an intelligent species would, like lions, continue to endure days of hunger between successful hunts rather than consider and find a reasonable solution to that problem? And why didn't your conclusion happen with humans since they likely took as much game as they could with their weapons, only didn't go hungry between successful hunts?

Lions don't have the intelligence to take down everything.

Absolutely true. But it didn't address the question of why you concluded that an intelligent predator species would continue to think and act like lions that don't have the intelligence. We do have one real world example of how an intelligent predator species dealt with the question of a reliable food supply... their solution ended up eventually increasing the population of prey animals like pigs, chickens, turkeys, cows, goats, etc. to levels many, many times the number that could possibly exist as wild animals.

 

[steve_bank]

From our human centric view we are the smartest things in the universe.

Intelligence is relative. Many critters can adapt to changing saturations, use trial and error, and learn from experience.

By virtue of our evolved brain and capacity for articulate speech we do tool making better.

Lions and humans are the results of different evolutionary paths, that is all.