Someone once pointed out to me that if sonar is your primary sensor, and sonar "sees" through things, human lungs look much like dolphin lungs - and orcas' presumably. We are one of them. A pretty feeble one of course, and perhaps one that needs feeding.
Surely we can rule out bait if the cameraman is underwater with the Orca. At that point there isn't much stopping the Orca preying on the human especially if we're acknowledging their intelligence.
The specific claim I'm disputing is that the Orca is using the 'gift' as 'bait' here. The implication that once the human bites or engages with the bait they are then preyed upon. The fact that moose are preyed upon by Orcas is irrelevant here.
The point I am trying to make is that Orcas can choose to prey on large land animals when they are in the water and that they are not using the gift as bait. Why do you think I am disagreeing with you?
Because he naturally assumed that you were attempting to say something relevant to his own claim rather than a complete non sequitur. Maybe in your head you intended to somehow make the point that they're not using the gift as bait but you didn't say anything of the sort so it wasn't your point as written. You also said nothing about humans and moose both being large land animals (and from the Orca's POV it's not likely that it considers humans to be land animals) and that therefore yada yada ... none of this was expressed.
(I see quite a bit of this, where someone is called out and then they say "my point was X" where nothing they had said previously expressed X.)
The birds in the video are out of reach (until one isn't). I'm sure orcas perceive humans in water as very slow and easy to catch - baiting would not make sense.
I wonder if we accidental scare or chase their predators away.
Or, hmm. Orca are pack animals I believe. If we killed a competing family of Orca (even by accident), maybe the gift is a thanks for the perception of "siding with my family".
"Experts are divided as to whether the injuries and deaths were accidental or deliberate attempts to cause harm"
I mean, i don't know, if you can't come up with a single clear cut example in the wild in all of human history, i think that is enough to put them very low on the threat list.
Strawman. The claim disputed was specifically "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history.", not "they're low on the threat list".
That claim was made in response to a different claim above, to which "orcas have not been clearly shown to attack humans outside captivity" is a perfectly cromulent response. Pedantry like this really is annoying. This isn't high school debate.
Given that orcas are apex predators, I think it’s worthwhile to make the distinction between death or injury of humans due to direct predation versus accidental or indirect means.
> It's a lot like when we "share" our worms with fish.
So, it is a relevant distinction, the theory of that comment is that they are using them as bait for humans. That they aren’t ever recorded as intentionally killing and eating humans is relevant.
They fight boats for other reasons apparently, maybe they or territorial, or maybe the boats are making some annoying nose?
Maybe they are just curious or doing it for whimsy sake. They have been observed to wear salmon on their heads for no apparent reason… we do all sorts of odd stuff due to a temporary surplus of brainpower.
The orcas "attacking" boats are just teenagers having found a new fun thing to play with. Too bad it involves damaging private property, but I don't think it matters much to them.
There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
Someone once pointed out to me that if sonar is your primary sensor, and sonar "sees" through things, human lungs look much like dolphin lungs - and orcas' presumably. We are one of them. A pretty feeble one of course, and perhaps one that needs feeding.
Reminds me of the Killer whales of Eden, where for a period of 90 years or so orcas would assist whalers in catching whales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whales_of_Eden,_New_Sou...
Orca Uses Bait To Hunt Bird https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14wWxaMR2Mg
Orcas understand the concept of bait. It is possible the bird was either a gift or a bait to lure in a bigger prey.
Surely we can rule out bait if the cameraman is underwater with the Orca. At that point there isn't much stopping the Orca preying on the human especially if we're acknowledging their intelligence.
They apparently hunt Moose on occasion: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotttravers/2024/10/22/4-decad...
(I know Forbes is not generally the best link, but the author of this article is an actual evolutionary biologist)
The specific claim I'm disputing is that the Orca is using the 'gift' as 'bait' here. The implication that once the human bites or engages with the bait they are then preyed upon. The fact that moose are preyed upon by Orcas is irrelevant here.
The point I am trying to make is that Orcas can choose to prey on large land animals when they are in the water and that they are not using the gift as bait. Why do you think I am disagreeing with you?
Because he naturally assumed that you were attempting to say something relevant to his own claim rather than a complete non sequitur. Maybe in your head you intended to somehow make the point that they're not using the gift as bait but you didn't say anything of the sort so it wasn't your point as written. You also said nothing about humans and moose both being large land animals (and from the Orca's POV it's not likely that it considers humans to be land animals) and that therefore yada yada ... none of this was expressed.
(I see quite a bit of this, where someone is called out and then they say "my point was X" where nothing they had said previously expressed X.)
Only on the internet will "here's a related example why you might be correct" result in strange discussions like these. Makes me sad.
No, I've had those conversations IRL. Human communication is inherently fraught with misunderstandings.
Only on the internet, where most of us (maybe even yourself) have the majority of our discussions?
Never happened in the wild. The only recorded incidents of Orca attacking humans were in the aquariums.
The birds in the video are out of reach (until one isn't). I'm sure orcas perceive humans in water as very slow and easy to catch - baiting would not make sense.
I wonder if we accidental scare or chase their predators away.
Or, hmm. Orca are pack animals I believe. If we killed a competing family of Orca (even by accident), maybe the gift is a thanks for the perception of "siding with my family".
I don’t think there’s much that will predate orcas, at least adults, other than perhaps humans or hypothetically other orcas.
They are apex predators, they don’t have natural predators.
What preys on orcas? It seems like a bad idea.
Trying to placate the gods who are busy destroying their world...
It’s up and down with these guys, either gifts of food or they’re chewing off your rudder.
It's a lot like when we "share" our worms with fish.
Pacific cultures have long oral histories referencing altruistic and cooperative behavior from Orcas.
There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history.
Maybe the Orcas are smart enough to make sure not to leave witnesses :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca_attacks '0 or never' is unlikely to be true.
"Experts are divided as to whether the injuries and deaths were accidental or deliberate attempts to cause harm"
I mean, i don't know, if you can't come up with a single clear cut example in the wild in all of human history, i think that is enough to put them very low on the threat list.
Strawman. The claim disputed was specifically "There have been exactly 0 known deadly attacks from wild orcas in history.", not "they're low on the threat list".
That claim was made in response to a different claim above, to which "orcas have not been clearly shown to attack humans outside captivity" is a perfectly cromulent response. Pedantry like this really is annoying. This isn't high school debate.
Given the hundreds of attacks on boats off the Iberian peninsula, including four sinkings, the lack of human deaths is partly a matter of luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_orca_attacks
These are attacks on boats, not on humans.
"Wild orcas have never been documented hunting or eating humans, so it is unlikely this relates to wanting a meal." (quote from https://www.newscientist.com/article/2378796-why-have-orcas-...)
That would seem like an academic distinction to someone injured or killed during such an incident.
Elephants that trample humans also aren’t looking for a meal.
Given that orcas are apex predators, I think it’s worthwhile to make the distinction between death or injury of humans due to direct predation versus accidental or indirect means.
The original comment was:
> It's a lot like when we "share" our worms with fish.
So, it is a relevant distinction, the theory of that comment is that they are using them as bait for humans. That they aren’t ever recorded as intentionally killing and eating humans is relevant.
They fight boats for other reasons apparently, maybe they or territorial, or maybe the boats are making some annoying nose?
How do they decide who to offer stuff to? There's a bunch of creatures in the ocean, why would they offer things to humans?
Also, do people ever give the orca anything they want?
Maybe they are just curious or doing it for whimsy sake. They have been observed to wear salmon on their heads for no apparent reason… we do all sorts of odd stuff due to a temporary surplus of brainpower.
https://archive.ph/OkNVu
Cats do this, and they're less intelligent than orcas.
Everybody want to be loved.
The only other species other than humans that has as long post-reproductive lives.
This is not correct in the least.
As one of many, many examples, a galapagos turtle reaches sexual maturity at 20 to 25 years of age, and lives 100 to 200 years.
I guess we don't have data for Greenland sharks.
The ones that aren’t attacking boats I presume.
This orca prefers to gift us what appears to be a ships wheel. It’s unclear the cultural significance of this offering.
The orcas "attacking" boats are just teenagers having found a new fun thing to play with. Too bad it involves damaging private property, but I don't think it matters much to them.
Maybe it’s the same ones, and they desire peace
uh oh.... i guess the space highway got approved....
There’s no point in acting surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 of your Earth years, so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it’s far too late to start making a fuss about it now.
And the humans say the LLMs are the stoichastic parrots in the room...