People who don't like non-human animals

[Peter]

14 to 65 percent is a huge swing there, doesn't seem like a real accurate measurement as far as statistics goes.   If it was 60 to 65 percent it would be more convincing. 

It varies depending on local conditions at the time of study, particularly on the level and nature of human interference and wolf population density.

Discussion
The main cause of wolf mortality in Croatia in the surveyed period was
related to the activities of man, comprising mostly intentional killing by gun:
65.2% in the whole period and 50.0% since protection. Similarly, man was
the cause of the major part of mortality in the wolf population in Minnesota
(U.S.A.) even after its protection (1972–1977): 59% (FRITS and MECH,
1981), and 80% (FULLER, 1989). Natural causes of wolf mortality in
Minnesota totalled 14%, through a combination of 3% by diseases and
11% by other wolves (FULLER, 1989). In another study in Minnesota
intraspecific aggression accounted for 24% mortality (FRITS and MECH,
1981). The highest recorded intraspecific killing among wolves was recorded
in Denali National Park in Alaska (U.S.A.) ranging from 39 to 65% of all
mortality causes (MECH et al., 1998). That is a clear sign that the influence of
man is negligible, or even non-existent, there. Wolves tend to self-regulate
their numbers when other causes of mortality are low. We found that only
6.5% of wolves died of natural causes, and just one intraspecific killing
among them, indicating a strong man-made mortality rate. Five rabid wolves
comprise 83% of all such cases (n=6) recorded in Croatia since 1977 when
the rabies outbreak reached this area (Ž. ČAČ, Croatian Veterinary Institute,
personal information). On the population level this disease could not be counted
as a major regulatory factor among wolves.

[Peter]

Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)

Biology 101 FAIL!!!

When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?

The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??

Human social evolution wasn't driven primarily by the need to compete more effectively with non-human animals; it was driven by the need to compete more effectively with other humans.  Social aptitude only has a minor impact on an individual's ability to hunt, forage and avoid predation, but it has a huge impact on an individual's ability to secure a breeding partner, and the combined social traits of individuals in a group has a huge impact on the ability of those individuals to compete with individuals in other groups, who as a group may be more or less socially cohesive, aggressive, xenophobic etc.  There's a long history of groups of humans being displaced or wiped out by more aggressive or sophisticated groups of humans, but not so much of a history of groups of humans being wiped out or displaced by sparrows, rabbits or even dangerous predators like lions.

Since Sophist's comment wasn't directed at any one species (humans in particular) you're commiting a fallacy of division.

I wasn't replying to Sophist's comment about organisms facing the greatest competition from members of their own species.  I was replying to your comment in which you claimed that you (a human) last found yourself in competition with sparrows and rabbits when they engaged in cooperative hunting behaviour with you, and your suggestion that I should refer to social-group evolutionary theory to better understand your position.  Thus, I referred to social-group evolutionary theory in the context of human-human competition vs human-non-human competition, since that's the direction the conversation had taken, and delivered my conclusion that human social evolution at both the individual and group level has been driven primarily by human-human competition, and not by human-non-human competition.

[Alex179]

When you have nothing but you and other wolfpacks at the top of the food chain, it is obvious what you will have to compete with.     You might have a wolf die to a bear or something else every once in a while, but what else is there to even challenge a pack?   Another pack, yes this makes sense.    What if the pack of wolves in an area had to compete against a pack of mountain lions?   The wolves would be in deep shit.   You are showing that it depends on the area, so if the wolves are obviously at the top of the food chain in a certain area, they have no competition but themsleves.   Humans only really compete with other humans, which is what I stated earlier.   Wolves are not at the top of the food chain as far as social hunters go.    Lions get killed by elephants in some places, and they aren't even predators.   

What is going to fuck with an Orca (Killer Whale) other than a human?  A Sperm Whale might be able to take one Orca down, but they can hunt as a family.   Great Whites get eaten by Orcas.   The only thing that kills an Orca with any regularity, is a human.    Your greatest enemy is the species above you on the food chain that preys upon some of the same things you prey upon, if not then it is your species competing with itself.   That is kinda common sense.

[Scrapheap]

When you have nothing but you and other wolfpacks at the top of the food chain, it is obvious what you will have to compete with.     You might have a wolf die to a bear or something else every once in a while, but what else is there to even challenge a pack?   Another pack, yes this makes sense.    What if the pack of wolves in an area had to compete against a pack of mountain lions?   The wolves would be in deep shit.   You are showing that it depends on the area, so if the wolves are obviously at the top of the food chain in a certain area, they have no competition but themsleves.   Humans only really compete with other humans, which is what I stated earlier.   Wolves are not at the top of the food chain as far as social hunters go.    Lions get killed by elephants in some places, and they aren't even predators.   

What is going to fuck with an Orca (Killer Whale) other than a human?  A Sperm Whale might be able to take one Orca down, but they can hunt as a family.   Great Whites get eaten by Orcas.   The only thing that kills an Orca with any regularity, is a human.    Your greatest enemy is the species above you on the food chain that preys upon some of the same things you prey upon, if not then it is your species competing with itself.   That is kinda common sense.

QFT You'd think Sophist and Peter would be able to see this obvious fact. Perhaps they're educated beyond their intelligence. 

[Scrapheap]

Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)

Biology 101 FAIL!!!

When was the last time that you found yourself competing with a sparrow or a rabbit for territory and breeding opportunities?

The same time a sparrow and a rabbit engaged in "cooperative hunting" behavior with me. FFS is it so difficult to understand social-group evolutionary theory??

Human social evolution wasn't driven primarily by the need to compete more effectively with non-human animals; it was driven by the need to compete more effectively with other humans.  Social aptitude only has a minor impact on an individual's ability to hunt, forage and avoid predation, but it has a huge impact on an individual's ability to secure a breeding partner, and the combined social traits of individuals in a group has a huge impact on the ability of those individuals to compete with individuals in other groups, who as a group may be more or less socially cohesive, aggressive, xenophobic etc.  There's a long history of groups of humans being displaced or wiped out by more aggressive or sophisticated groups of humans, but not so much of a history of groups of humans being wiped out or displaced by sparrows, rabbits or even dangerous predators like lions.

Since Sophist's comment wasn't directed at any one species (humans in particular) you're commiting a fallacy of division.

I wasn't replying to Sophist's comment about organisms facing the greatest competition from members of their own species.  I was replying to your comment in which you claimed that you (a human) last found yourself in competition with sparrows and rabbits when they engaged in cooperative hunting behaviour with you,

...and you failed to understand that that was a reductio-ad absurdum??  

and your suggestion that I should refer to social-group evolutionary theory to better understand your position.  Thus, I referred to social-group evolutionary theory in the context of human-human competition vs human-non-human competition, since that's the direction the conversation had taken,

No, that's the direction YOU were trying to take it in. At first I thought you were simply trying to use humans as an example, but then it became obvious that you were commiting a fallacy of division. Perhaps I shouldn'tve replied to that red-herring in the first place.  

and delivered my conclusion that human social evolution at both the individual and group level has been driven primarily by human-human competition, and not by human-non-human competition.

If this is what you were ACTUALLY trying to do, then you would've gone back to the beginning of Hominin evolution where we were clearly competing against other species.

[Scrapheap]

Actually, since an organism's greatest enemy is usually its own species (since it has the most in common with it and therefore is fighting over similar resources)

Biology 101 FAIL!!!

I would take the time to disagree with you and defend my reasoning but it seems Peter's already beaten me to the punch. 

Go, Peter... go, Peter... it's ya birthday... 

He's getting his ass kicked, you might need to step in to take your lickings too help him out. 

[Peter]

When you have nothing but you and other wolfpacks at the top of the food chain, it is obvious what you will have to compete with.     You might have a wolf die to a bear or something else every once in a while, but what else is there to even challenge a pack?   Another pack, yes this makes sense.    What if the pack of wolves in an area had to compete against a pack of mountain lions?   The wolves would be in deep shit.   You are showing that it depends on the area, so if the wolves are obviously at the top of the food chain in a certain area, they have no competition but themsleves.   Humans only really compete with other humans, which is what I stated earlier.   Wolves are not at the top of the food chain as far as social hunters go.    Lions get killed by elephants in some places, and they aren't even predators.   

What is going to fuck with an Orca (Killer Whale) other than a human?  A Sperm Whale might be able to take one Orca down, but they can hunt as a family.   Great Whites get eaten by Orcas.   The only thing that kills an Orca with any regularity, is a human.    Your greatest enemy is the species above you on the food chain that preys upon some of the same things you prey upon, if not then it is your species competing with itself.   That is kinda common sense.

Intraspecific competition can be the dominant mode of competition for a species regardless of the position which that species occupies in the food chain.  Blowflies are prey to many organisms, yet in the following quote, their greatest competition is identified as being from other blowflies.

Intraspecific Competition is defined as the struggle between members of a population for scarce resources. As in intraspecific cooperation, there are two basic types of competition:

   1. Adapted or programmed intraspecific competition results from aggressive social behavior such as dominance hierarchies and territoriality. Here only certain individuals high in the peck-order, or holding territories, succeed in breeding. This is sometimes called contest competition because it involves aggressive contests between competing individuals.
   2. Unadapted or incidental intraspecific competition results from the accidental interaction between individual organisms utilizing the same resources, for resources used by one are unavailable to others. This is sometimes called scramble competition because everybody is involved in a mad scramble for the scarce resources.

Notice the parallels between intraspecific competition and cooperation. Both can be induced by adapted (evolved) or incidental (accidental) processes. Both are associated with the problem of obtaining resources or avoiding being used as a resource by others. It should not surprise us that these two powerful principles have led to the parallel evolution of aggressive and cooperative social behaviors in many species.

A major consequence of intraspecific competition is that the survival and/or reproduction of individual organisms normally declines as the density of the population rises (see figure). This is commonly called "density dependence" in the literature. However, this term has probably generated more controversy and confusion than any other single issue in ecology. The argument started between the two Australian ecologists A. J. Nicholson and H. G. Andrewartha. Nicholson studied populations of blowflies living in corpses and concluded that density-dependent struggle for food, what we call intraspecific competition, was the main factor regulating population size. Andrewartha studied populations of rose thrips and found that numbers were largely determined by weather which, of course, is not dependent on the density of thrips. The controversy is largely semantic -- a confusion about the meaning of the terms regulation, stability, feedback and so on -- but even so it continues to this day.

The strong nature of intraspecific competition is the basis for the sterile insect technique, in which a problematic species of insect is controlled by releasing large numbers of sterile individuals.  The sterile individuals compete with the wild individuals for breeding partners, which results in fewer successful matings between fertile individuals and a consequent reduction in the future population.  This has an advantage over releasing predators of that species, since most predators consume a range of prey species and only have a small impact on any one prey species, while competition for breeding partners is highly species-specific, producing a high degree of disruption to the target species and a low overall environmental impact.

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

The biggest factor playing into selection is how many viable offspring you manage to have. All other factors, while important in the intermediary sense, are irrelevant if you can't produce offspring (or asexually divide if you happen to be a single celled organism).

If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel (or any other species you care to mention) for a woman then I will gladly reconsider my statement. Competing within one's own species is called Intraspecific Competition, and is most rife where resources are limited. In the case of humans, with our dense populations, this is a constant factor. Especially when you consider competing for rights to sexual proliferation. You don't compete between species for that right. And sex (for sexual organisms) is the main way to get your genes passed on. (That or by things like altrusim through kin selection.)

QED.

[Adam]

If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel for a woman

haven't been following this discussion, but i'm sure they're both perfectly capable of this. 

I have a feeling they both lost out though

[Scrapheap]

If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel (or any other species you care to mention) for a woman then I will gladly reconsider my statement.

You don't compete against members of other species to mate with your own. You don't compete against members of you own species to mate with another species. Your argument is a reductio-ad-retardum. 

You realy are comming across as educated beyond your intelligence. You seem to know facts and terms, but not how these things operate IRL.

[The Member Formerly Known As Sophist]

If Scraphead or Alex care to give an example of the last time either of them competed with a rabbit or squirrel (or any other species you care to mention) for a woman then I will gladly reconsider my statement.

You don't compete against members of other species to mate with your own. You don't compete against members of you own species to mate with another species. Your argument is a reductio-ad-retardum. 

You realy are comming across as educated beyond your intelligence. You seem to know facts and terms, but not how these things operate IRL.

You wanna sit there and insult me then that's fine, Scraphead. You're obviously going to continue missing my point and I don't have the time or energy to waste on you when you just want to argue rather than reasonably discuss. I wasn't even talking to you in the first place and you singled me out.

Enjoy yourself, rant and rave as you like and your interpretations of evolutionary theory. I'm going back to my work.

[Scrapheap]

... when you just want to argue rather than reasonably discuss.

In order to "reasonably discuss" you first have to have a position that is reasonable enough to discuss.  You and Peter continue to shoot yourselves in the foot with arguments so flimsy that a high school student could see the flaws in them. Your point is a half-truth at the very best. You try to make the point that your own species is your greatest enemy because you compete againt them to mate... WITH YOUR OWN SPECIES! If you're failing to see that your argument contains internal contradictions, then you're just too fucktarded to have an intelligent conversation with in the first place.

[Alex179]

LOL at competing against your own species for mates.   What a retarded argument.   I wonder what the chick at the donkey show thinks about her donkey and how said donkey competes with men.

[Dexter Morgan]

Humans rule

[Al Swearegen]

That is correct