Militaristic Carnivores and Pacifist Herbivores, Brainbug?

[Zor]

This is a bit of a backround thing, but in much of sci-fi that i know of it is a common thing for militeristic sapient species to being carnivorous, not nessisarally obligate carnivores, but creatures that subsist primarally on meat, with the Kroot, Kzinti, Kilrathi, Klingons and to break the K train Posleen. On the flipside, creatures that don't eat meat (either by Choice or biology) are generally seen as being more passive than omnivores. The one exception i can think of to this rule are the Asteriod Dropping Space Elephants from Alpha Centauri in Footfall. I can see how one can casually go over this idea and think that it makes sense. One kills animals to eat and the other does not. However, on a more intense investigation, you realise that it does not really make sense. The nature of the agriculture of an industrialized sapient carnivores would be little different from chicken farms, sheep stations, cow ranches and factory farms and i am sure that an evolved sapient Deinonychus would rather go down to the supermarket and pick up some frozen Edmontosaurus
Steaks and ribs to toss on the BBQ for him and his buddies that have to go out and kill wild ones. Herbivores can be just as dangerous, if not moreso than predators, look at angry male cows and Hippos. One idea that i had for Steller Dominions was a species of herd dwelling bipedal browsers that developed intelligence from using rocks and clubs to defend themselves, went and killed off all their predators, resulting in population explosions that turned Herds to use said weapon using abilities to slaughter each other for graising ground.

So is Carnivores=Militaristic/Herbivores=Pacifistic a brainbug or not?

Zor

[Anguirus]

I guess it's something of a brainbug but not a bad one considering. There are very good reasons for carnivores to have a hell of a lot more hormones of the sort that promote aggression, not to mention that their brain is wired for running things down and killing them.

I like your idea of the over-populated herbivores though!

[lance]

This reminds me of Dinosaucers, and the USA Cartoon Express.

[Academia Nut]

It should be pointed out that carnivores would probably have less inclination to fight, and may not get as far technologically as herbivores. Look at the differences between agrarian and hunter-gather societies in human culture. The hunter-gatherers need huge amounts of space to support themselves, and conquest of a new area isn't that useful because there is only a certain radius of land you can control for hunting purposes and you need to know the land to really use it anyway. Agrarian societies on the other hand can simply hack down forests and plough fields to convert them to farmland, so if their growing population needs more elbow room, they have the incentive and capacity to wipe out their neighbours and effectively make use of their conquests.

Or in other words, even sapient carnivores might never make it past the hunter stage without some sort of massive ecological push to force them to move into higher technological forms, and even then they will be forced to have a smaller population because of the energy concerns of eating meat.

[Plekhanov]

I guess it's something of a brainbug but not a bad one considering. There are very good reasons for carnivores to have a hell of a lot more hormones of the sort that promote aggression,

Can you give many examples of carnivores that are generally aggressive as opposed to rather clinically expending energy to hunt for food, defend their territory & young?

not to mention that their brain is wired for running things down and killing them.

And the brains of males in many herbivorous species are wired to fight and dominate anything they perceive as challenging them (hence the stories of bull moose charging trains). About the best guarantee of seeing aggressive behaviour in any species (regardless of what it eats) is to place yourself between and adult and it's young.

The natural world abounds with highly aggressive herbivores of all sizes from termites with their specialised soldiers to buffalo which for example deliberately hunt down and kill lion cubs. This is only to be expected as in a Darwinian universe no 'pacifist' species is going to survive for long.

[Slacker]

Another example of militant angry herbivores is the Traveller K'kree.

I do, however, think the 'aggressive, carnivorous RARGH (and normally feline)' race in scifi is really cliche.

[Zor]

It should be pointed out that carnivores would probably have less inclination to fight, and may not get as far technologically as herbivores. Look at the differences between agrarian and hunter-gather societies in human culture. The hunter-gatherers need huge amounts of space to support themselves, and conquest of a new area isn't that useful because there is only a certain radius of land you can control for hunting purposes and you need to know the land to really use it anyway. Agrarian societies on the other hand can simply hack down forests and plough fields to convert them to farmland, so if their growing population needs more elbow room, they have the incentive and capacity to wipe out their neighbours and effectively make use of their conquests.

Or in other words, even sapient carnivores might never make it past the hunter stage without some sort of massive ecological push to force them to move into higher technological forms, and even then they will be forced to have a smaller population because of the energy concerns of eating meat.

I have been thinking about this and there are definate ways to get an agricultural civilization out of predators. The first and most notable being herding, to go back to our evolved sapient Deinonychus (just because it is a good and well known model for a predator with a body type that does not need to much changing for a specialized tool user) begin herding Hadrosaurs, protecting them from various threats, moving them about to get the most out of the local vegetation and breeding them to be docile and setting up pens if there is a need for contaiment. Herding is, of course a big part of the development of agriculture.

Then there is another source of meat, Fishing. Especially Salmon runs (or whatever) can support a fair number of people and tool use (nets, traps, lines and boats in praticular) would allow for the creation of coastal fishing communites of our Deinonychuses. It also might allow for the creation of Aquaculture, raising fish in pools and such. Combine these with Herding, a concept imported from Herders and this is definatly could lead to a civilization capable of building steam engines, spliting atoms and spreading itself across the universe.

Zor

[Axiomatic]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that carnovores are less likely to be herd creatures, and militaries basically depend on herd instincts, on being one faceless dude in a machine who does what he's told? A carnivore's rugged individualism would inhibit his capability to fall into line and obey orders.

[Shroom Man 777]

Depends, really. There might be no rugged imperialism if your carnivore is the sapient space equivalent of a Piranha.

Herbivores don't have to be pacifistic. They can be really dickish, displacing alien populations while setting up "colonies" in worlds that aren't theirs. When they eat all the resources of that planet, or outbreed the natives, well...buh-bye.

[Plekhanov]

Wouldn't it be safe to say that carnovores are less likely to be herd creatures, and militaries basically depend on herd instincts, on being one faceless dude in a machine who does what he's told? A carnivore's rugged individualism would inhibit his capability to fall into line and obey orders.

Loads of meat eaters live in social groups & hunt cooperatively, eg ants, hornets, meerkats, wolves, lions... significantly many of the most intelligent animals on the planet such as chimps, dolphins, orca & of course humans live in complex social groups & hunt cooperatively.

[Zixinus]

The more greater brainbug I think is that a sapient species can be strictly herbivore or carnivore. One of the reasons why humanoids were able to survive is because they are able to eat anything. Whether is a fallen deer or apples from the tree, being omnivore can give you big advantage in survival.

As for the notion, there is some sense to it, certainly. However, that logic has limits. The idea itself I wouldn't consider a brainbug, but rather not having a sense of scale and taking an logical conclusion outside its intended limits.

One must also think in scale. Individually, a carnivore soldier may be more adaptable or somehow simply better then a herbivore soldiers of same equipment and training, but not under all circumstances. For example, herbivores may be much better at large-scale battles (like naval battles) as herd instincts can help regulation and discipline.

For example, a herbivore can use its instincts to hide to have a drop on its opponents, and herbivores may much better at hit&run tactics, as they have instincts to run and hide.

On the other hand, a carnivore on the battlefield may have a higher morale in general and be much more capable of killing. The higher morale can be explained by the fact that the carnivore has less "panic" instinct and more instinct to be calm and act rationally. On the other hand, you can argue that the smell of blood can drive them nuts.

The point I'm trying to make, that the specie's ancestry's diet may effect their morale in combat, but other factors such as personality, psychological and physiological toughness and most importantly training may be much more important considerations.

[Shroom Man 777]

Bears are omnivores. Nuclear Space Bears for the future!

[Ted C]

The Traveller game subverted this trope, actually. In one of their books on aliens, they had a little puzzler, which I can't recall exactly, but it goes something like this.

"Which alien is more dangerous to offend: the Aslan (evolved from lion-like predators), the Vargr (genetically engineered from Terran wolves), or the Centauroids (evolved from grazing herd animals)?"

Centauroids isn't the right name, but I forget exactly what they were called.

Anyway, the answer...

Aslan are large and powerful, with a widespread warrior ethic and dangerous claws, but their warrior ethic actually results in very ritualized combat -- offend an Aslan and you'll end up in a duel that you will probably lose, but the Aslan will be satisfied with giving you a good scratch rather than killing you.

Vargr lack the ethical code of Aslan, but they also lack their size. Humans are strong enough to take them on in a fair fight, although you do have to watch out for their teeth.

Centauroids are much larger than humans, very aggressive in groups, and they really dislike meat-eaters. Offend one enough to cause a fight, and it'll stomp you into paste.

[Ted C]

Getto edit: Slacker ID'd them as the K'kree.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Bears are omnivores. Nuclear Space Bears for the future!

Reminds me of the cuddly looking, xenocidal, genocidal O'benn from Schlock Mercenary. Also known as "The Psycho-Bears", although not to their face.

As for the OP, I do think it's a brainbug. Carnivores are cautious by nature; a wounded carnivore can't hunt as well, or often at all, and will likely die. An omnivore or herbivore can survive wounds or illnesses that will kill a carnivore, not by being tougher, but by surviving on plants until they get better. Or just struggling along, worse off but alive if the damage is permanent. A civilization of instinctively cautious carnivores might well be much less warlike - wars are risky.

And as has been pointed out, when it comes to non-hunger related aggression, herbivores can be as nasty or more so than carnivores. Cape Buffalo and Hippopotami are herbivores, and are some of the most dangerous animals in Africa.

[Anguirus]

Can you give many examples of carnivores that are generally aggressive as opposed to rather clinically expending energy to hunt for food, defend their territory & young?

I like how I have to give "many" to satisfy you.

I can't give many examples of any animals that don't "clinically" expend energy, although it seems to me that more intelligent ones are more likely to be needlessly aggressive (humans, chimps, and dolphins leap immediately to mind).

However, the very act of hunting is aggressive. Hyenas have a highly organized society, don't randomly fight amongst themselves, and don't "waste energy," but they are still so pumped full of testosterone that their females have penises.

And the brains of males in many herbivorous species are wired to fight and dominate anything they perceive as challenging them (hence the stories of bull moose charging trains).

No disagreement here: that's why I like his herbivore idea. However, many herbivores are quite passive as well, whereas a passive carnivore is pretty much a scavenger.

[Plekhanov]

Can you give many examples of carnivores that are generally aggressive as opposed to rather clinically expending energy to hunt for food, defend their territory & young?

I like how I have to give "many" to satisfy you.

'Many' was generous to you on my part, to substantiate your claim that the brain bug is somewhat justified due to what you assert to be the characteristics of carnivorous animals temperaments you'd really have to show that a preponderance of carnivores are habitually highly aggressive.

I can't give many examples of any animals that don't "clinically" expend energy, although it seems to me that more intelligent ones are more likely to be needlessly aggressive (humans, chimps, and dolphins leap immediately to mind).

However, the very act of hunting is aggressive.

So is the act of fighting any and all challengers to stake out a territory & or access to females.

Hyenas have a highly organized society, don't randomly fight amongst themselves, and don't "waste energy," but they are still so pumped full of testosterone that their females have penises.

Yes and?

And the brains of males in many herbivorous species are wired to fight and dominate anything they perceive as challenging them (hence the stories of bull moose charging trains).

No disagreement here: that's why I like his herbivore idea. However, many herbivores are quite passive as well,

Herbivores such as? Other than the sloth I can't really think of many 'passive' herbivores.

whereas a passive carnivore is pretty much a scavenger.

Or perhaps an ambush predator, there are few herbivores than can match the 'passive' lifestyles of many snakes for example.

[Anguirus]

Yes and?

Testosterone is not unrelated to aggression, and neither is ambush predation.

Are you really hung up because I don't think "aggressive sentient carnivores" is some kind of contradiction in terms? Or because I don't think it is absolutely the stupidest brainbug in existence?

Herbivores such as? Other than the sloth I can't really think of many 'passive' herbivores.

Rabbits? Cows? Gerbils? Sea turtles? Manatees? Parrot fish? Sea urchins? Sheep? Giraffes? Gorillas? Pandas?

No doubt you will next try "well I can think of circumstances in which any of these can be aggressive so there" but it doesn't really do anything for you, since none of those circumstances are exclusive to herbivores. Carnivores don't eat without violently killing something, so it's not the stupidest thing in the world to have aggressive carnivorous aliens.

But as I've repeatedly stated, the flip side is both cool and plausible as well.

[JGregory32]

Rabbits? Cows? Gerbils? Sea turtles? Manatees? Parrot fish? Sea urchins? Sheep? Giraffes? Gorillas? Pandas?

Of the species mention four are domestic animals, humans have been domesticating animals for passivity for around 10,000 years so they might not apply in this case.

A good example of domestic/passive versus wild/aggressive is the Water Buffalo vs the Cape Buffalo. Water Buffalo are domestic animals and are distantly related to the Cape Buffalo who are wild. You can harness the water buffalo to a plow but come near a Cape buffalo and it's libel to trample or gore you to death.

If you can get your hands on it the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" and the National Geographic documentry made from it has several good points about the advantages of domestic animals and the lengths humans have gone to to make them so. The second and third part of the documentry also displays what happens when germs hit a population with no history of resistence, something to consider when writing about bold space explorers
[/quote]

[Plekhanov]

Yes and?

Testosterone is not unrelated to aggression, and neither is ambush predation.

Are you really hung up because I don't think "aggressive sentient carnivores" is some kind of contradiction in terms? Or because I don't think it is absolutely the stupidest brainbug in existence?

I'm disagreeing with you because you continue to defend the carnivores = aggressive & herbivore = pacifist brainbug despite the fact that the evidence doesn't back that positions and because you keep on making erroneous assertions and failing to back them up.

Herbivores such as? Other than the sloth I can't really think of many 'passive' herbivores.

Rabbits?

Far from passive, they fight amongst each other & to deter predators they can realistically take on.

Cows?

Domesticated animals bread for pacifity & even so bulls are hardly known for being peaceable.

Gerbils?

An omnivorous species members of which vigorously fight amongst themselves for social position.

Sea turtles?

Numerous species of which are omnivorous & carnivorous, so how is this supposed to help your case exactly?

Sea urchins?

Numerous species of which are carnivorous, so how is this supposed to help your case exactly?

Parrot fish?

Yet another species in which members fight both for territory & social position.

Sheep?

Another domesticated species, which even so will fight to protect their young. What's more a species which could be domesticated because it had an existing social hierarchy head by dominant males who had fought their way into that position.

Giraffes?

Male giraffes fight sometimes to the death for access to females.

Gorillas? Pandas?

Both eat energy sparse diets & so tend to be characterised by inactivity but are quite capable of aggression if surprised or perceive their young as being threatened, males also fight for access to females, a new silverback may kill the previous silverbacks young after taking over a group.

Manatees?

I'll give you them, so well done you've come up with a single example of a 'passive' herbivore, and numerous herb, on & carnivores which are far from passive.

No doubt you will next try "well I can think of circumstances in which any of these can be aggressive so there" but it doesn't really do anything for you, since none of those circumstances are exclusive to herbivores.

So if as you concede even your examples of 'passive' herbivores (several of which are domesticated & not all of which are even herbivores) can be and are aggressive please do explain how exactly are they supposed to be evidence for the pacifist herbivorous aliens brainbug?

Carnivores don't eat without violently killing something, so it's not the stupidest thing in the world to have aggressive carnivorous aliens.

But as I've repeatedly stated, the flip side is both cool and plausible as well.

Few things are 'the stupidest thing in the world' that doesn't stop them being extremely stupid.

[Big Orange]

Hippos and Panda Bears have been observed as being consistently omniviorous, while pure predators seem far too narrow focused and specialized to move onto being advanced tool users that have a language, although Raptors from the era of the dinosaurs may be plausible candidates as sentient, civilization building carnivoures (although they may have to first evolve from rather vulnerable apex predators into more flexible scavengers).

[petesampras]

In the vast majority of species where females group together in herds, males will fight for access to them. These fights will often result in serious injury or death to the participants. What you have to take into account is that it is the males doing the fighting. Someone gave the example of cows being passive. Female cows are fairly passive. Male cows are certainly not. What one might reasonably hypothese is that female carnivours are more aggressive, on average, then female herbivours.

[Anguirus]

So if as you concede even your examples of 'passive' herbivores (several of which are domesticated & not all of which are even herbivores) can be and are aggressive please do explain how exactly are they supposed to be evidence for the pacifist herbivorous aliens brainbug?

Fair enough; the list really was just off the top of my head. Though I question what you accomplish by noting that giraffes, etc. may fight to the death over females since this is not exclusive to non-carnivores, nor is it particularly common as I understand it.

My only "defense" of the brainbug is simply noting that species which actually feed on other animals of similar size will indeed have reasons to be aggressive.

But, of course, I never said that herbivores are necessarily non-aggressive, nor did I say that I was all for the "passive space herbivore/omnivores."

(And I've been wanted to read G,G,&S for awhile, thanks for giving me another reason JGreg.)

[Tasoth]

In the vast majority of species where females group together in herds, males will fight for access to them. These fights will often result in serious injury or death to the participants. What you have to take into account is that it is the males doing the fighting. Someone gave the example of cows being passive. Female cows are fairly passive. Male cows are certainly not. What one might reasonably hypothese is that female carnivours are more aggressive, on average, then female herbivours.

While true about the males, you also have to take into account the response of females when their young is at stake. Females of a species can be down right lethal when it comes down to survival of their young. Couple this with many herbivores being of a relatively large size, and you can end up in pain very fast.

As for carnivores being naturally aggressive, gotta remember that when they hunt, they either wear their prey down by chasing them or incapacitate them. Even if you are a big bad predator, your prey is quite possibly bigger then you or can move through difficult terrain faster. In these instances, even a wound that is not immediately fatal can result in death as it takes the predator off its feet for too long. Most fights for dominance amongst predatory animals, even most animals in general, are typically not to the death and work more on display because this whole concept of even a minor wound being enough to cause a animal to starve/dehydrate, succumb to infection or be picked off by a predator.

[Molyneux]

The second and third part of the documentry also displays what happens when germs hit a population with no history of resistence, something to consider when writing about bold space explorers

Umm...have you ever read "The War of the Worlds"?