BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Next Steps For the Fauna

 
 
All Acting Regiment
18:57 / 22.04.06
This is kind of a sister thread to the discussion in books about Dixon's "After Man", which can be found here. In this book, the author envisages what sort of creatures might evolve form today's.

I want you to come up with your own ideas, as plausible as can be managed, taking into account whatever you deem to be the relevant forces in evolution. It's up to you whether you feel that humans will still be around and what timescale you use.
 
 
enrieb
20:07 / 22.04.06
This reminds me of a Blue Peter competition I entered long ago as a child; sadly my flying-lizard-monkey picture did not win, even though I entered into a much younger age category. I suppose I will just have to buy a blue peter badge of eBay.

Back on topic, I would expect the future creatures on earth to evolve for the climate ahead. If the predictions about global warming are correct, High temperatures could destroy forests and would reduce the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. The size of the dinosaurs was only possible due to the large ppm of oxygen on earth at the time; in the future I would expect to see smaller creatures suited to a life in the savannah.

If global warming goes as predicted and brings about big changes in the earths climate whatever creatures evolve must be adaptable. Creatures that have specialised in our current climate could well become extinct.

I also have always believed that our industrialisation of agriculture and fishing must have a big effect on the evolution of life forms. Natural selection could see a rise in small fish that could slip through the trawler nets, or fish could find a habitat in places inaccessible to fishing boats.
 
 
Kiltartan Cross
07:39 / 25.04.06
Let's take some wild guesses at things a good faun would need to have:

Either Some renewable use to man or Some effective means of hiding from man. Probably the most important one, as no matter how succesful another species is, it's not going to last long if it gets in the way, or if simply killing them all off is easier than breeding them (see under whales and most edible fish).
This would also include cuteness. A cute or interesting animal is marginally less likely to be exterminated. At the very least, there'll probably be a few of them hanging around in zoos even after their own habitats have been destroyed and all wild examples killed.

High tolerance for UV. Pretty much a given, I think.

General Adaptability which does not inconvenience man. As the prevailing effect of man appears to be to destabilise ecosystems at all levels, and any species which reacts to destruction of its habitat by, for instance, eating domesticated animals or crops is heading for extinction.

We can discount "High tolerance for increased radiation levels and nuclear winter" as trivial and boring, which is not to say that it's unlikely.

Gosh, I must be a pessimist. I see a future of plankton, farm animals, pets, cockroaches, and the occasional tiger or heffalump in a cage. Oh, and perhaps birds; we can't take the sky from them. Yet.
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:30 / 27.04.06
Far future descendants of current species are difficult to predict with any real accuracy.

We could begin to see a rise in pesticide-resistance in insects which find a way to incorporate modified plant genes into themselves.

Animals adapting for an urban existance. Both behaviourally and physically. We're already seeing this with urbanised foxes. Squirrels and rats are both extremely comfortable in human-made environments.

So squirrels adapting totally for life in the mega-cities of the future, abaandoning the dwindling trees for the concrete forest. With strange new gut bacteria that allow them to challenge the established scavenger species for leftover foodstuffs. Their agility and desterity improves allowing them to colonise areas of buildings that rats don't normally inhabit. Rooftop colonies of City Squirrels become a major nuisance as they creep in through open council flat windows and raid people's fridges.
 
 
Quantum
12:54 / 27.04.06
...and due to the easy availability of food (not to mention hard drugs) grow to huge size and start stealing babies from cribs, smoking and forming primitive urban gangs (the Reds and the Greys perhaps). A Darque future indeed.

I think rats, pigeons, foxes, herring gulls, cockroaches, mice and feral pets are the 'wild' animals of the future. Anything with a high tolerance for pollution and an omnivorous scavenging diet has a good chance, the rest will be extinct because their habitats will have been destroyed. Pets and Farm animals will get cuter and fatter respectively, everything else will be in a Zoo or museum.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:07 / 27.04.06
I have recurring nightmares of genetically-engineered live furbies.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:47 / 27.04.06
Animals adapting for an urban existance. Both behaviourally and physically. We're already seeing this with urbanised foxes. Squirrels and rats are both extremely comfortable in human-made environments.

Wann see urban-adapted fauna? My advice is: look for the birds. Pidgeons most of all.

Tha thread reminds of a question in an exam during an ecology course in my biology undergrad years. The professor asked what physical adaptations would require to turn a frog into a flying creature. There was not a correct answer per se, but the most correct one is to turn the frog into a bird (warm blood, red muscles, feathers, etc, etc).

Which lead to a debate: considering the ecological tenet that says that every niche that can be occupied will be occupied, the world today already have all its niches occupied by one or more animal species, and it would be impossible to conceive a new phillus of animal (test it yourself: try to imagine a new phillus. If you can, you've beaten me).

Anything else (like this After Man book, as interesting as it may be) is mere speculation. To imagine a new species first you need to imagine a new environment.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
01:00 / 28.04.06
Well, that's the point of the book, it's set post-big extinction.
 
 
Evil Scientist
06:32 / 28.04.06
To imagine a new species first you need to imagine a new environment.

Well, this thread seems to be speculating about future evolution of current species rather than entirely new ones.

Pidgeons are definitely something that have (and will continue to) prosper in a human-dominated environment. They're extremely durable and highly resistant to disease (they're not called "rats with wings" for nothing).

I doubt we'll see a rise in intelligence in the city-adapted species. As most of them seem to be scavengers for preference they won't have the necessary evolution pressures to force them that way. Although I suppose that selecting for the problem solving abilities needed to escape new forms of entrapment/extermination could encourage them that way.

Assuming humans were wiped off the face of the planet (or left to explore space), where do people think human-level sapience might arise? Obviously the other African apes are a good bet. But what other species might make the leap?

Rats are too small. They would need a significant increase in brain size. It's not impossible, but it'd take a bloody long time.

Cockroaches are already well-adapted for long-term species survival.

It's theorised that increasing intelligence would appear in pack animals with predatory behaviour patterns. As the old argument goes, how smart do you have to be to hunt grass?

With humans gone, perhaps the canines might have a shot at the big time? Having been subjected to artificial evolutionary pressures by their association with humans, they may have already had a slight advantage over other species.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:33 / 28.04.06
Well, that's the point of the book, it's set post-big extinction.

Oh, that's cool. If I ever have a few bucks to spare, I shall aquire it. Although, with import fees and currency differences, it's gonna cost me an eye and a leg.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:45 / 28.04.06
As most of them seem to be scavengers for preference they won't have the necessary evolution pressures to force them that way. Although I suppose that selecting for the problem solving abilities needed to escape new forms of entrapment/extermination could encourage them that way.

Keep in mind that us humatons were once scavengers ourselves. Than one of us picked up a rock, fought of a tiger and killed a deer, and all the rest followed (it's one of the theories, at least)

Assuming humans were wiped off the face of the planet (or left to explore space), where do people think human-level sapience might arise? Obviously the other African apes are a good bet. But what other species might make the leap?

I once saw an Discovery Channel miniseries (Here's a wikipedia link) that advanced a few million years and speculates that colony collective small mammal-herding spiders and tree-dwelling pack-hunting squids were the next possible dominant species, but I though it was bit too much on the scifi side of things...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
03:02 / 29.04.06
Assuming humans were wiped off the face of the planet (or left to explore space), where do people think human-level sapience might arise?

Pigs are very intelligent and I think they live in groups, as do dolphins and whales*. They might be contenders. Maybe birds? Penguins? Someone tell me if this is unreasonable.





*in fact I like to think whales are probably already more sapient than we are
 
 
Dead Megatron
11:09 / 29.04.06
Maybe birds?

Parrots are pretty smart. And recently I read an article that stated that some birds can be taught basic grammar rules (in their own language, no less). So, there's potencial there

Here's the link
 
 
Tom Coates
19:55 / 30.04.06
One thing that interests me a lot is that things evolve in an environment - ie. if there's an reproductive advantage in having speech then there's a pressure towards its development. There's normally no advantage to a bird having speech in the wild, because it doesn't come into contact with humans. But when you bring these creatures into contact with people...

So if humankind is the environment - and if to survive your animals have to be useful or interesting or able to live around the edges - then it seems likely that over the long haul some creatures are going to increasingly adapt to that environment. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if a couple of hundred thousand years down the line (assuming humans are still around and given a bit of selective breeding) there aren't some speaking creatures or something.
 
 
Feverfew
08:35 / 01.05.06
The only think this thread makes me think of is indirect evolutionary potential, which is a $10 way of saying that evolution may be forced by man-made or otherwise-made environmental conditions.

The only thing that springs to mind immediately is changes possible to Flora - if the ozone layer is still thinning and a greater amount of UV radiation is coming through, then chlorophyll-using plants will need to change to absorb a greater spectrum of radiation in order to survive more successfully - because if they don't, another plant will. This may lead, on the surface, to much darker colours for leafy plants, but also the possibility that they may spread a lot quicker if they're able to absorb a greater spectra of energy.

Also, more UV means, I believe, increased chance / risk of mutation if DNA or RNA strands are compromised - so given enough time and enough plants, new strains would hopefully spring up.

In terms of man-made evolutionary catalysis, I mean that if we keep polluting then oranisms may eventually adapt to live off the pollutants if it's the only way they can survive.

Of course, once the flora starts changing the food chain from thereon upwards starts to change as well, from the herbivores ingesting the flora to the carnivores ingesting the herbivores, so over time it could all be interesting, but not necessarily noticeable.

I could, however, be talking rubbish, because between now and my lessons in Biology and Chemistry there is a fair amount of time and a lot of science fiction read...

In my future, Black Peppermint stretches down entire areas of land, growing to a height of around five feet, leading to entire fields giving off the peppermint scent every time the wind blows through...
 
 
All Acting Regiment
08:56 / 01.05.06
Wouldn't that much peppermint burn the eyes and skin?
 
 
Feverfew
10:02 / 01.05.06
This could be true. However, surely it's only concentrated peppermint that has the aforementioned effects?

I chose mint primarily because it already spreads like anybody's business and has enough variants to survive. However, any virulent plants will do well if they adapt for greater uptake of energy, I believe.
 
 
Dead Megatron
15:31 / 01.05.06
There's normally no advantage to a bird having speech in the wild

And there never will be, unless two or more birds develop the same language (no matter how simple and non-abstract) and start communicating useful information between them and passing it (the language) on to their ofsprings.

"Watch out! Tree-dwelling predator approaching 12 hours"

"Wow! Thanks for the wings up! Owe you one..."

And the most beatiful thing is, the birds in question don't even need to be of the same spicies for it to work (cooperative seletion?)
 
 
Feverfew
17:45 / 01.05.06
There was speculation that trees communicated to warn of herbivores in the area a while ago, but I suspect it was debunked - it was so long ago that the method by which they were supposed to communicate eludes me, but I believe it was by chemical release.

I would say that some mammals already communicate in the way you suggest, DM - do you mean that if their communication evolved any higher than the current state that it would ultimately prove beneficial?

Birdsong, for instance, is used as far as I understand it to say, in various ways, "I'm hungry", "I'm horny", "Watch out, predator about", "Food! Mine!" or "Bugger this, let's fly south for the winter" - but I do see what you mean in that a higher level of communication would lead to greater organisation, which would lead in turn to greater populations being able to be supported - and before you know it, we're seeing procedurally generated Toucan cities springing up across the southern hemisphere.
 
 
Dead Megatron
10:49 / 02.05.06
There was speculation that trees communicated to warn of herbivores in the area a while ago, but I suspect it was debunked - it was so long ago that the method by which they were supposed to communicate eludes me, but I believe it was by chemical release.

I would say that some mammals already communicate in the way you suggest, DM - do you mean that if their communication evolved any higher than the current state that it would ultimately prove beneficial?


Yeah, bu they don't use grammar. It's just yells of "danger, danger!", at most. Language with grammar is a great exercise for the brain, which leads to abstract conceptualisation, culture, and finally, for better or worse, civilisation
 
 
All Acting Regiment
17:34 / 02.05.06
But hasn't there been a recent news story about birds recognising grammar?

American researchers have proven that humble starlings can learn grammar (read these two news releases — here and there — for lots of details). It took a month and some food as a reward to train the birds to recognize 'bird phrases' about 90% of the time. Still one researcher said that the birds don't have the same grammar skill as his 9-month-old boy. But these experiments might revolutionize the field of linguistics.
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:32 / 03.05.06
That's what we're talking about Legba (Read. the. fucking. thread... nah, just kidding). The birds can learn grammar, at least in its most basic level, it's just it was never introduced in wild populations... yet.
 
 
matthew.
17:38 / 04.05.06
They may be able to learn grammar, but they have a ways to go before they can conceptualize and articulate, DM. What seperates the animals from the men in terms of language is a toddler's tendancy to impose a grammatical structure on what few words they have learned ("few" being facetious). It implies a genetic disposition for language and order, something birds lack currently. It's going to take a lot of time before they can create structure unconsciously as well as we do.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
19:52 / 04.05.06
I wonder (he mused unhelpfully), how does that tie in with nest-building?
 
 
Dead Megatron
22:52 / 04.05.06
They may be able to learn grammar, but they have a ways to go before they can conceptualize and articulate, DM. What seperates the animals from the men in terms of language is a toddler's tendancy to impose a grammatical structure on what few words they have learned ("few" being facetious). It implies a genetic disposition for language and order, something birds lack currently. It's going to take a lot of time before they can create structure unconsciously as well as we do.

Well, yeah, that's what the current linguistic theory states (Saussire & Chomsky come to my mind), but, I dunno, I have this very un-scientific feeling this "toddler tendency to impose...etc" is one of those paradigms that may be proven incorrect, or at least imcomplete, with further research.

I mean, they haven't found a "speech-gene", have they? What if there's no genetic predisposition for grammar, as the linguistics believe, only cultural pressure towards it? Sure, we have very developed central nervous systems that help it a lot, but that's due to opposable thumbs and tool-usage first and foremost. Language was (possibly) a rather unexpected consequence. So, Legba's sugestion about nest-building is something to be watchfull for. Time will tell.
 
 
Dead Megatron
22:57 / 04.05.06
oh, and this "conceptualize and articulate" thing is iffy too. Birds sure can't articulate, I'll give you that, but how much do we know about the inner lives of, fopr instance, canaries, eagles, and parrots to be sure about how complex (or not) is their view of the world? Just because a tree has fallen in a empty field, it doesn't necessarily mean it made no sound.
 
 
matthew.
12:45 / 05.05.06
Good points, DM, but if the current paradigm is incorrect, then how do we explain the Wug Test? Or any of the other experiments and tests that help determine why children use the language in a specific way?

In my mind, one of the best arguments for this paradigm (and I don't think that's quite the right word for this theory), is the pidgin-creole argument. After only one generation, a pidgin language assumes a grammatical structure, thus resulting in a creole.

When we say that we're teaching superficial grammar rules to a bird, and the bird uses it, that doesn't mean that the bird has language. It's merely a higher stage form of dog-trick like roll over or play dead. Birds are smart, I've seen it. Like that parrot who was able to pick out different colours and shapes and then talk about it (saw it on Dateline).
 
 
Dead Megatron
13:26 / 08.05.06
Well, I'm no experto, but, from Wikipedia:

The major finding of the wug test was that even very young children have already internalized systematic aspects of the linguistic system that enable them to produce plurals, past tenses, possessives, and other forms of words that they have never heard before. The test has been replicated many times, and it has proven very robust. It was the first experimental proof that young children have extracted generalizable rules from the language around them.

I'm not disputing that humans have the most advanced grammatic language by far. And that, as soon as the first few rules are learned (it's "around them"), even small children are capable of extrapolating correct uses of morphemes. In fact, the beaty of human language is how it uses a very restricted set of phonemes, morphemes and grammatical rules to correlate them to create such an almost infinite number of combinations to describe the the world around us and the world inside our heads (the "trick", as it is, is in the combinations). I just don't see why intelligent animals, like birs, dolphins, for instance, could not do the same, after a few generations of structuring similar rules. Keeo in mind that even our languages were once, about a 100 thousand years ago I guess, a collection of simple rumblings. Language has occurred so far only in this species of naked apes of ours, but I see no reason to believe that happened because we have some sort of genetic uniqueness towards it, it was only an accidental mishap (that's the thesis I'm defending).

In the anedoctal side, I remember one of those clever parrots ina some Disney side show I attended when I was a child. The handler presented a parrot who could make simple math operations (adding, subtractin, and even multuplying and dividing, if it didn't involve two digit figures). He dare the audience to test it.

"Ten plus five!" There goes the parrot, knocking a lever down 15 times.

"Two times three!" There goes the parrot, knocking a lever down 6 times.

"Seventeen minus fourteen!" There goes the parrot, knocking a lever down 3 times.

Then, some smartass kid comes with the following "Ten minus fifteen!"

The parrots looks confused to the kid, than to his handler, as if asking for directions. Then he goes about pulling the lever repeatedly, until the handler says "Stop that, or everybody will think you're crazy". At which moment everybody laughs, the parrots stops, and exits the stage, looking humiliated.

That's when I started believing parrots are people...
 
  
Add Your Reply