i just want to weigh in with an update on the iraq/syria thing. i've been focusing on recording and paying minimal attention, i'm more just updating the narrative.

it remains clear that isis is a saudi-backed group that is destabilizing the region for strategic purposes. so, why is america bombing them, then? it's a way into syria, and maybe you've already seen somebody suggest this.

the state narrative is hard to actually believe. first, the iraqi army abandons it's positions, conveniently allowing isis to take all the weapons. then, they turn the weapons on the heavily american-aligned kurds, which makes no sense at all. now the americans can intervene to save the kurds yet again...

i have no idea what the extent of the actual damage on the ground actually is, but i suspect it's probably fairly restricted. for the americans to actively bomb a group that is this close to the saudis would signal a historic severing of ties with a nation that has enormous leverage over them. if this were the actual truth, obama would be insane - and he is not insane, he is the public face of a very carefully planned military strategy that's had to make some adjustments due to failing to remove assad from office.

the americans continue to push for maliki's ouster, and i would expect instability with this group in iraq to continue until that goal is met. when this happens, the fighting will spill over the border into syria. it may also conveniently find it's way into iran. this is the pretext they're constructing to reverse public backlash.

this is the same narrative i've been explaining for a year, with the difference being that i did not think that obama would attack isis; i'm not at all convinced that he actually did....

so, what's obvious is that the orca pulled the trainer down and brought him back up before he drowned. i'm not buying that it's an accident. but, if the orca wanted to kill him, he'd be dead - he was brought back up to save his life. so, the orca's trying to get something across.

it's interesting to contemplate what the orca may have been thinking. it could be punishment, for some other behaviour - but it's clear that it was meant to teach a lesson, not to create actual harm. is it possible that he may have accidentally blocked the orca's breathing hole and the orca is responding tit-for-tat?

maybe it's more likely that it's a display of dominance, with the orca trying to show the trainer who the boss is and produce a level of submission. cetaceans are often friendly towards humans, but they're very dominant animals.

a more intriguing possibility is that the orca may have been doing an experiment. does the orca understand it's being studied? might it be curious as to just how long a human can hold it's breath or what happens when it gets submerged?

it may also have cetaceanomorphized the human. could it have dragged the human under wanting to interact in the water, thinking the human can hold it's breath for long periods, and at the last minute realized the human is struggling and needs to breathe, and so brought him back up?

all interesting questions.

but it's quite obvious that the orca very consciously pulled this guy down, and very carefully brought him back up so he wouldn't drown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EhqM7Q82sw

well, why do humans save lions?

it's not that hard to understand, you just need to drop the arrogance.

sharks have existed for a long time with very few predators, but cetaceans have been evolving to steal their niche for millions of years and will most likely eventually drive them to extinction - or at least into much smaller sizes. it's a bit of a reminder that, while we're naming eras after ourselves, we're actually still in the ongoing phase of continuing mammal diversification and dominance and that we will continue to see them replace other life forms for some time into the future. i'm looking at you, birds.

there's some consequences to derive from this in terms of how we understand cetaceans or how we may be able to build relationships with them in the future. is intelligence selected? relatively. that is, cetaceans are smarter than sharks, and it's going to give them an advantage in the fight over that niche that sharks will be unlikely to overcome.

but, as the cetaceans move further and further into this niche, and become more and more vicious, they become further removed from us as possible allies. it's hard to consider bridging a gap with a species that is evolving into an apex predator that will only ever see us as food.

i really think we ought to focus on elephants.

evolution doesn't work in one direction. there's no reason to think an intelligent species wouldn't evolve into a less intelligent one, if other traits end up being more selected. it's not a process of arriving at a point of perfection, but largely driven by chaotic forces. it's about pure survival and reproduction, not some lofty human ideals. evolution often happens in ways that humans would readily perceive of as "backwards".

what is going to drive the direction that evolution takes is going to be the niche the animals move into. the environment shapes the organism more than the organism shapes the environment (and this is true of humans, too). sharks are not sharks because they decide to be sharks, or because something created them as sharks, but because the environment they live in will produce a shark out of any creature that attempts to be apex predator. cetaceans are not somehow immune to this, due to their intelligence.

i'd like to tell you to wait for it but neither of us will be alive to have this discussion in the future.

zyklon brad
Why the fuck would you have a name like deathtokoalas? They are nice!

deathtokoalas
the ever sickening koala cuteness cannot be allowed to survive, lest it perpetuate in the future. it is of the prime importance in the future of humanity that their cuteness be annihilated.

zyklon brad
Negative... let them be. Their cuteness is appreciated greatly by sappy people

deathtokoalas
the perverse influence that koalas produce is the reason they need to be annihilated. this simply cannot continue. no civilized society could permit it.

zyklon brad 
Geez you speak of them as if they are ISIS or something... or..even worse, Justin Trudeau.

deathtokoalas
there is no greater evil in this world than the cuteness of koalas, brad. it can only produce immeasurable harm. i plead with you not to trivialize the concern and take steps to eradicate it.

zyklon brad
I will try my absolute best. This is serious business.

deathtokoalas
i feel that you're merely humouring me. we are all at peril. we must declare a war against koalas.

Truth Seeker
While that's true Orcas rarely or rather never attack humans in the wild (there is just like 1 known case). They recognise as as top predators apparently. It's different when they are in captivity those have killed several humans, weather playing or angry, upset, whatever, but not in the wild.

deathtokoalas
you know, i don't really think there's any significant evidence that orcas tend to refrain from eating us out of some kind of level of respect or something. that sounds like human arrogance: putting ourselves at the top of the hierarchy and declaring all the other animals our companions. aristotle strikes again....the bastard....

the reality is that it's not like we're in contact with orcas on a day-to-day basis, and it's consequently reasonable for them to be curious and cautious about us. the reality may be as simple as that they don't know how to eat us.

i mean, a shark is going to eat just about anything, including rusty cans it can't even digest. you see this with, like, pelicans and stuff, too. they'll eat fucking razorblades out of the dump, then die of the complications as it rips through their stomach. they're just too fucking stupid to transcend their mechanics. orcas, as more advanced creatures, have more of a defined dinner menu. you really wouldn't expect them to just start munching. after all, they don't know if we're poisonous, or if the scuba gear is edible or whatever. and, maybe more important than that, they don't know how to hunt us.

the statistic is a little misleading. there have actually been plenty of circumstances where it seems like orcas are trying to get us, but then back off or give up. there are multiple documented reports where it seems like they're trying to tip over ice floes, or even flip over boats.

see, if you ask the experts, they'll tell you they've confused us for seals. which is blatantly just apologist bullshit. i mean, you're going to tell me that this creature that we think has a defined language is going to confuse a human for a seal? get real. these are situations where the orcas are experimenting with tactics to get us by using tactics they already know, not situations where they're confusing us for something else.

this is the scenario that we don't want to happen: suppose a pod of orcas flips a boat over, gets a bunch of us in the water and eats us. at that point, they've determined a successful tactic and will pass it on to their offspring. we'd have to slaughter the whole pod, really. but, even that would be delaying the inevitable.

i acknowledge i'm doing a lot of thinking, here, but i don't buy this idea that they see us as alpha. i think they just don't yet know how to approach us.

but, that's not really what i'm saying, here. what i'm saying is that once the orcas take over the niche sharks are in, they will become sharks. and when that happens, you'll probably see them start eating rusty cans, too.

seafood ad is brilliant.

dr. lori marino (it must be hard studying dolphins with that surname) has already pointed out the obvious, so i won't bother, i just want to point out two things.

1) if you look closely, you can see the kids were making faces at it - opening their mouths specifically. now, i do this on a lot of videos: to understand how a whale or dolphin may react to that kind of gesture in humans, you need to understand how they might react to another whale or dolphin making the gesture, because the whale or dolphin will cetaceanomorphize your behaviour - that is, it will assign your behaviour cetacean traits, just as so many of you are assigning "play" behaviour to a clear act of aggression. the kids might not have been meaning to be aggressive, but if that behaviour is thought of as aggressive in the cetacean universe then it will interpret it as aggressive and respond accordingly. as the more intelligent species, this is something humans need to get a proper grasp on to better facilitate inter-species communication with those species that may have the ability to communicate back.

2) cetaceans are sketchy. if you're mean to an elephant or a gorilla, it might very well kill you in response but it won't ever prey on you. with cetaceans, it's less clear because they're predatory species. we might not be their normal or usual diet, but predators are generally opportunistic and it's consequently somewhat foolish to suggest you're not on the menu. it's going to depend on a wide variety of factors.

i think most of us get this with dogs and cats. most people know not to stare in a dog's eye, because it might interpret it as a sign of extreme aggression. i think most of us know not to turn our backs to our cats, because they'll think you're rejecting them. with dolphins, you don't open your mouth like that....

if you look at the path of cetacean evolution, they seem to be evolving into - and competing with - sharks.
i'm just not convinced they're the best choice to get somewhere with a viable inter-species relationship. my money's on elephants...