TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why do animals adopt?

47 点作者 dnetesn6 个月前

17 条评论

jonnycomputer5 个月前
There is a tendency to call something an evolutionary puzzle if some behavior is not optimal, and so elaborate, and often quite clever, possible explanations for why it&#x27;s secretly optimal are devised.<p>But it&#x27;s a mistake to think that non-optimal phenotypes require special explanations, when the obvious one is at hand: the optimal solution hasn&#x27;t been found yet. In this case, the mechanisms that ensure that young are cared for are simply being triggered or activated by situations it wasn&#x27;t &quot;designed for&quot;, and nothing has evolved to prevent that from happening because it&#x27;s an infrequent occurrence in the first place (and perhaps because any solution to it would be more expensive that it&#x27;s worth?).<p>Life works with what its got, and natural selection (and other forms of selection) are not <i>explanations</i>, they&#x27;re frameworks, models of a type of process. Actual explanations involve actual causal chains with actual <i>stuff</i> in the world.
评论 #42408897 未加载
评论 #42418340 未加载
moomin5 个月前
I think people sometimes treat natural selection as making cold cost&#x2F;benefit kin-selection decisions on a case by case basis and mind controlling the creatures to make those choices. I am straw manning, but my point is it doesn&#x27;t work that way. It develops predispositions and behaviours. How those predispositions and behaviours play out is the choice of the individual creature (including the case when the creature is human).
评论 #42408130 未加载
rwmj5 个月前
Complicated explanations for what is probably quite simple: The genes are sequences of DNA which have only very indirect and complicated, non-linear effects on the outcome. In this case the genes code for &quot;I must care for my offspring&quot;. On very rare occasions this doesn&#x27;t quite work advantageously (in a strict evolutionary sense), but mostly it does. There may be no practical set of mutations that could fine-tune this behaviour (such as: dozens of changes would be required, but the outcome is negative unless all happen together), so it continues this way.
评论 #42407935 未加载
评论 #42407265 未加载
Scandiravian5 个月前
If a sufficiently large part of a population behaves altruistically, it does makes sense for adoption to happen.<p>In the example with the elephant seals, if a mother becomes separated from her calf during a storm, having a predisposition in the population to adopting someone else&#x27;s calf is beneficial to the mother, as her offspring might be adopted as well
评论 #42408049 未加载
评论 #42407064 未加载
评论 #42407084 未加载
ljf5 个月前
I&#x27;ve often pondered why some animals make friends.<p>I grew up on a small farm, where we mainly kept sheep. Most of the year the ram would have next to no interest in the yews (female sheep), unless there was some sort of threat - he&#x27;d just be off doing his own thing.<p>Once my mum bought a calf as auction as it was so cheap (from memory 20p - most cows are sold in lots of 6, but this was an odd lot and no-one bid) - the calf loved us and wanted to be with us whenever we were in the field (and to be bottle fed), but the rest of the time would hang out with the ram.<p>That September a family brought a pet duck to us as their daughter couldn&#x27;t take it to university and the parents didn&#x27;t want to look after it. We said sure, and as soon as they left we put it in the pond. The geese we had started to attack it, and the duck ran out of the pond and hid between the legs of the cow who just happened to be near.<p>And that was it - for the rest of the year the duck, cow and ram were always together - they&#x27;d pace up and down the field together and at night the duck would either sleep between the cows legs, or curled up to it, if the cow was seated&#x2F;lying down.<p>They genuinely seemed to all get a lot from the bond they shared as three &#x27;others&#x27;. Sadly a couple of years later, after a few of our chickens were eaten by a fox, my mum tried to put the duck away each night. As she was trying to catch it the cow started stamping to tell her to leave the duck alone, and accidentally stamped on the duck, breaking its leg. We took it to a city farm and &#x27;gifted&#x27; it to them - but I am told it made friends with their ducks, though I didn&#x27;t recognise it when we visited - but I was only about 8 at the time.
tail_exchange5 个月前
As the article says, animals are not automatons, despite our tendency to see them as so. Maybe they do it for similar reasons why we adopt pets? Biologically, it doesn&#x27;t make sense to keep a modified wolf in my house competing for my resources either.
评论 #42408372 未加载
评论 #42411385 未加载
shellfishgene5 个月前
Not sure what the point of the article is. Caring for young is a strong behavioural program, and errors happen, seems to be the summary, not too enlightening. They could have mentioned cuckoos, which actively exploit these errors.
sinuhe695 个月前
Or maybe the author has read too much into it! Maybe it&#x27;s just a drift of the instinct animals have for their offspring, an association error of the animal&#x27;s brain. Not unlike the mistake they make when they eat (and sadly die) from plastic litters.
评论 #42406972 未加载
评论 #42407111 未加载
Gravityloss5 个月前
Bird species have different looks and mating rituals that usually prevent mixups but sometimes it happens: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rackelhahn" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Rackelhahn</a><p>One theory is it requires multiple phases. First an unintenional egg mixup. First there are eggs laid by one bird, then it&#x27;s abandoned for some reason and another bird of a different species lays eggs on top. All the chicks are raised by the parents as if of the species of the latter bird, but one or more of the hatchlings are actually from the first batch, a different species. The chicks will absorb enough of the habits as to mate with their &quot;social species&quot; instead of their &quot;biological species&quot;. (Am not a biologist and don&#x27;t know the precise terms).
rm4455 个月前
I&#x27;m curious whether the whole tree of life being related plays some part in cross-species adoption (and even animal behaviour in general???).<p>In the sense that genes don&#x27;t &#x27;want&#x27; anything, but selection creates a pressure towards overall adaptation and survival... a lion shares a lot of genes with a leopard. Is it pro-genetic-survival in some very broad sense for a lioness to care for a baby leopard? I guess not, if adults of those species compete to the death... but many species don&#x27;t seem to do a lot of murdering, beyond predation for food. Animals sometimes seem quite incurious about other activity close to them, except when they need to eat. Could there be some small selection pressure towards live-and-let-other-DNA-live?
mseepgood5 个月前
Probably for the same reasons humans adopt, since we are animals, too. Just ask people who adopted for their reasons.
tristramb5 个月前
If you want to explain a particular type of animal behaviour you should probably familiarize yourself with Tinbergen&#x27;s Four Questions: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8NRU6iH5lzs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=8NRU6iH5lzs</a>
sorokod5 个月前
It is just a bug in the system, the parental instinct misfires. Similar to the cases where parentd abandon their offspring for, what to us look like, superficial reasons.<p>Cookoos exploit the system via this bug.
byyoung35 个月前
probably the same reason dogs hump pillows
jonnycomputer5 个月前
Yeah, and why don&#x27;t my fingers shoot laser beams? Seems useful, but I don&#x27;t have them. Evolutionary puzzle???????????
VoodooJuJu5 个月前
Could it be that animals, like humans, aren&#x27;t just sacks of chemicals? Could it be they&#x27;re not computer programs, but that they are, in fact, animals?<p>This is why I despise practically every discussion of &quot;why&quot; when it comes to talking about observed traits and evolution like this. People invent this bizarre deterministic model of life as it it were purely chemical or computational and could be controlled &amp; understood as such. As if every single little trait has design intent.<p>You have one guy in this thread that&#x27;s like, &quot;Would this imply that humans’ propensity to keep pets is also an association error in the brain?&quot;. Like holy shit dude, I don&#x27;t know, but maybe people just like pets. Maybe pets like pets. Maybe pets like us. Maybe we aren&#x27;t computer programs whose nature is defined by scripts and wiring. &quot;Association error&quot;. The fuck? We&#x27;re not computer programs. We don&#x27;t have &quot;errors&quot;.<p>Like what a dull and inhuman lens to view the world with: &quot;We&#x27;re all just computers&quot;, or &quot;We&#x27;re all just a bunch of chemicals&quot;. I wonder, do you also think of me as a computer or a chemical sack? Do you view my child that way? My cat? If you do, that disturbs me, because then you may be tempted to treat us as such, when we&#x27;re all so much more than that.
评论 #42408419 未加载
stavros5 个月前
Because evolution made sex feel good, and caring for kids feel good, and the two together lead to positive evolutional outcomes. It never specifically made &quot;caring for <i>your</i> kids&quot; good.