Protecting your young

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Remember if a mother is injured or killed protecting this years young she risk the futures of all her potential future young. A relatively common physiological reaction in female big cats after the death of their cubs is to go back in season (males big cats 'know' this)!

One likely explanation is that the berzerk tendency of mammalian mothers protecting their young is a tendency that over time has deterred predators, taught them to be wary about preying on young animals, in the same way that many animals have "learned" that insects of certain bright and distinctive colours are (almost) always very poisonous to eat.

It doesn't help the individual animal survive, but it does help the species, over time, by "teaching" other species.

It helps the genes of the species survive and spread.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

One likely explanation is that the berzerk tendency of mammalian mothers protecting their young is a tendency that over time has deterred predators, taught them to be wary about preying on young animals, in the same way that many animals have "learned" that insects of certain bright and distinctive colours are (almost) always very poisonous to eat.

It doesn't help the individual animal survive, but it does help the species, over time, by "teaching" other species.

It helps the genes of the species survive and spread.

The theory about predators being deterred over time from attacking young, doesn't work, the young (and weak) are generally top of the menu afterall.

The point being there is no berserk tendency in the wild specifically for this (or at least its no more berserk than any threat display, threat displays are designed to be scary after all).


We hear about human mothers being occasionally unexpectedly aggressive, but that's more due to the fact that in our society other reason for aggressive threat displays have reduced making this one stand out*. We also have a tendency to anthropomorphise a lot of animal behaviour (especially when it involves their young)

In the wild predator mothers tend to hide their children and avoid threats not rely on fighting them off.

Because a young who's mother dies due to defending them or dies later due to an injury sustained when defending them dies anyway.

A generation's genes are not passed on until their young grow up and successfully mate.

I.e genetic strength / health is not measured in # children, but # of grand children


(this by the way is why grand parents tend to spoil their grandchildren rotten ;0)


Remember again a mother without a young can produce another young (and another and another) or may even have others at the same time, a young without a mother (unless it's lucky enough to born into certain pack species) is dead anyway unless it can fend for itself.

Genetically in terms of species survival generally speaking a fertile mother who can raise children is more useful than a single immature young or even litter, if for no other reason infant mortality is so high for all sorts of reasons. This does depends on how common birth and how long it takes young to mature though.



(obviously there are some reproductive tactics where this is not true, but we're not really talking about mammals at that point)

*there side point about threat display the role they play in the gender split and modern society that I'm not going to touch with a 10 ft pole here!

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Because a young who's mother dies due to defending them or dies later due to an injury sustained when defending them dies anyway.

That's not relevant for the genes.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

A generation's genes are not passed on until their young grow up and successfully mate.

The generation doesn't matter. The genes matter.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I.e genetic strength / health is not measured in # children, but # of grand children

The strength of genes isn't best measured in either of those.

[ericthered]

Most mothers that defend their young aren't at risk from the predator, despite the fact that her offspring is. Or the species relies on group aggression to protect the whole herd and it looks like they are primarily defending the young, but they really are defending the whole herd. Bears are apex predators, so defending your young from all comers make sense because their isn't a single predator who can take you. Beat you up? yes, but in terms of energy gained, it won't be worth it. The mamma bear isn't at risk from predators. The little bear is. That's why she attacks. And that's what you'll see in all cases where the mother defends the young. The mother isn't at risk from the predator, but the offspring is.

mother bears don't die defending their cubs. Its not worth standing and fighting a bear to kill her cub, even if you're a big male who could theoretically do it -- you get what out of it and you spend huge amounts of energy. If you're successful, you skirt the mom, get the cub, and high tail it out of there.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

...
We hear about human mothers being occasionally unexpectedly aggressive, but that's more due to the fact that in our society other reason for aggressive threat displays have reduced making this one stand out*. We also have a tendency to anthropomorphise a lot of animal behaviour (especially when it involves their young)
...!

We also tend to idealize humanity to absurd levels. Many in this thread assume all parents will act how our culture wants.
Even if I believed that the vast majority of parents are willing and eager to die for offspring, we have an extended family that would probably raise our young if parents died.
Why die protecting kid B when that guarentees kid A dies as well? Heck serious injury makes death for offspring even more likely than for yourself. True single parenthood almost doesn't exist in humanity.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by ericthered

...
mother bears don't die defending their cubs. Its not worth standing and fighting a bear to kill her cub, even if you're a big male who could theoretically do it -- you get what out of it and you spend huge amounts of energy. If you're successful, you skirt the mom, get the cub, and high tail it out of there.

I don't think we should talk about entire species as unvarying programmed robots. There will always be some that go far more than the norm and many that go far less.
Some cats, for example, have abandoned kittens on a whim, while others have suffered lethal burns trying to rescue every single one.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

That's not relevant for the genes.

Yes it is, children who die don't pass on their genes (or act as a conduit for their parents genes), mothers who die don't birth more children which carry their genes

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

The generation doesn't matter. The genes matter..

The generation (and the individuals it contains) is the genes, it's literally the mechanism the genes travel and express through.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

The strength of genes isn't best measured in either of those.

In terms of genes being successfully passed down, it is. You don't know if you've passed good genes until those genes them selves successfully pass them selves on. I.e umpteen children who are not genetically viable are no use to you (just ask the Austro-Hungarian royal family ;-) )

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

We also tend to idealize humanity to absurd levels. Many in this thread assume all parents will act how our culture wants.
Even if I believed that the vast majority of parents are willing and eager to die for offspring, we have an extended family that would probably raise our young if parents died.
Why die protecting kid B when that guarentees kid A dies as well? Heck serious injury makes death for offspring even more likely than for yourself. True single parenthood almost doesn't exist in humanity.

True

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I don't think we should talk about entire species as unvarying programmed robots. There will always be some that go far more than the norm and many that go far less.
Some cats, for example, have abandoned kittens on a whim, while others have suffered lethal burns trying to rescue every single one.

True again, however (and as per your earlier point) we shouldn't put animals behaviour on the same sliding scales as humans. I.e cats abandon their kittens and/or save them from fire for different reasons and according to different impulses than humans.

You also have to be realistic about motive and threat risk assessment, while animals will tend to avoid fire, it might be the parent in the latter example didn't realise it was facing a risk of lethal burns.

Also if we're talking cats as in domesticated cats were already talking about a weird situation in terms of judging animal behaviour.

[Flyndaran]

Six of one, half dozen of another. Humans have more ability to willfully fail to understand things even non-humans would find obvious.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Six of one, half dozen of another. Humans have more ability to willfully fail to understand things even non-humans would find obvious.

True (but as you say it works both ways), animal instinct can trigger in response to stuff in weird ways though.