Furlosophy 2.0

[anoni]

There was a thread made by Cecilia called Furlosophy where people simply discussed philosophical concepts and what-not, it led to some pretty interesting discussions about genetic engineering and what-not. Unfortunately the thread died so I'm reviving it with a 2nd version.

Lets get this ball rolling.

  Zootopia portrays a setting where prey and predators live together in harmony, though racism exists between them. In the original draft, the predators were kept in line with mandatory shock collars in a harsh authoritarian society.

  My question is if the zootopia world exists in which there were intelligent mammals, could such a prey-predator symbiosis exist? Which portrayal do you find more realistic, the original draft or the theatrical draft, or do you find both drafts unrealistic? If so what do you think a society like that would actually be like?

 

[Rho'Syn Ilwynog]

Well... I think the original draft is more realistic than the new one, but frankly both are plausible. The final cut REALLY Hones in in the fact that prey outnumbers predator 10-1, so since they have technology like weapons and such, it makes sense for an uneasy peace to form because of the sheer numbers.

In reality, prey doesn't have any natural weapons to call on, however in Zootopia they are shown to have items designed to fight predators. Sure , predators are built to fight, but when the odds are 10-1, one tends to reconsider. So I think that the symbiosis could exist under the pretense that the animals have access to human-like technology that evens the playing field.

The shock collar draft is more extreme, but I can see the symbiosis in the movie to still work.

[anoni]

  It's interesting to think that preys would win-out against predators because when you look at actual evolution and nature this is usually the case.

  Eating other animals is an extremely inefficient method of getting energy, this is why large predators like Tigers and Bears are quite few in number, while prey like Beetles are so much more numerous. There are generally less predators than prey simply because prey are designed to breed faster than predators can kill them (that's an oversimplification of course).

  Another question is whether these differences on survival tactics would drastically change the actual culture surrounding the preys and predators, would predators value their lives more than preys?

[Rho'Syn Ilwynog]

I think if they had the sort of self understanding that they show in Zootopia, the prey would value their own lives equally.

[Ventus Fall]

I've recently (last half year or so, if not longer) been working on creating a world for a species I'm working on. These are prey-based species mostly. But I wanted them to be the dominant species of the planet.
When I read this read, I thought I could easily work in the ideas I have to partake in the discussion
So here are some thoughts I had to consider:

If prey and predators survive side-by-side, or prey creatures are dominant, why would that be? The predators need to get food from somewhere, and there are a few reasons as to why there are lower numbers of predators than prey. So what if I wanted to turn that around, what could the possible reason be?
I had to make sure the environment would allow for such an evolutionary step to be taken, the environment had to be different in various aspects.
I personally love animals, I wish it was possible we/they all live together without having to eat one another, but it's not possible (at least not currently with the modern science and technology we have). Even if we did, if we would mess with the chain/order of things, what effects would that have?
Nothing to barely anything could change, but most likely more doomsday-type scenarios could apply. We can't say for sure.
I personally take the approach that I hope the animal had a good life before it died (be it killed or simply passed away from something natural (and non-detrimental when eating/digesting the food/meat)). However, there are some animals I actively avoid eating, because of my connections to them or other reasons (rabbits and hares are a good example).

So the homeworld of the new species I'm developing currently has to have a really good reason for prey animals to be the dominant species.
The prey animals eat plants, vegetation and the like. So can I do something with that?
How to keep the predator population small and not being able to evolve as rapidly as their prey, but still enough for them to survive?
I answered this by looking at the environment. It can't be something like our environment, but I can somehow base it on it.
The plant life will be able to eat other lifeforms. I'm still working exactly on how, but the idea is they eat organisms, a lot of plants are carnivorous. The prey species would be specialised in knowing how to eat the plants without getting killed, as well as using them as a means to hide. Perhaps even using the vegetation to trap predators. This way the predators, while still evolving to trying to outsmart the plants and the prey, would still be slightly behind.
The plants only have to worry about one 'enemy' (the prey eating the plants) while having a means of easy food (predators are easier to catch because they are more focused on catching the prey animals than eating plants), the prey would have to worry about being able to survive (from the plants and the predators), using techniques perhaps on both of them which are similar in order to survive attacks from either, since they're prey, they also would produce more offspring and evolutionary steps can perhaps be taken sooner this way as well. The predators are more focused on catching prey, rather than avoiding capture by plants.
So it's like a stat game kind of thing. Prey -in order to survive- need to learn how to avoid capture, these techniques can be applied to the predators as well as the vegetation.
Predators only need to eat and capture prey, so they would be more focused on that.
Thus plants don't need to worry about predators, but about potential prey animals eating them, so they would focus on defence/being eaten by prey animals, as well as finding an easy source of food (the predators).

Everything is still being worked on, but this is the main premise of it all.

[Rocco Rex]

Going back to the first post, using force on all predators to keep them inline would work for a while, but would end up horribly. The prey would need shock collars too, or else the predators would feel like second class and like they are being controlled. That would lead to a popular shadow leader emerge among the predators hidden away from the light. He (or she) would feed off of the extreme hatred towards prey (massive boost to this if the prey aren't forced to wear shock collars too).  This is where 3 different scenarios come into play
1 If they were lucky, it would be a good leader rising, possibly trying diplomatic channels within the city to try to get the collars removed or at least collars on all prey. They might also try to lead a migration out of the city. Might.
2 If diplomacy failed or it wasn't a good leader, an insurrection would result. This is where the 10-1 odds don't matter. If Zootopia's power, water, and transportation systems are anything like ours, it would only take a few insurrectionists and the city would be crippled in a matter of hours. Then you have massive civil unrest from predators and prey alike. Anarchy. Riots. Looting. Add in prey ambushing cops, firefighters, EMT, and city officials and game over.
3 The shadow leader is evil and only in it for his/her personal gain of power. Same as scenario 2, except add in terrorist style attacks on prey civilians. Think Vietnam war minus America or modern day Middle East.


In a sheer numbers war, prey probably wouldn't win. Vast majority of prey, just like civilians in Vietnam and the ME, would just try to stay out of it. That drastically drops the 10-1 odds. Factor in that prey usually have a flight drive while predators have a fight drive, and fight ability goes down further. No force has ever beaten an insurrection. Not even our military. And in an insurrection in Zootopia, the controlling force (prey) have a massive disadvantage we never had. Our homes and family were safe, the anti insurrection forces in Zootopia, their families are right in the battle zone. Targets or leverage. The numbers fighting for prey drops even more because of those who stay home to protect their families. Meanwhile, the successful attacks raise morale and insurrectionists. And if you start killing predators? That increases anger and insurrectionists. Fighting against an insurrection is very demoralizing. And even if the prey did somehow win, the city would be devastated, massive casualties on both sides, and animosity that might never go away. Another insurrection in the future would be probable.


So in short, prey are screwed with any war path. Predators? They have a path to victory, but not a good one.
I fully agree with them NOT using the shock collar idea. I'm not sure if they had someone think my way (I study warfare, insurrection is one of them that fascinates me), but it's much more family friendly and realistic this way.

[Rob_Silvermyst]

It could definitely work, but there are two issues you would need to address immediately: Food and population growth. Predators have far fewer offspring compared to their prey counterparts for obvious reasons, but breaking the natural dynamic would mean there is no more control factor on prey population, which is the role of predators. The reason I bring this up first is because it leads into the second part, food.

If you have one square stretch of grass that can support ten deer and yet you soon have a population of fifty deer but still only that same one square that they all have to eat from, starvation and disease can easily wipe the entire heard out. Also, what food is there for the predators? Are there still some feral animals, such as hens that can provide a steady stream of unfertilized eggs? Or will the prey set up fish farms to create a regular source of fish for preds to eat? Perhaps when prey die of natural causes, their bodies would be sent to be turned into canned food for preds, and predator bodies could be used to fertilize the farming soil as a sort of exchange? Predators cannot become herbivores. Their bodies are not made to process such, and many, especially felines, require certain proteins that can only be found in organic meats, fish and eggs that are used in the digestion process.

If these two issues can be reasonably addressed, the rest will eventually fall into place. Aggressions can calm over time via domestication. Just look at dogs. As long as there is a reliable food source for predators, they have no need to hunt prey. And as long as prey can keep their numbers at a healthy level, you won't see overpopulation and food shortages. As has been seen with human progression, once basic needs are met, higher levels of thought start to take root, and progression occurs.