I think therefore I am! (Predator Self-Awareness and More)

Cliff made some decent points. Predators that don't need humans to survive can be real dicks if they choose to eat people. They even cross into "horrible monster" territory should they try to prolong the suffering the victim feels.

I didn't even know predators were capable of that kind of willing cruelty. It's kinda scary.

Ah, Solomon, Bison, you two ... Solomon, I'll have a word with you in private, you can count on it. Bison, that was funny, but now I need to scroll horizontally to read...


We're asking about predator self-awareness? Shall we count on some variation, shall we give people some room? We need several alternatives, if we try to go for an unified view we won't accomplish much.

Cliff's post was helpful- that and AJ's initial post. Now, let's not bother judging the predators- let's just say things as they are.



But if you'll allow me an even more monstrous observation...

Okay, most predators will eat humans- they don't value their lives as much as their taste- but let's keep in mind that keeping a positive outlook on life is very conductive to survival. I'm not saying life in the wild is like a gummi ship that runs on smiles, but it's important for anybody to maintain a positive outlook. So don't underestimate the nutritional value of a snack: isn't that why predators would spare a neko for a song? They're not looking for nutrition, they're looking for smiles, for a moment's reprieve of enjoyment. That's the way I see it, at least. Well, except the same-size predators, for obvious reasons.

Now for sapience... well, at the risk of sounding monstrous, there's a reason why we value it. We, ourselves, value sapience because it's our birthright as humans. We spend- well, the USA spends- plenty of money looking for extra-terrestrial life and cross their fingers that it might be sapient too. But in Felarya, sapience is something you can take for granted, isn't it? Every other thing can discuss postmodern literature- so it's more understandable that they aren't impressed with it. Matter of fact, I think it'd be easier if you were small, fuzzy and really, really cute with big eyes to get spared, rather than being intelligent and with a warm-blooded, eloquent, rational speech: if there's a chance you might actually get to its heart and turn the world upside down for it, do you think it'd want to listen? Besides, if you can do that, what else can you do? Smarter critters are actually more dangerous than big strong ones: I think sapience would actually make it HARDER to get spared.

As for the supremacy speech thing, I think it actually makes a lot of sense. Elle has to hear something from everyone she eats, and if she didn't have something to cling on, something precious to her, she might get her willpower whittled down, and eventually... LISTEN, and it wouldn't be good for her, would it? Her mother wouldn't want that for her. Her grandmother wouldn't want that for her. Her grand-grandmother's husband's third-cousin's in-law wouldn't want that for her. I think it's a fairly acceptable defense mechanism to teach your children "Don't listen to them, girl, you know what's right in your heart! And if you ever don't, don't believe in yourself. Believe in me- I believe in you!", and it takes only an afternoon's worth of time to make it up. One of her ancestors had a lot of time in their hands and didn't like listening to people- doesn't that sound possible?



I'm not sure, I tend to get a bit crooked when saying those things. But I felt this discussion was worth at least a shot.

Hilary is a bit of an odd case as well. Even though I changed her backstory where she was found by Echo, because she couldn't let a little naga challenge the world all alone like that, she was taught about how it's important to eat if you want to live and that the big fish eats the smaller one. She's more of the "eat to live" thing, but most of her diet is made of animals, and even though she has two human acquaintances, she still eat them, mostly because she's clueless about human values, and because she's used to eating preys much smaller than she is.

We are all monsters.

But hitler is the worst monster.

vore4life99 wrote:

We are all monsters.

But hitler is the worst monster.

dont you dare drag hitler into this. Do you even remember what happened last time hitler was put in one of the discussions?

I agree with most of Cliffs last two posts.

Wow, reading through this I can be sure that I've created a bunch of monsters when it comes to predators... xD

I know there are always exceptions to the rule and also those who aren't monsters, but borderline or directly just 'eating for survival and a human happens to be nearby'. And I'm curious about fairies in this matter, as I can't see them as whole monsters, but maybe it's because of their weird nature...

vore4life99 wrote:

We are all monsters.

But hitler is the worst monster.

Just shut the fuck up. No. I got shit for using that as a genuine comparison for discussion's sake, and I've actually served some purpose here, if only a small one.

Stabs, you make a unique point, but one that fails to convince me. You don't see someone in a third-world country slicing up children because it makes them laugh, and then being excused for it. Well, even if they do get away with it, we would still consider it monstrous.

Careful not to drag cuss words into this, Zion, I know I'm not a mod, but cussing still just makes people even madder when used in arguements.

Honestly, whether or not they're a monster, since there are a LOT of sapient beings in Felarya, and in stuffed in a world where everyone eats each other, it is doubtless to view others as monsters. However, are they really monsters? A naga isn't a monster to another naga because it eats a Neko, however, to that Neko, the Naga is a definite Monster, or to a human.

Because of our viewpoints as humans, like stabs said, we are the only sapient ones on Earth, and billions of dollars go out a year to look for sapient extra terrestrial life. We value sentience far more on Earth than people on Felarya due to how rare it is here. That plays an important role because a wolf isn't seen as a monster for eating it's prey, because it's not sentient, yet sentience has no meaning in the food chain (apart from putting us on top, but that's not neccessarily the case in Felarya), and just because you're intelligent, doesn't mean you can't be eaten by a sharkgirl, or a mantoid. Or on earth, a shark or a some other wild animal. We're all animals here, whether or not we're sapient.

The ability to reason only gives people a viewpoint and a tendency to judge other animals as monsters because they're eating another sapient species when in reality they're all animals trying to survive in a dangerous world. Monstrosity tends to be viewed as such by the individual who was brought up to think in a particular way toward that. If you accept that in Felarya, a Naga eats a human because it's a predator, then that doesn't make them a monster, does it? Everything has to be digested, and a Naga wouldn't care. If eating a wriggling human feels better to them, why not do it? A human is just prey after all. They're higher on the food chain, and eating a kensha beast alive would still be a possibility, and that kensha beast would be digested alive in the Naga's stomach regardless. There isn't any specific bias toward humans or other sentient species in that regard.

Of course that goes to say something different if a predator wants to make the person feel pain in her belly, (maybe they killed her baby? who's the monster now?) or they want the person to entertain them for a couple hours before eating them. A snack in Felarya is still food, no matter how much nutrition they get off it, and that's important. Swallowing a small bit of bread will stave off my hunger for a half hour after all, and in Felarya that half hour could be detrimental to their survival, or to find a better more filling meal.

Bael, the magic of sapience is such that it allows us to transcend simple natural laws. A dumb beast cannot be a monster, at least not by the definition we are discussing. Predators, however, are not dumb beasts. Many are ignorant, true, but they still possess the capacity for empathy. Would not a naga feel sympathy for their friend if said friend was injured? BAM! Sympathy: they're capable of it. Making discerning statements such as "sapience doesn't matter if I can eat them" makes no sense, because it implies that sympathy is applied to beings for abstract or inconsistent reasons.

Sapience doesn't play much part in the way of a predator eating it's prey. That's the thing, and to that degree, they're not monsters. EVERYTHING gets digested in a stomach, whether you're sentient or not, being swallowed alive, you'll still feel the pain of digestion. Why would a predator care about what happens to their prey? Just about everything Felarya can feel pain anyway. What's the sense in worrying about it? It will just drive you mad.

In war, do you care about your enemy if you shoot them in the gut, and they have to bleed out on the ground? Not really. That person, unless given a mercy shot, they will bleed out on the ground for probably an hour. Now, on Earth, we are less accustomed to killing other sapient life because we are the only ones, but my metaphor is important because in Felarya, it's similar, except that it's one species eating another, and between a predator and a prey, they are most undoubtedly enemies (given they want to kill you). Unless you would consider something that wants to eat you your friend.

Bael, in war, there ARE rules that any civilized country is expected to follow. Hollow-point rounds, poisoned weapons, and the like are not allowed, because they cause excessive pain. If an opponent is captured alive, then he does have rights and should be treated fairly. It's called The Law of Land Warfare.

Sapience does play a part in the laws of predator and prey. Just because everyone on Earth is destined to die one day, you don't see me being "merciful" and shooting them in the head.

Out of respect to everyone in this discussion Im starting to wonder why we even expanded Felarya if we are arguing about how a predator should think or feel about its prey. Its a part of nature, and nature makes rules of her own, not what we decide to make of it.

every characters reaction is the result of what its creator thought they should have, thats all the answer I need to hear and what others need to accept as well. We dont need this debate over the meanings of sentience and sapience, because everyone will have their own opinions about it and we do not need to agree on a single definition.

Clearly, you've grievously missed the point of discussion in general. Out of the two disagreeing sides, hopefully some nugget of good content is found, even if it contains bits from both. Think of it like sifting through sand to find gold.

"Don't disagree, guys! Some people don't realize you're really working together to create something bigger and better!"

What Zion is trying that yes, for a predator, eating humans is not bad. But that doesn't mean you can paint them as the pinnacle of sainthood.

Exaaaaaaaactly. My point isn't that humans are better, because we aren't. My point isn't that you can't write imperfect characters, because that's the only kind you should be writing.

What. I. Am. Saying. Is. That. You. Can't. Claim. It's. Completely. And. Totally. Right. And. Just.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Exaaaaaaaactly. My point isn't that humans are better, because we aren't. My point isn't that you can't write imperfect characters, because that's the only kind you should be writing.

What. I. Am. Saying. Is. That. You. Can't. Claim. It's. Completely. And. Totally. Right. And. Just.

I dont, I try to see it on both sides. not from one or the other.

Um, what? I don't really think there's a middle ground at all! Unless, of course, you're ignoring the point I just went out of my way to stress. Please don't make me pull out the red text again...

ZionAtriedes wrote:

vore4life99 wrote:

We are all monsters.

But hitler is the worst monster.

Just shut the fuck up. No. I got shit for using that as a genuine comparison for discussion's sake, and I've actually served some purpose here, if only a small one.

I'll try to keep a straight face here, vore. When you see a discussion that has the people in it seriously absorbed, try to stay serious with them. NOTHING can whittle down people's patience like knowing that their equals don't care.
And Zion, I know you're better than that. I'll put in perspective here how invested you are in this argument and how you are not here to endure folly- but I still know you're better than that.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Stabs, you make a unique point, but one that fails to convince me. You don't see someone in a third-world country slicing up children because it makes them laugh, and then being excused for it. Well, even if they do get away with it, we would still consider it monstrous.

By itself, my first point wouldn't suffice- keeping a positive outlook wouldn't be an excuse for killing children. However, Zion, may I remind you they're a different species as well? You don't see people in third world country killing children for fun (yet), but varmint hunting (followed by varmint eating) is a common practice. How smart the varmints are doesn't really make a difference.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Bael, the magic of sapience is such that it allows us to transcend simple natural laws. A dumb beast cannot be a monster, at least not by the definition we are discussing. Predators, however, are not dumb beasts. Many are ignorant, true, but they still possess the capacity for empathy. Would not a naga feel sympathy for their friend if said friend was injured? BAM! Sympathy: they're capable of it. Making discerning statements such as "sapience doesn't matter if I can eat them" makes no sense, because it implies that sympathy is applied to beings for abstract or inconsistent reasons.

Dumb beasts can feel sympathy as well, Zion- your argument still relies on the predators feeling sympathy for any other sentient species, rather than for inconsistent reasons- which is the hallmark of almost any emotions.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Bael, in war, there ARE rules that any civilized country is expected to follow. Hollow-point rounds, poisoned weapons, and the like are not allowed, because they cause excessive pain. If an opponent is captured alive, then he does have rights and should be treated fairly. It's called The Law of Land Warfare.

However, Zion, those have only existed for over 80 years if I recall correctly. The exact number doesn't matter anyway- we've become more civilized with time. We weren't always this nice, Zion- it's not sapience that made us nicer, it's the intention of becoming better people, recognizing the equality of all men under the sun, the intention to let everyone have the best possible chances, to protect each other's freedoms and have our freedoms guaranteed in return.

Here's a quote...


See what I'm saying?

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Sapience does play a part in the laws of predator and prey. Just because everyone on Earth is destined to die one day, you don't see me being "merciful" and shooting them in the head.

No, that'd be insane. What would you gain that way? But if you had to shoot something in the head every six hours to stay alive, what would you do?


[Not done yet]

My apologies, Stabs. My patience is being worn thin by several factors around here.

Yes, but I've already said that, for the purpose of my argument, killing animals for non-essential reasons is also monstrous.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Yes, but I've already said that, for the purpose of my argument, killing animals for non-essential reasons is also monstrous.

But how monstrous is it? Monstrous enough to say "Leave that peacock alone. Put that gun down- slowly, you won't be the first hog I disembowel, you worthless piece of shit" or just worth a slap on the wrist and a "Kids, avoid that guy"?

Once again it seems we are delving into a moral argument which is tied more to our own personal views than any true fact. The subject at hand has more to do with the author's individual interpretation rather anything else. This discussion seems to be discussion for the sake of it with no correct or incorrect answers at the end.

Stabs wrote:

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Yes, but I've already said that, for the purpose of my argument, killing animals for non-essential reasons is also monstrous.

But how monstrous is it? Monstrous enough to say "Leave that peacock alone. Put that gun down- slowly, you won't be the first hog I disembowel, you worthless piece of shit" or just worth a slap on the wrist and a "Kids, avoid that guy"?

For me? More like "you should probably knock that off before I beat the living daylights out of your stupid face".

Ah, now you're getting it, Cauldron!

rcs619 wrote:

Crisis is an abnormal case, and is not the norm amongst her kind, or most predators in general.

As for Anna, she's only very rarely eaten humans. Keep in mind, even in the manga, she's only been a Naga for a few months. I think any loss of control on her part can be attributed to that. She's a human woman who is stuck in a Naga's body, and is having to deal with a whole new set of powerful, predatory, instincts that are probably very alien to anything a human has ever had to deal with. There's going to be a period of adjustment before she gets a full grip on her new body, and all that goes along with it.

I knew I'd hit Fairy Psychology eventually when I posted that example, but I couldn't think of a better one right then.

Still, I'm of the position that there's something about Felarya that coaxes things towards vore, even if not everyone acts on it.
Primarily because of Anna and Randomdude's stories on Rin, portraying Giant Naga who are friendly towards humans as tempted to eat them, even though the Naga has moral qualms about it.

It also plays into an idea I had for a Naga character whose mother was a Human turned Giant Predator.
The Mother, finding it impossible to keep her newborn daughter from consuming humanoid prey, instead taught her about "Nutrition" and how some people (Undesirables like bandits or slavers) were heathy for a Naga to eat while others were not.

Quote :

Still, I'm of the position that there's something about Felarya that coaxes things towards vore, even if not everyone acts on it.

I dont know. I tend to consider the vore effect kind of just a leftover from old-Felarya, back when it was very much a vore world. I think the animal-like, predatory instincts of the various human hybrids would be a much more powerful force than any ambient effect.

Quote :

It also plays into an idea I had for a Naga character whose mother was a Human turned Giant Predator.

I don't know. It seems like that kind of thing needs to be extremely rare. It can be really interesting if its done right though.

Quote :

The Mother, finding it impossible to keep her newborn daughter from consuming humanoid prey, instead taught her about "Nutrition" and how some people (Undesirables like bandits or slavers) were heathy for a Naga to eat while others were not.

Okay, that's kind of a cute idea.