“I’ll go first, which is to say that I think that there is no “food chain” in which humans have a superior (or inferior) position. I don’t think this exists in nature, other than in people’s minds.”
I read this as saying that you don’t “believe” there’s a food chain (since you included the ‘inferior’ position). One of the things that drives me wild these days are people who think that what they believe or think or feel is equivalent to what is a fact. Wish I had a Neil Degrasse Tyson quote to insert. It’s irrelevant IMneverHO.
the article catholiver posted is a worthwhile read that directly takes on what you are trying to say, and I think successfully refutes it. I’ve nothing to add to the article.
I just noticed about that Sunshine might have been addressing me in the thread, although the post is tagged in such a way that makes it appear Sunshine is addressing herself/himself. If it was addressed to me, then I would say that it is interesting that the scientific research behind the article that catholiver post favors the terms “food web” for the construct/model, but I agree it doesn’t matter what is called. The question is whether you think “IT” exists, or whether we are talking about a model, which is subject to revision.
Prior to reading Hungry Onion, I would have thought most people regarded “the food chain” as a bit quaint, like “the great chain of being.” So i was curious when I saw it asserted a couple of time – again most recently by kaleokahu, that “the food chain” is a very real thing to some people. I find that interesting, but if people are open to changing their minds about that, the article catholiver posted, and the science behind it, might be the place to start.
Have a wild day! I don’t think “the food chain” is a fact. It is a model. A construct. Of course the construct now exists for all of us to discuss, and it is a fact that people talk about the construct, and either that discussion is rooted in the scientific method, or it is not (meaning, it has logic, consitency, utlitiy, many other things).
But there is a difference between an established fact and a construct (and yet more difference between the actuality of what exists, which is beyond both fact and construct).
But if you think you can go out and find THE food chain, good luck!
I’m getting the impression you have re-defined “food chain” to your own personal interpretation.
in which case one can define anything in some way to make anything fail or not exist.
“the food chain” is simply a linking of what animal eats what other plant/organism.
not what they can eat. not what tools do they use to kill their food. not nothing of that kind of thinking.
whales feed on krill. they “hunt” krill. hence they are a “predator.”
if something eliminates all krill, the whales starve to death aka die. this is a food chain.
coral “feeds” on stuff floating by. they do not move. they do not stalk. the are feeders of opportunity.
however, if the minute bits of algae and plankton they feed on disappear, the coral starves to death aka die. this is a food chain.
the theory that “man is at the top of the food chain” is only valid until a hungry grizzly bear corners you.
the human is then part of his food chain, along with the nuts and berries.
that man has developed tools aka weapons that can kill a predator is not related to the food chain.
The analysis therein is spectacularly unhelpful when it comes to informing and guiding human conduct, because it fails to comport with life as we live it. In case you missed it, we live in the Anthropocene Era, in which humans predate on (even if they don’t actually eat) everything. The only real predation on humans is either by other humans or through accidental disarmament. Pegging a Trophic Level for humans of between 2.04 and 2.54 (out of 5) is just plain wacky, since that would place the most powerful, hostile, deadly, dominant species between a worm (2.0) and a jellyfish (3.0). Square this, if you can, with the fact that humans are by far the greatest predators of Great White sharks, my aumakua. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level.
Okay – so once you clarified – I don’t think I have ever seen anything referring to A (one, singular, sole) food chain – because the entire concept of food chain has to exist wthin the confines of the species existent in a given place and time.
Does food chain include T. rex? Of course it does – but only if you’re talking about the food chain in existence during the period in which T. rex roamed the earth. It’s utterly ridiculous to talk about a food chain in 2016 that includes T.rex, because they simply don’t exist any more.
It’s similarly ridiculous to define THE food chain that includes great white sharks and coyotes – the two don’t exist in the same space – any more than it makes sense to include house cats and lions in the same discussion.
It’s hard to know how to reply to you, Holy Terroir. I have kept waiting in this thread for you to reveal your own a priori assumptions in asking the question. The idea that a “food chain” is as antique an idea as “The Great Chain of Being” is sort of helpful to me in understanding your question. Chain and web are both loose metaphoric terms to describe predation (as opposed to eating). If you don’t like these metaphoric terms can you suggest another one? Or explain more about your own ideas of what predation is, or is not, in the way that classical ecology would describe it?
Also keep in mind that different scientists who all believe in the idea of “a food chain” may all believe in very different versions of what the “food chain” is. Exploring and refining ideas like that is what they do, what all academics do, not just scientists/biologists.
Very good points. Food chains are simply models used to document how nutrients flow through an Eco-system. As an undergrad biologist we studied the concept and and how they could be applied e.g. how pesticides build up in mammals that eat insects or how dioxin can build up in humans as its absorbed by crops etc. And like all models their accuracy, and how comprehensive they are really depends on the purpiose they are brining used for.
So where do we fit in the food chain? Well it depends on your perspective and where you start, we are just as much a source of food for insects, worms, bacteria, parasites etc etc as we are for sharks, bears or lions. And whilst it’s nice to think we sit at the top as we can and do eat lots of other top predators, it’s probably more accurate to think of it as a circular flow with our corpse forming the base of a whole new cycle as it rots and is eaten away in the ground…
ETA: sorry I didn’t realize this was a years old thread and only just refreshed with a nonsense post - nevertheless my feeling is accurately represented…
This is why big game hunters and hunting make me so mad. You see these stupid people gloating over glorious lions or rhinos that they killed. WITH THEIR GUNS. And I can’t help but think, you would be toast without that. It’s not a fair fight at all. They are removing beauty and life from the planet, for sport. Yuck yuck yuck.
