4D vegetarians

[mightymrbob]

PWrong, purely out of interest, where is your post on 4D vegetarianism. I'm an avid fan of vegetable-ness. I looked for it, but no joy. Is it still here?!?! If so, please tell me where!

[jinydu]

PWrong, purely out of interest, where is your post on 4D vegetarianism. I'm an avid fan of vegetable-ness. I looked for it, but no joy. Is it still here?!?! If so, please tell me where!

If I remember correctly, someone claimed that in 4D, there are more directions for prey to run away from predators. Hence, they would be more difficult to catch. Therefore, Emily is more likely to be a vegetarian, since plants in any dimension (presumably) don't move.

[mightymrbob]

Cheers jinydu! I s'pose it all just boils down to human lazyness...

[PWrong]

Yep, that was my post. I think it was a few pages back, when I first joined the forum. I'm glad to see there's another fan of vegetable-ness on the forum. I'd hoped there might be some vegetarians on here, since we're all intelligent people.

Cheers jinydu! I s'pose it all just boils down to human lazyness...

That's not quite what I meant I wasn't saying we're too lazy to eat meat, just that the extra energy required might set the food web off-balance and possibly eliminate carnivores or make them a less powerful species (well, less powerful than they are now. Everyone knows vegetarians are the most powerful species :wink:). Actually I've had a few more ideas about that since then, about the shape & volume of leaves versus meat, maybe Bob could split this topic. I won't preach about ethics, I promise. :wink:

[jinydu]

Actually I've had a few more ideas about that since then, about the shape & volume of leaves versus meat, maybe Bob could split this topic. I won't preach about ethics, I promise. :wink:

Would you care to elaborate on these ideas, please?

[elpenmaster]

Hey! I'm a vegetarian too!

[mightymrbob]

Why don't we start a new thread? I'll do it now.

[Keiji]

No point in that Just so you know, I've split this one and deleted your new one.

[mightymrbob]

OK... Does that mean that over time then, predators and all carnivores would evolve into herbivores? If you think about an eagle or whatever chasing a smaller bird. The eagle closes in on its prey, it's about to secure lunch and... the smaller bird swoops out of the way ana/ kata and lives to fight another day!

Infact, it could turn into everything being vegan! The milk-bloke comes and tries to get milk from Daisy (his cow). He approaches Daisy, but then Daisy jumps out of the way ana/ kata and the farmer-man is left standing with no cow and no income. So, he then sets up a potato farm and gets his money from selling plants! All the cows, now liberated from the chore of udder-squeezing, go and live life in the fields. And sheep/ goats etc. Thus, everyone, who realises that there's no point in trying to get meat or dairy products, decides to be vegan.

This, of course, sparks a new problem. There'd need to be millions upon millions of vegetable plantations to feed everyone. But the space for these has been taken up with cows and other such creatures! Or something like that...

[Geosphere]

there are more directions for prey to run away from predators. Hence, they would be more difficult to catch.

WAY too many problems posed here.

There are predator birds that prey on birds - more dimensions of chase than antelope and lion, and those birds do not starve.

What about relative speeds... Why wouldn't predators be faster?

What about intelligence... Short cuts and trapping?

Maybe all prey are slug speed and the few predators are cat speed. Maybe the relationship is more like whale and plankton, scooping tones of food by sheer volume.

Far too many assumptions goin on here - the biggest being that there are "plants" and "animals".

[mightymrbob]

And maybe all prey aren't slug speed and maybe all predators aren't cat speed. Isn't "maybe" an assumption?

[PWrong]

I realise it's a lot more complicated than it sounds. I don't think it's a big assumption to say that there may be plants and animals in tetraspace though. There are a few major differences between plants and animals that I can think of at present. I think we can use these differences to define the concept of "plant" and "animal".

1. They don't move (at least, they can't actually uproot themselves and move away)

2. They have no nervous system, so they can't feel pain. This is what distinguishes them for the ethical purposes of vegetarians, but it also stems from the fact that they can't move. If you walk into a wall, you feel pain and you stop walking into walls. Plants can't walk into walls, so why evolve a nervous system?

3. They use photosynthesis to gain energy. They can't move around to eat anything, so they have to.

So all three differences all stem from the fact that plants can't move. In saying, "vegetarians don't eat anything that has to suffer", it's similar to saying "vegetarians don't eats anything that can move when it's alive". So assuming that in tetraspace, there are living things that can move and living things that can't, we might as well define the things that can't as "plants".

Ok. I'm not sure I know of many birds that eat other birds. I know eagles eat rabbits, but that's 3D to 2D. Besides, birds just turn left and right and work against gravity. They see a clear difference between height and the other two dimensions.

My argument is based on the energy required to catch moving creatures. It takes a lot more energy and quick thinking to catch something. I'm sure it's possible to do it, especially if the predators happened to be cat speed, and the prey happened to be slug speed, but the extra energy would mean that doesn't happen as often as it does here.

I'm not sure about my theory with the shape of leaves as opposed to meat yet. I'm working on it, but it doesn't really matter, as we don't know what shape a 4D leaf might take anyway, or whether leaves might be replaced by more vegetables. Also factors like nutrition are to complex to understand even in 3D.

[Geosphere]

Maybe.

[Keiji]

Bump.

[RQ]

That's not quite what I meant I wasn't saying we're too lazy to eat meat, just that the extra energy required might set the food web off-balance and possibly eliminate carnivores or make them a less powerful species (well, less powerful than they are now. Everyone knows vegetarians are the most powerful species ). Actually I've had a few more ideas about that since then, about the shape & volume of leaves versus meat, maybe Bob could split this topic. I won't preach about ethics, I promise.

If the prey has an extra dimension to run in, so does the predator, hence the fall of the argument itself. And even if your theory is to be taken correct, the carnivores will not only become less powerful, but infact there wouldn't be any either way. Anyway, what if a plant suddenly gets blown by kata wind, wouldn't it disappear, and hence the prey dies, or the carni-tobe-herbivore dies too.

[PWrong]

True, but the predator has a more complicated task than the prey. The prey runs away from the predator in a straight line, then it suddenly changes direction to confuse the predator. The predator has to follow and compensate for these movements. This would be more difficult in 4D because you can change direction in four different ways.

[Geosphere]

This would be more difficult in 4D because you can change direction in four different ways.

Very dependent on creature type and environment. After all, whens the last time you saw a buffalo escape by burrowing or flying?

[RQ]

Interesting points, and yes it depends entirely on the situation, but yes gradually to higher dimension you go the harder it would be to catch prey as a predator in an overall percentage, assuming the amount of prey and predators was proportional there as it is here.

[PWrong]

This would be more difficult in 4D because you can change direction in four different ways.

Sorry, three different ways.

[Prashantkrishnan]

Ok. I'm not sure I know of many birds that eat other birds. I know eagles eat rabbits, but that's 3D to 2D. Besides, birds just turn left and right and work against gravity. They see a clear difference between height and the other two dimensions.

How about 4D birds? They could fly through all four dimensions of their space. There is still scope for escape for the pray.

[wendy]

Just because there are more directions to run, it does not mean the animals are not going to run down their prey.

In 3d, you have animals that make it hard to turn sharp angles, and you can use this as a means of escape. On the other hand, animals have senses, and can track down their prey because they are following one thing. Birds on the wing in 3d, can certainly catch other birds on the wing, so the amount of free directions does not seem to be an impediment.

Animals come down for water, and it has even been recorded that fish can jump from the water and catch birds on the wing, if such are flying low.