• TOModera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    27 days ago

    Probably humans, given they went from 100k to 5.6k in population in 100 years and are still in decline.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      27 days ago

      in the Ganges Delta in India, where tigers living under protection in a reserve had been killing about 60 people a year.

      Geez that’s a lot.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        27 days ago

        I mean, deer kill about 400 people a year in the US and they aren’t even trying. 280 million people live in the Delta alongside a predator that is actually trying to kill them, so it mkaes sense.

        • angrystego@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          27 days ago

          I’ve read somewhere that tigers usually aren’t trying to kill people, humans are not their natural prey and they normally ignore them. The ones that do kill people seem to have a bad experience with humans, like being shot at. Fuck humans.

      • _bcron@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        I’ve seen people get out of vehicles to try to take selfies with grizzly bear cubs. I could kinda see black bears but like wtf. But yeah you get slapped once by either and you’re pretty much dead if you aren’t within 10 minutes to a hospital.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      27 days ago

      That makes sense. Tigers are just big cats - they’re all kinda jerks to each other (let alone other animals), but I suppose that comes with being an apex predator.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        27 days ago

        Tigers are territorial and solitary but quite social, they don’t usually get into fights when they meet, that only happens when they have an actual territorial conflict because there’s too many tigers on too little land. They’re perfectly fine with others visiting their prowling grounds, they might even hunt together, just don’t overstay your welcome. Actually not that terribly different from how humans treat their houses.

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    27 days ago

    Their predators are other tigers. There are tribes in Asia who wear masks on the backs of their heads with large eyes to deter tiger attacks. Apparently the tiger is very much about stabbing you in the back, and not so big on open confrontation.

  • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    27 days ago

    Fun fact the South American short face bear is the only Ice aged giant that is thought not to be driven extinct by humans and fact humans could not hunt it, Tigers would be a pleasant snack for them.

  • pinkystew@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    27 days ago

    No living thing has a feature “to” do anything. That implies decision making, which is intelligent design.

    Tigers have spots on their ears, which can confuse attackers.

    Tigers did not develop those spots “to” confuse attackers.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      I hear what you’re saying, and you’re 100% correct, but I think most people will realize it’s a figure of speech, and easier to say than “Via the process of gene mutation trial and error over many, many generations of tigers, spots have developed on their ears that look like eyes, resulting in predation from behind being discourged.”

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        One way of thinking of it could be that since all of our intention and decision making originates in such a process, the line between them isn’t that clear.

    • homura1650@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      27 days ago

      All models are wrong, but some are useful. Thinking of evolved features as having a purpose is wrong, but it is also incredibly useful.

      Why do we have eyes? In some sense, there is no reason, just a sequence of random coincidences, combined with a slightly non-randon bias refered to as “survival of the fittest” (itself an incorrect model).

      However, saying that we have eyes to see has incredible explanatory power, which makes it a useful model. Just like Newton’s law of Universal gravity. We’ve known it that is wrong for a century at this point, but most of the time still talk as if it’s true, because it is useful.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Yes, they did though. That’s the purpose of this evolutionary trait. I see what you’re getting at, but you seem to be implying this was a concidence

      • pinkystew@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        27 days ago

        Every evolutionary trait is coincidence. If it was adaptation we’d be able to regrow vital organs.

        • Umbrias@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          26 days ago

          that’s not how that works, we cant regrow (most) vital organs (liver says hi) because of “engineering problems” not because evolution is random. we personify adaptations to understand them, it can lead to issues but yours is a massive overcorrection.

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    27 days ago

    Wild tigers, as apex predators, have few natural threats. Their primary competitors include Asiatic wild dogs (dholes), which can harass tigers in packs.

  • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    27 days ago

    Well, they are kind of solitary animals. No one will warn them about something big getting close from behind.

  • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    27 days ago

    Do they have them when they are little too? Or maybe it worked out that it was less likely predators would yoink their babies because it seemed like they were always watching. Can’t sneak up on someone with eyes on the back of their heads, that never close, even while sleeping.