Corvids and cetaceans would be good for future study, but I doubt we're in for much of a surprise.
This is a study in line with interspecies differences. Intraspecies differences still require some teasing out. E.g., how does a Gauss differ from Joe Q. Public?
All animals in the universe are “hostage to threats from bad actors.” Most fights in the animal kingdom are avoided by a simple size comparison between two animals, after which the smaller animal submits.
Size is an implicit threat, one that can never be eliminated. How exactly do you propose to eliminate the implicit threat of one animal/group of animals simply being larger than another?
Perhaps I'm old school ( or perhaps warped :) but I do divide animals into predators and prey ( at least in pairwise relationships ) . The salient difference is exactly what you describe.
There are, of course, animals that are neither but they're fewer in number.
I think most animals are aware of their predators even if they don't have some complex understanding of ecosystems. Anything that may once have considered humans a part of its natural diet has long since been hunted to extinction, save for maybe some remote patches of wild at the various edges of the human inhabited world.
All true, but recall that attacking infant animals tends to be riskier, and that these pressures operate at the population rather than individual level. A population that's too good at targeting baby prey will go hungry later, all other things being equal.
I'd argue that rats are exceptionally close to humans (both are mammals). Similarly other potential candidates: raccoons, bear, possibly dolphins or other cetaceans.
Insect, plant, or colonial intelligences would be interesting.
reply