Taking flight, Keshchyi issues a "...whistling, trumpeting challenge..." (p. 296) to Thuriak and Nat. An Ythrian voice both trumpets and whistles? Sounds can change pitch alarmingly. I heard a woman speaking English in an accent that seemed to oscillate between American and French. She was French Canadian. Maybe she spoke in an intermediate accent that my brain heard one way, then the other. Planha involves not only spoken words but also bodily ripples of plumage. Thus, Thuriak non-verbally observes that Nat is troubled.
Three characters interact although two are not human. Keshchyi is overbearing. Thuriak is gentle, considerate, calmer and less impulsive. Nat feels uncertain and alone among aliens that are polite if not intimate. Ythrians, "...pure carnivores, born hunters...," (p. 298) encourage recklessness in their young. That is one big difference and a cause for concern when a human child is a guest among Ythrians.
12 comments:
Social carnivores like lions and wolves generally try to segregate their young from the business of hunting, and to keep them in safe places under guard as much as they can.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I assume, however, about four or five months after birth, the wolf and lion cubs would be taught by mama how to hunt.
Ad astra! Sean
With wolves, the whole group teaches and guards the offspring, who are usually from the sole breeding pair in the pack; wolves are basically clan-oriented communists, sorta.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And I can see why wolf packs would only have one breeding pair, because there would not have been prey animals to support more than that.
Ad astra! Sean
It's also due to the fact that wolf-packs are mostly closely related, so caring for the breeding pair's offspring is kin-selection, perpetuating the whole group's genes. There are sometimes more than one breeding pair, but it's unusual, IIRC.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And that too, as well.
Ad astra! Sean
The reason that humans have a genuine instinct to care for and protect children -- which can be overriden, but usually isn't -- is probably that in the setting we evolved in, nearly all the children you'd meet would be relatives.
Like much in evolution, it's a "kludge". We don't -know- that the children we're expending time and care on bear our genes, but in the original setting that wasn't necessary. Certain clues, like size, relative size of eyes, pitch of voice, etc., trigger instincts.
And some of our companion species (like cats and dogs) have young that trigger the same impulses in us.
Nb; dogs treat human infants more or less they way they would their own puppies, most of the time.
Richard Dawkins argued that the biological basis of morality is that we feel obligated to help others either because they bear the same genes or because they might help us in return and that this motivation is experienced as moral obligation, not as calculating self-interest which is what it sounds like when explained in these terms.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul
Mr. Stirling: Well, MY father told me I took after his late brother in looks, who died six years before I was born. So sometimes parentage is fairly sure! (Smiles)
Paul: I would argue as well that as human societies became more stable and settled, and people had more time for THINKING, the idea also arose that it was right to protect children, whether or not they were related to you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: helping children is something people just -do- because of the way it -feels-. The feeling is stronger the longer you're exposed to the specific child, of course, but it starts more or less on sight.
Other emotions can suppress this; humans are behaviorally flexible. But it's definitely an instinct.
Note that cross-species adoption of infants happens with a lot of mammals.
It isn't common, but it's not vanishingly rare.
I saw a video of a lioness actually protecting a young antelope fawn from the rest of her pride, not long ago, which is an extreme case because that's a member of a prey species. She faced them down, waited until they'd gone away, then nudged the fawn on its way.
Something triggered the maternal-protective reflex. Otherwise she'd have eaten it.
In some species it's quite common; dogs often "adopt" kittens, grooming and cuddling them, for example.
That's one thing ERB got right in TARZAN, if only by accident; it's quite credible that the "mangani" female, who's just lost her own offspring, takes in the human child and protects it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Oh, I agree. Most humans do have that instinct to be protective of children. I only said "most," because as you said, it can be overridden.
Very interesting, the lioness protecting that baby antelope. Almost any other time she would have just eaten it. The maternal/protective drive kicked in!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment