NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a little weird, and I’m probably reading far too much into it.

There’s many a magpie nesting near my house. Beautiful, clever beasties. Unfortunately, one has been knocked down by a car earlier in the night, and its carcass is still lying in the road. Since it’s got light, around six to ten other magpies have been sitting on the roofs of the surrounding buildings, cawing and cackling like I’ve never heard them do before while staring down at the carcass.

It’s rather unsettling, and a louder sound than I ever imagined magpies could make. They’re going mental.

I presume the commotion has something to do with the dead bird. Anyone know if a death of a magpie causes great upheaval in a magpie ‘community’? Could the birds be ‘mourning’ their dead?

This is a little weird, and I’m probably reading far too much into it.

There’s many a magpie nesting near my house. Beautiful, clever beasties. Unfortunately, one has been knocked down by a car earlier in the night, and its carcass is still lying in the road. Since it’s got light, around six to ten other magpies have been sitting on the roofs of the surrounding buildings, cawing and cackling like I’ve never heard them do before while staring down at the carcass.

It’s rather unsettling, and a louder sound than I ever imagined magpies could make. They’re going mental.

I presume the commotion has something to do with the dead bird. Anyone know if a death of a magpie causes great upheaval in a magpie ‘community’? Could the birds be ‘mourning’ their dead?

Possibly, I've seen mice do the same thing.

More likely to be a staring match over territory.

although... if it was 6...

"One for sorrow, two's mirth,
Three's a wedding, four's a birth,
Five's a christening, six a death,
Seven's heaven, eight's hell,
And nine's the devil his ane sel'."

there are species of birds that mate for life. so the death of one will cause sorrow and eventual death of the other.

Minah birds in Hawaii also exhibit the same behavior.

Magpies usually eat their dead. Perhaps this dead one was the leader.

This is a little weird, and I’m probably reading far too much into it.

There’s many a magpie nesting near my house. Beautiful, clever beasties. Unfortunately, one has been knocked down by a car earlier in the night, and its carcass is still lying in the road. Since it’s got light, around six to ten other magpies have been sitting on the roofs of the surrounding buildings, cawing and cackling like I’ve never heard them do before while staring down at the carcass.

It’s rather unsettling, and a louder sound than I ever imagined magpies could make. They’re going mental.

I presume the commotion has something to do with the dead bird. Anyone know if a death of a magpie causes great upheaval in a magpie ‘community’? Could the birds be ‘mourning’ their dead?


Magpies are corbies, like ravens and crows, and like most corbies are highly intelligent and social. They tend to mate for life. Members of mated pairs have been observed helping their mates when they've been injured. They post sentries when the flock (if it's crows, it's actually called a "murder") is feeding, and punish the sentries if they mess up. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the death of a flock member would cause significant upset in the flock, and it wouldn't be just territorial.

I just recently moved to an area where magpies are indigenous. I love watching them. They're handsome, bold and quite intelligent.

My dogs eat birds like they were popcorn.. no noticible mourning activity to report here. :(

This thread makes me want to watch The Birds.

Magpies are corbies, like ravens and crows, and like most corbies are highly intelligent and social. They tend to mate for life. Members of mated pairs have been observed helping their mates when they’ve been injured. They post sentries when the flock (if it’s crows, it’s actually called a “murder”) is feeding, and punish the sentries if they mess up. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if the death of a flock member would cause significant upset in the flock, and it wouldn’t be just territorial.

I just recently moved to an area where magpies are indigenous. I love watching them. They’re handsome, bold and quite intelligent.
Thanks, that’s really interesting.

I agree their a fascinating creature to observe. The cheek of them sometimes! And they mostly nest in a small public garden at the bottom of my street, so it feels a bit like the neighbours have had a sad day.

They seem to have calmed down a bit, though they’re occasionally doing ‘fly-bys’ of the dead bird. Certainly appears to be a social gathering rather than a hostile fight for territory.

This thread makes me want to watch The Birds.
Initially, it was rather scary. But I love birds, and it’s now become quite sombre. I’m not the only one to have noticed, a neighbour of mine is watching them as well. We’re mouthing our theories across the street.

Reminds me, I should be going to see some peregrine falcons nesting towards the end of April. Should be quite a sight.

As vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages, animals ARE sentient creatures (do your own research on that, I’m tired) who care for each other, with just a few possible exceptions. So a magpie mourning the loss of a family member makes a lot of sense. I know magpies may not have funerals, but presumably they don’t like the sight of a dead member of their species in the middle of the road, so give the magpie a little funeral. Also the magpies may just think the other magpie is injured but alive, so are trying to get other animals (or even humans) to help the magpie. Incidentally your pork chops used to be sentient too.
I’m quite aware that animals have minds of their own. I’m also aware that I am an omnivore.

This is a little weird, and I’m probably reading far too much into it.

There’s many a magpie nesting near my house. Beautiful, clever beasties. Unfortunately, one has been knocked down by a car earlier in the night, and its carcass is still lying in the road. Since it’s got light, around six to ten other magpies have been sitting on the roofs of the surrounding buildings, cawing and cackling like I’ve never heard them do before while staring down at the carcass.

It’s rather unsettling, and a louder sound than I ever imagined magpies could make. They’re going mental.

I presume the commotion has something to do with the dead bird. Anyone know if a death of a magpie causes great upheaval in a magpie ‘community’? Could the birds be ‘mourning’ their dead?

As vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages, animals ARE sentient creatures (do your own research on that, I'm tired) who care for each other, with just a few possible exceptions. So a magpie mourning the loss of a family member makes a lot of sense. I know magpies may not have funerals, but presumably they don't like the sight of a dead member of their species in the middle of the road, so give the magpie a little funeral. Also the magpies may just think the other magpie is injured but alive, so are trying to get other animals (or even humans) to help the magpie. Incidentally your pork chops used to be sentient too.

As vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages, animals ARE sentient creatures (do your own research on that, I'm tired) who care for each other, with just a few possible exceptions.

Uh.. there really isn't any debate over whether animals are sentient, i.e. conscious. A pork chop having once been conscious, to most people, doesn't mean much. The ability for some kind of appreciation for something other than biological functions, or simply the ability to reason, is usually thought of as being more important.

Uh.. there really isn't any debate over whether animals are sentient, i.e. conscious. A pork chop having once been conscious, to most people, doesn't mean much. The ability for some kind of appreciation for something other than biological functions, or simply the ability to reason, is usually thought of as being more important.

Sentient: "able to perceive or feel things" http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentient?view=uk

Sentient: "able to perceive or feel things" http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/sentient?view=uk

No kidding. See also: consciousness, as I said. An ant, a blowfly, a rabbit - all are conscious, or sentient. It's not particularly meaningful. If someone asked you to describe your moral worth, I doubt the first words out of your mouth would be "well, I can hear noises, and see colors.." Something more than simple sentience is required.

I totally think they could be .. other animals do mourn the dead .. or whatever they are doing.. which looks to us like they are paying their respects or grieving. Elephants come to mind. It's not weird to me that they do.

No kidding. See also: consciousness, as I said. An ant, a blowfly, a rabbit - all are conscious, or sentient. It's not particularly meaningful. If someone asked you to describe your moral worth, I doubt the first words out of your mouth would be "well, I can hear noises, and see colors.." Something more than simple sentience is required.

To be able to PERCEIVE something is not just being conscious. It requires a level of intelligence. But in any case, what I actually meant was that vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages that animals have thoughts and feelings including compassion (and as I said, research if you don't believe instead of just believing the popular meat industry myth that "they're just dumb animals")

No kidding. See also: consciousness, as I said. An ant, a blowfly, a rabbit - all are conscious, or sentient. It's not particularly meaningful. If someone asked you to describe your moral worth, I doubt the first words out of your mouth would be "well, I can hear noises, and see colors.." Something more than simple sentience is required.

Yes, but it's very limited in organisms with less developed brains. There are different levels of consciousness that correlate with intelligence; for example, a human has the most developed brain in terms of cognitive availability and so our conscious experience is the most developed and able to be applied to our environment.

Yes, but it's very limited in organisms with less developed brains. There are different levels of consciousness that correlate with intelligence; for example, a human has the most developed brain in terms of cognitive availability and so our conscious experience is the most developed and able to be applied to our environment.

Like I said, research. I'm too tired to argue.

And I forgot to mention, animals mourning others is not weird.

To be able to PERCEIVE something is not just being conscious. It requires a level of intelligence. But in any case, what I actually meant was that vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages that animals have thoughts and feelings including compassion (and as I said, research if you don’t believe instead of just believing the popular meat industry myth that “they’re just dumb animals”)
What’s with this exclusivism of the veggies? Care to point to any statement that I, an omnivore, have made implying that ‘they’re just dumb animals’?

Way to go with the reactionary veggie fundamentalism.

To be able to PERCEIVE something is not just being conscious. It requires a level of intelligence. But in any case, what I actually meant was that vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages that animals have thoughts and feelings including compassion (and as I said, research if you don't believe instead of just believing the popular meat industry myth that "they're just dumb animals")

The ability to perceive things is the definition of the word conscious. I kinda thought we had an understanding there. Intelligent beings are usually sentient, but not all sentient beings are intelligent. I have a feeling I've done more research on the topic than you have. In any case, I'm not willing to confer rights on a thing on the basis of sentience. It's just silly.

Is this why I sometimes see ants carrying a dead ant around?

Is this why I sometimes see ants carrying a dead ant around?

I believe they eat 'em. :p Food's food.

I believe they eat 'em. :p Food's food.

:eek:

And here I thought.. well that's just.. :eek: ..!

Yes, but it's very limited in organisms with less developed brains. There are different levels of consciousness that correlate with intelligence; for example, a human has the most developed brain in terms of cognitive availability and so our conscious experience is the most developed and able to be applied to our environment.

Are you saying that an animal has to have a certain amount of 'intelligence' to be aware of and or mourn the dead? Comparable to ours I mean?


The animals I think of that show mourning or acknowledgment of the dead are smart anyway. Dogs, Horses, Birds .. Whales and many other mammals. Insects.. I'm sure they do.. but if they did.. we probably wouldn't catch on to it anyway ..unless if was shown in some physical form, since they are more difficult to decipher.

(I'm drinking.. if I took what you said wrong .. my bad)

:eek:

And here I thought.. well that's just.. :eek: ..!

You haven't seen weird until you've seen ants corrall aphids for their honeydew.. it's like a little dairy farm. :p

What’s with this exclusivism of the veggies? Care to point to any statement that I, an omnivore, have made implying that ‘they’re just dumb animals’?

Way to go with the reactionary veggie fundamentalism.

he was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're ignorant and not just apathetic.

incidentally, these birds are "corvidae", not "corbies", but same difference really. these birds make tools, have language (with regional dialects even), and are quite capable of not only mimicking human speech, but attributing meaning to it. same with some of the more intellegent sorts of parrots, and of course dolphins. (pigs, being the closest relatives of dolphins, are also ridiculously intellegent) - fascinating creatures. heh, like humans, they also have an irrational fondness for shiny things, which they horde. the only things they lack are opposible thumbs. if they had those, they'd probably already be well on thier way to genocide and all the most advanced activities of the human species.

I believe they eat 'em. :p Food's food.

I don't know if they eat them - I think they do take them to a specific place though. maybe to eat, but it might also just be burial. it's heigenic.

he was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're ignorant and not just apathetic.

incidentally, these birds are "corvidae", not "corbies", but same difference really. these birds make tools, have language (with regional dialects even), and are quite capable of not only mimicking human speech, but attributing meaning to it. same with some of the more intellegent sorts of parrots, and of course dolphins. (pigs, being the closest relatives of dolphins, are also ridiculously intellegent) - fascinating creatures. heh, like humans, they also have an irrational fondness for shiny things, which they horde. the only things they lack are opposible thumbs. if they had those, they'd probably already be well on thier way to genocide and all the most advanced activities of the human species.

The word "corbie" is just a non-scientific take on "corvidae." Regardless of what you call the, they're fascinating birds.

I am saying that they are just dumb animals. Almost all of them in fact do not come anywhere near possessing the neural capacity to 'feel' anything.

Certain species have very hard-wired social systems, and when those social systems are pulled from beneath them, then trauma is caused. They are not 'mourning', mourning would imply that they acknowledge the 'personhood' of the deceased. They do not, as there is no personhood to acknowledge, they miss the deceased because they realise that it will no longer be able to service them. Any response is entirely selfish, and entirely instinctual.

To suggest that 'Mr. Magpie' or 'Mr. Pig' are expressing sentient behaviour is childish anthropomorphicism.

I am saying that they are just dumb animals. Almost all of them in fact do not come anywhere near possessing the neural capacity to 'feel' anything.

Certain species have very hard-wired social systems, and when those social systems are pulled from beneath them, then trauma is caused. They are not 'mourning', mourning would imply that they acknowledge the 'personhood' of the deceased. They do not, as there is no personhood to acknowledge, they miss the deceased because they realise that it will no longer be able to service them. Any response is entirely selfish, and entirely instinctual.

To suggest that 'Mr. Magpie' or 'Mr. Pig' are expressing sentient behaviour is childish anthropomorphicism.

Do you deny that animals have emotions? Are you saying that your dog or cat does not feel affection for you and would not be distressed if you were gone. Are you saying that the only feelings that a pet would have for you center around the food dish? If that's the case, why have pets?

I am saying that they are just dumb animals. Almost all of them in fact do not come anywhere near possessing the neural capacity to 'feel' anything.

Certain species have very hard-wired social systems, and when those social systems are pulled from beneath them, then trauma is caused. They are not 'mourning', mourning would imply that they acknowledge the 'personhood' of the deceased. They do not, as there is no personhood to acknowledge, they miss the deceased because they realise that it will no longer be able to service them. Any response is entirely selfish, and entirely instinctual.

To suggest that 'Mr. Magpie' or 'Mr. Pig' are expressing sentient behaviour is childish anthropomorphicism.

Well .. I think you are wrong. Scratch that.. I know you are wrong. Am I going to go into some scientific debate to prove it? No. Even if I had the education to spit it out.. it would still be the debated topic it is. Experience owns books. Wisdom owns intelligence .. both have their place and both are beneficial .. combined they are great. Boil it all down and wisdom wins out. I'm not saying animals are wise and not intelligent. Many are quite intelligent. The same as some of us. You think because animals can't compute economics, math, technology etc. that they are just stupid? None of those things esp money /economics (and much of the other shit we need to get by today) are necessities for life. Those 'dumb' animals have been around a hell of a lot longer than we have and will continue to be. *******.

And no.. I'm not some PETA kook, or tree hugger. I respect and love nature and all in it dearly. I'm aware that the animals and nature were put here for us to utilize for survival.

Are you saying that an animal has to have a certain amount of 'intelligence' to be aware of and or mourn the dead? Comparable to ours I mean?

No, actually. It's been proven that many animals show kinds of behavior that would correspond with human emotions; given that the human brain is a product of the same common ancestry as most other animal species, the most plausible explanation is that they do feel emotions like humans and are aware of their surroundings.

I'm just saying that not all animals have the same kind of capacity for abstract and predictive thought that we do. For example, a human's brain and mental capacity is significantly more expanded than that of a bird or a dog even though all of the possess at least some degree of consciousness and emotion. I mean, pretty much any animal with a brain is going to possess the ability to feel emotions and think about their circumstances; humans just have the most of all and that's reflected in our development of more advanced functions.

Well .. I think you are wrong. Scratch that.. I know you are wrong. Am I going to go into some scientific debate to prove it? No. Even if I had the education to spit it out.. it would still be the debated topic it is. Experience owns books. Wisdom owns intelligence .. both have their place and both are beneficial .. combined they are great. Boil it all down and wisdom wins out. I'm not saying animals are wise and not intelligent. Many are quite intelligent. The same as some of us. You think because animals can't compute economics, math, technology etc. that they are just stupid? None of those things esp money /economics (and much of the other shit we need to get by today) are necessities for life. Those 'dumb' animals have been around a hell of a lot longer than we have and will continue to be. *******.

Actually, a knowledge of money is a very important part of human intelligence. The idea that something can have an abstract value measured in comparison to something else which is entirely abstract is a pretty big deal. That same intelligence is applied to giving life an abstract value.

The whole touchy-feely "animals are people too," mindset breaks down when it is forced to confront the reality of the situation. Greyinvol has it right.

Of course, there is no animal which has ever managed to pass the only test we have for personhood, the Turring test, but that is because we have no ability to communicate.

Actually, a knowledge of money is a very important part of human intelligence. The idea that something can have an abstract value measured in comparison to something else which is entirely abstract is a pretty big deal. That same intelligence is applied to giving life an abstract value.

The whole touchy-feely "animals are people too," mindset breaks down when it is forced to confront the reality of the situation. Greyinvol has it right.

Of course, there is no animal which has ever managed to pass the only test we have for personhood, the Turring test, but that is because we have no ability to communicate.


Have there been human cultures that have existed without currency? I guess before raw currency there was trade. I consider animals to have done and do the same thing. Many different species coincide.. cooperate for the benefits of each other to succeed and survive.

Do you deny that animals have emotions? Are you saying that your dog or cat does not feel affection for you and would not be distressed if you were gone. Are you saying that the only feelings that a pet would have for you center around the food dish? If that's the case, why have pets?

Yeah, actually. Some of the higher mammals may have similar hormonal responses to humans, but the full plethora of emotions that we feel are special and unique to us and our species.

My pet would be accustomed to my presence, and would be traumatised if that presence was removed. But that is not due to any sympathy on their behalf, in their mind I am nothing but an object, they are almost totally incapable of viewing me as an individual with my own interests.

People own pets because interpreting the animal's instinctual pack behaviour as something more meaningful makes them feel loved and appreciated. It is a subtle lie that enables people to feel better about themselves.

I'd also like to stress that I am not an animal-hater. I had had a dog from when I was five to about last month (when she was put down). I loved her, but I recognised that she was what she was and was unable to return the feelings. Believing that animals are capable of interacting with us on a level emotional field is a very comforting lie, but, alas, it is a lie.

Well .. I think you are wrong. Scratch that.. I know you are wrong. Am I going to go into some scientific debate to prove it? No. Even if I had the education to spit it out.. it would still be the debated topic it is. Experience owns books. Wisdom owns intelligence .. both have their place and both are beneficial .. combined they are great. Boil it all down and wisdom wins out. I'm not saying animals are wise and not intelligent. Many are quite intelligent. The same as some of us. You think because animals can't compute economics, math, technology etc. that they are just stupid? None of those things esp money /economics (and much of the other shit we need to get by today) are necessities for life. Those 'dumb' animals have been around a hell of a lot longer than we have and will continue to be. *******.

Well, homo sapiens sapiens is the most successful organism of all time, so we must be doing something right. I don't go in to this downplaying of the importance of civilisation in order to make us seem more comparable to other animals. Civilisation is a very big deal, and puts us in a whole separate league from any other specie.

And those stars? Are they censoring a flame? Or are you simply rating your own retort ("I give this seven stars!!!")?

And no.. I'm not some PETA kook, or tree hugger. I respect and love nature and all in it dearly. I'm aware that the animals and nature were put here for us to utilize for survival.

Me? I view nature as a resource and nothing more. It has no inherent value other than what it can do to service us.

Yeah, actually. Some of the higher mammals may have similar hormonal responses to humans, but the full plethora of emotions that we feel are special and unique to us and our species.

My pet would be accustomed to my presence, and would be traumatised if that presence was removed. But that is not due to any sympathy on their behalf, in their mind I am nothing but an object, they are almost totally incapable of viewing me as an individual with my own interests

>The animal wouldn't be traumatized if it had no connection with you and wasn't about to shipped off to a place they can sense is going to be a shitty environment. I'm sure that if you had a dog and wasn't close to it and someone came along that was going to love that animal and treat it right.. it would have to problem leaving you. They aren't stupid.

People own pets because interpreting the animal's instinctual pack behaviour as something more meaningful makes them feel loved and appreciated. It is a subtle lie that enables people to feel better about themselves.

>Maybe for some.. and if they love that animal and treat them right.. and that animal fills a void or enhances their life or their families life in some way.. there is nothing wrong with that.

I'd also like to stress that I am not an animal-hater. I had had a dog from when I was five to about last month (when she was put down). I loved her, but I recognised that she was what she was and was unable to return the feelings. Believing that animals are capable of interacting with us on a level emotional field is a very comforting lie, but, alas, it is a lie.

>I don't know you, nor your dog. But dogs are usually very well capable of giving affection.. and they will give their lives for who they do in a heart beat.
Of course you can't expect, nor shouldn't expect an animal to be able to fill a void that human is suppose to. We are different species. The best physical 'guardian' I've ever had was a neighbors dog, when I was a kid. I don't know why he loved me, or treated me like he loved me.. but he did. Mix breed .. mutt (some of the smartest and best dogs are mutts).


Well, homo sapiens sapiens is the most successful organism of all time, so we must be doing something right. I don't go in to this downplaying of the importance of civilisation in order to make us seem more comparable to other animals. Civilisation is a very big deal, and puts us in a whole separate league from any other specie.

>I understand what you are saying. but anyone that disregards nature and all in it, as nothing more than a resource is missing something. Things will go away on their own.. we will eventually.

And those stars? Are they censoring a flame? Or are you simply rating your own retort ("I give this seven stars!!!")?

>I said asshole


Me? I view nature as a resource and nothing more. It has no inherent value other than what it can do to service us.

>Lacking foresight, as many do.




(Well my first responses got removed when I hit a wrong key . and I had not saved.)

As vegetarians (and presumably vegans) have known for ages, animals ARE sentient creatures (do your own research on that, I'm tired) who care for each other, with just a few possible exceptions. So a magpie mourning the loss of a family member makes a lot of sense. I know magpies may not have funerals, but presumably they don't like the sight of a dead member of their species in the middle of the road, so give the magpie a little funeral. Also the magpies may just think the other magpie is injured but alive, so are trying to get other animals (or even humans) to help the magpie. Incidentally your pork chops used to be sentient too.

Them sentient creatures is good eatin'.

Have there been human cultures that have existed without currency? I guess before raw currency there was trade. I consider animals to have done and do the same thing. Many different species coincide.. cooperate for the benefits of each other to succeed and survive.

Even before we had the concept of money, we had the concept of equivalent exchange. However, the fact that we were able to conceptualize money is a pretty big deal.

Animals do not "trade". Symbiotic relationships are almost always evolved, not chosen. Very few creatures actually "co-operate" unless they have a great deal to gain.

Even before we had the concept of money, we had the concept of equivalent exchange. However, the fact that we were able to conceptualize money is a pretty big deal.

Animals do not "trade". Symbiotic relationships are almost always evolved, not chosen. Very few creatures actually "co-operate" unless they have a great deal to gain.

James P. Hogan had some interesting ideas on different forms of co-operation. He fleshed out a fictional variety of avian lifeform who did "co-operate" - though their motivations were rather different from our own. He referred to these group efforts as "connivances". See The Immortailty Option, ISBN: 0-7434-7163-6 for further details.

Do you deny that animals have emotions? Are you saying that your dog or cat does not feel affection for you and would not be distressed if you were gone. Are you saying that the only feelings that a pet would have for you center around the food dish? If that's the case, why have pets?

Because they're furry.

FFs, will also the people claiming that animals are "just dumb animals" or some other rubbish PLEASE do some friggin research instead of expecting other people to do it for you just to prove you wrong? Thanks

*makes mental note to keep record of all research on a topic in one place for future reference*