Why haven't other animals developed effective defense mechanisms against humans?

YourOl' UncleEarl

Registered Member
New here. I'm YourOl' UncleEarl.
Anyway, this has been on my mind for a while now.

When animals face pressures in their environment, they either adapt or die. One of those pressures is hunting (or predation) from predators. Humans have become the most dangerous predator on the planet. As predator and prey are locked in an arms race for survival, the prey develop defense mechanisms and strategies to avoid becoming lunch. Humans don't just kill for food, we also kill for fun. We have put pressures on just about every animal known, especially endangered species. He even hunt apex predators. So why is it that despite the pressure from humans, animals seem incapable of developing an effective defense to fool, scare, fend off, and kill humans or even, as far fetched as it may seem, cancel out our technological advantage? Is it that they don't have enough time, as evolution takes hundreds of thousands or even millions of years? Or is it something else entirely?
 
New here. I'm YourOl' UncleEarl.
Anyway, this has been on my mind for a while now.

When animals face pressures in their environment, they either adapt or die. One of those pressures is hunting (or predation) from predators. Humans have become the most dangerous predator on the planet. As predator and prey are locked in an arms race for survival, the prey develop defense mechanisms and strategies to avoid becoming lunch. Humans don't just kill for food, we also kill for fun. We have put pressures on just about every animal known, especially endangered species. He even hunt apex predators. So why is it that despite the pressure from humans, animals seem incapable of developing an effective defense to fool, scare, fend off, and kill humans or even, as far fetched as it may seem, cancel out our technological advantage? Is it that they don't have enough time, as evolution takes hundreds of thousands or even millions of years? Or is it something else entirely?
In effect the simpler the organism is the greater its survivability, Hellstom predicted that the oldest invasive species such as Insects and at an even smaller level, viruses, will be the ultimate survivers in a catastrophic global event. The smaller (or shielded), the greater its adapability and escape "natual selection" for millions of years. Humans survive by creating artificial ecosystems, such as ranching, but will always become more and more seperated from "the wild" (uncontrolled) state of the world.
 
Last edited:
In effect the simpler the organism is the greater its survivability, Hellstom predicted that the oldest invasive species such as Insects and at an even smaller level, viruses, will be the ultimate survivers in a catastrophic global event. The smaller (or shielded), the greater its adapability and escape "natual selection" for millions of years. Humans survive by creating artificial ecosystems, such as ranching, but will always become more and more seperated from "the wild" (uncontrolled) state of the world.
True. Things change.
 
Humans weapon technology is evolving way faster than a single species ability to evolve.

The other obvious point is this is evolution we are seeing. There have been multiple extinction events that have occurred and after the event new and quite different species arise. The current extinction event is not a meteor or a volcano it's us.
 
I think the best other animals could do would be to develop means of conveying diseases into human habitats. Sadly, for the rest of life on Earth, this isn't likely.
 
Humans weapon technology is evolving way faster than a single species ability to evolve.

The other obvious point is this is evolution we are seeing. There have been multiple extinction events that have occurred and after the event new and quite different species arise. The current extinction event is not a meteor or a volcano it's us.
I agree and it will most likely affect the largest animals which require large resources.
In the end it's the smallest organisms which will survive because they are able to adapt to anything we can do to the earth's ecosystem.
I think the best other animals could do would be to develop means of conveying diseases into human habitats. Sadly, for the rest of life on Earth, this isn't likely.
When it comes to survival of changes in the ecosphere, the insect, most of which are resistant to disease, will be the most favorably positioned.
 
So why is it that despite the pressure from humans, animals seem incapable of developing an effective defense to fool, scare, fend off, and kill humans or even, as far fetched as it may seem, cancel out our technological advantage?
Naegleria Fowleri seems to be doing pretty well against humans.
 
Naegleria Fowleri seems to be doing pretty well against humans.
I believe I read somewhere that the total bio-mass of ants and termite insects is equal to or greater than the combined mass of all humans
"According to Hölldobler and Wilson (1990), up to 1/3 (33%) of the
terrestrial animal biomass
(NOTE: not including aquatic animal, or
terrestrial and aquatic flowering plants and microorganisms) was made
up of ants and termites
.
A study made in Finland produced a terrestrial animal biomass of ants alone of 10%. In the Brazilian rain forest the biomass of ants exceeds that of terrestrial vertebrates by four times! Thus a figure for ants of 15% of all terrestrial animal biomass is not out of line. I would doubt that they are 15% of all living things because plants and microorganisms make up a large part of the earth's biomass and the biomass of marine organisms (none of which are ants) is usually not included in such calculations.
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989366143.En.r.html
and
"Ants are everywhere on earth. When combined, all ants in the world
weigh about as much as all humans (Hölldobler & Wilson 1994
)...
The insect seems to be doing very well, despite our efforts to eradicate "pests"
 
Last edited:
When it comes to survival of changes in the ecosphere, the insect, most of which are resistant to disease, will be the most favorably positioned.
One of the important factors is generations per year. More generations, more chances that a mutation will turn out to be favorable in this scenario.

And that brings up a point which may have been covered already, but so what? If a mutation that would help the critter survive DOESN'T appear then they're goners. This means that the vast majority of critters are goners as such a mutation, being by nature entirely random, won't appear in their species.
 
One of the important factors is generations per year. More generations, more chances that a mutation will turn out to be favorable in this scenario.

And that brings up a point which may have been covered already, but so what? If a mutation that would help the critter survive DOESN'T appear then they're goners. This means that the vast majority of critters are goners as such a mutation, being by nature entirely random, won't appear in their species.
Well, I read that 95% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, and replaced by newer species (slowly by evolution or quickly by mutation).
 
Last edited:
Well, I read that 95% of all species that have ever existed are extinct, and replaced by newer species (slowly by evolution or quickly by mutation).
Yeah, because "500,000,000 years" is great than "today" according my prof at Purdue. B-) (The whole class was rolling.)
 
Because nothing would work? Humans could easily circumvent any new behaviors. But some species are doing well in human habitats; coyotes, raccoons, rats, crows, cockroaches, flies, bedbugs, pigeons...
 
Yeah, because "500,000,000 years" is great than "today" according my prof at Purdue. B-) (The whole class was rolling.)
Along with "time", don't forget "spaces", and especially biological diversity (adaptability) at the smallest level.

According to Hazen, the entire earth as a natural laboratory, has performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion bio-chemical interactions during these 500,000,000 years. How many degrees would that earn at college level....:)
 
As predator and prey are locked in an arms race for survival,
Humans and animals are not locked in an arms race for survival.

Humans didn't just win that race. They killed it. They did a couple of victory laps, painting a penis on the forehead of the animals as they passed them, mooned the reporters, and flew to Bermuda where they're drinking champagne from the stolen trophy.

Seriously. Humans went from "If God had intended Man to fly..." to "exploring the interstellar medium" in, like, two generations.
 
I doubt it's possible but I imagine something along the lines of animals developing bullet resistant hides. Say, for example, a bear gets shot, runs off, and manages to not only live but completely heal the wound and develop a resistent hide. I know that's not how evolution works, but as said in Jurassic Park, life finds a way. Plus, I would pay to see the look on a trophy hunter or poacher's face when they shoot an animal and the bullets just bounce off as the animal charges them. Clean up on aisle five !!!
 
Because nothing would work? Humans could easily circumvent any new behaviors. But some species are doing well in human habitats; coyotes, raccoons, rats, crows, cockroaches, flies, bedbugs, pigeons...
Yep, but our weapons are domesticated guarddogs and cats. Their wild ancestors have learned and formed a mutually depend symbiotic relationship with humans which is mutually beneficial to both species.

Think of this, what is a farm without a competent guard dog and a bunch of cats in the barn and in the house? And some perhaps with a thriving bee-hive to pollinate the crops?

That's the secret power of the insect; its brain is so small, that it can process only mechanical mirror actions. But a hive mind can make some very effective and informed decisions, but without any emotional attachment. Little robots, executing their simple program, evolved from millions of years of natural selection.

OTOH, some combat "war" dogs have been awarded medals of honor for bravery.

But some humans like to show off their Gorilla hand ashtray, to other outdoor sportsmen..:(
 
Last edited:
Yep, but our weapons are domesticated guarddogs and cats. Their wild ancestors have learned and formed a mutually depend symbiotic relationship with humans which is mutually beneficial to both species.
I forgot. Dogs and cats are also quite well adapted to human societies. Also fleas.
 
Back
Top