From: New Dawn Magazine | By J. Allan Danelek
What happens to us when we die? It’s a question everyone eventually asks themselves at some point in their life. It transcends racial, social, political, economic and gender lines, making it the one question common to all human beings whether we like it or not.
Yet ever since the first men and woman began pondering their mortality a hundred thousand years ago, the answer has eluded us. What does happen when we die? What becomes of our soul, our mind, our personality – our very essence? For that matter, do we even have such a thing as a soul, or is it all an illusion we have created to give ourselves a sense of permanence and the hope of immortality?
The Wisdom of Your Cells is a new biology that will profoundly change civilization and the world we live in.
From: Bruce Lipton website
This new biology takes us from the belief that we are victims of our genes, that we are biochemical machines, that life is out of our control, into another reality, a reality where our thoughts, beliefs and mind control our genes, our behavior and the life we experience.
This biology is based on current, modern science with some new perceptions added.
The new science takes us from victim to creator; we are very powerful in creating and unfolding the lives that we lead. This is actually knowledge of self and if we understand the old axiom, "Knowledge is power," then what we are really beginning to understand is the knowledge of self-power.
This is what I think we will get from understanding the new biology.
Extracts from Chapter 10 of the original Book of the Soul
From: Ian Lawton's website © Ian Lawton 2004 & 2008
|I||♦||The Logistics of Reincarnation, and Animal and Extraterrestrial Souls|
|II||♦||Incarnations on Other Planets|
|III||♦||Evolution by Intelligent Design, and the Human Blueprint|
|IV||♦||Atlantis and Lemuria, and Incarnation in Pre-Human Form|
|V||♦||Levels of Amnesia, and Humanity's Fall from Grace|
|Technology of the Soul|
From: Open SETI
Technology of the Soul. — Technology, Soul. • Now there is a provocative juxtaposition of terms.
The reader (that is, you) likely wants to know WHAT these two words are doing together like that.
What could they have to do with one another?
Before attempting to reply, I would like to place before you an article by Paul Davies40
(2003): E.T. and God
(Could earthly religions survive the discovery of life elsewhere in the universe?).
Get it? God : Soul. — E.T. : Technology.
Davies' topic is grander than mine, which by comparison is a mere detail.
But Davies' is somehow more acceptable, isn't it? Why is this?
Please take a few breaths here.
In the Introduction to Open SETI I did say that we would approach our subject on the level of myth, and that our modern world view is but one possible myth. People, I said...
- “...do not know that they have simply chosen their myth. They believe that they possess knowledge of their general cosmic situation, so far as is possible for anyone to obtain such knowledge, and that there is little point attempting to learn any more about it. People are also being taught, usually subliminally, about what is important and what is not. In fact, people's beliefs about what is true and what is important are fed to them by society's institutions. Thus people in their beliefs are vulnerable to manipulation at every level.”
In ecology, predation describes a biological interaction where a predator (an animal that is hunting) feeds on its prey (the animal that is attacked).
Predators may or may not kill their prey prior to feeding on them, but the act of predation often results in the death of its prey and the eventual absorption of the prey's tissue through consumption.
Other categories of consumption are:
- herbivory (eating parts of plants)
- mycophagy (eating parts of fungi)
- detritivory, the consumption of dead organic material (detritus)
All these consumption categories fall under the rubric of consumer-resource systems.
It can often be difficult to separate various types of feeding behaviors.
For example, some parasitic species prey on a host organism and then lay their eggs on it for their offspring to feed on it while it continues to live or on its decaying corpse after it has died.
The key characteristic of predation however is the predator's direct impact on the prey population.
On the other hand, detritivores simply eat dead organic material arising from the decay of dead individuals and have no direct impact on the "donor" organism(s).
Selective pressures imposed on one another often leads to an evolutionary arms race between prey and predator, resulting in various antipredator adaptations.
Ways of classifying predation surveyed here include:
- grouping by trophic level
- grouping by diet
- by specialization
- by the nature of the predator's interaction with prey.
Video at right
The beetle first clings onto one of the amphibian's rear legs. This caused the amphibian to jump. After 10 minutes the amphibian stops jumping and the beetle moves onto the amphibian's back, biting at the lower back area. The beetle makes a horizontal incision using its mandibles, causing the amphibian to cease moving. During feeding the beetle's abdomen swells noticeably. The beetle can be seen feeding on the amphibian's eyes as well.
Classification of predators by the extent to which they feed on and interact with their prey is one way ecologists may wish to categorize the different types of predation. Instead of focusing on what they eat, this system classifies predators by the way in which they eat, and the general nature of the interaction between predator and prey species.
Two factors are considered here:
How close the predator and prey are physically (in the latter two cases the term prey may be replaced with host).
Additionally, whether or not the prey are directly killed by the predator is considered, with true predation and parasitoidism involving certain death.
A true predator can commonly be known as one which kills and eats another living thing. Whereas other types of predator all harm their prey in some way, this form certainly kills them. Predators may hunt actively for prey, or sit and wait for prey to approach within striking distance, as in ambush predators. Some predators kill large prey and dismember or chew it prior to eating it, such as a jaguar or a human; others may eat their (usually much smaller) prey whole, as does a bottlenose dolphin swallowing a fish, or a snake, duck or stork swallowing a frog. Some animals that kill both large and small prey for their size (domestic cats and dogs are prime examples) may do either depending upon the circumstances; either would devour a large insect whole but dismember a rabbit. Some predation entails venom which subdues a prey creature before the predator ingests the prey by killing, which the box jellyfish does, or disabling it, found in the behavior of the cone shell. In some cases, the venom, as in rattlesnakes and some spiders, contributes to the digestion of the prey item even before the predator begins eating. In other cases, the prey organism may die in the mouth or digestive system of the predator. Baleen whales, for example, eat millions of microscopic plankton at once, the prey being broken down well after entering the whale. Seed predation and egg predation are other forms of true predation, as seeds and eggs represent potential organisms. Predators of this classification need not eat prey entirely. For example, some predators cannot digest bones, while others can. Some may eat only part of an organism, as in grazing (see below), but still consistently cause its direct death.
Main article: Grazing
Grazing organisms may also kill their prey species, but this is seldom the case. While some herbivores like zooplankton live on unicellular phytoplankton and have no choice but to kill their prey, many only eat a small part of the plant. Grazing livestock may pull some grass out at the roots, but most is simply grazed upon, allowing the plant to regrow once again. Kelp is frequently grazed in subtidal kelp forests, but regrows at the base of the blade continuously to cope with browsing pressure. Animals may also be 'grazed' upon; female mosquitos land on hosts briefly to gain sufficient proteins for the development of their offspring. Starfish may be grazed on, being capable of regenerating lost arms.
Main article: Parasitism
Parasites can at times be difficult to distinguish from grazers. Their feeding behavior is similar in many ways, however they are noted for their close association with their host species. While a grazing species such as an elephant may travel many kilometers in a single day, grazing on many plants in the process, parasites form very close associations with their hosts, usually having only one or at most a few in their lifetime. This close living arrangement may be described by the term symbiosis, "living together", but unlike mutualism the association significantly reduces the fitness of the host. Parasitic organisms range from the macroscopic mistletoe, a parasitic plant, to microscopic internal parasites such as cholera. Some species however have more loose associations with their hosts. Lepidoptera (butterfly and moth) larvae may feed parasitically on only a single plant, or they may graze on several nearby plants. It is therefore wise to treat this classification system as a continuum rather than four isolated forms.
Main article: Parasitoid
Parasitoids are organisms living in or on their host and feeding directly upon it, eventually leading to its death. They are much like parasites in their close symbiotic relationship with their host or hosts. Like the previous two classifications parasitoid predators do not kill their hosts instantly. However, unlike parasites, they are very similar to true predators in that the fate of their prey is quite inevitably death. A well-known example of a parasitoids are the ichneumon wasps, solitary insects living a free life as an adult, then laying eggs on or in another species such as a caterpillar. Its larva(e) feed on the growing host causing it little harm at first, but soon devouring the internal organs until finally destroying the nervous system resulting in prey death. By this stage the young wasp(s) are developed sufficiently to move to the next stage in their life cycle. Though limited mainly to the insect order Hymenoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera parasitoids make up as much as 10% of all insect species.
Degree of specialization
Further information: Generalist and specialist species
Among predators there is a large degree of specialization. Many predators specialize in hunting only one species of prey. Others are more opportunistic and will kill and eat almost anything (examples: humans, leopards, and dogs). The specialists are usually particularly well suited to capturing their preferred prey. The prey in turn, are often equally suited to escape that predator. This is called an evolutionary arms race and tends to keep the populations of both species in equilibrium. Some predators specialize in certain classes of prey, not just single species. Some will switch to other prey (with varying degrees of success) when the preferred target is extremely scarce, and they may also resort to scavenging or a herbivorous diet if possible.
See also: Trophic level and Trophic dynamics
Predators are often another organism's prey, and likewise prey are often predators. Though blue jays prey on insects, they may in turn be prey for cats and snakes, and snakes may be the prey of hawks.
One way of classifying predators is by trophic level. Organisms which feed on autotrophs, the producers of the trophic pyramid, are known as herbivores or primary consumers
those that feed on heterotrophs such as animals are known as secondary consumers. Secondary consumers are a type of carnivore, but there are also tertiary consumers eating these carnivores, quartary consumers eating them, and so forth.
Because only a fraction of energy is passed on to the next level, this hierarchy of predation must end somewhere, and very seldom goes higher than five or six levels, and may go only as high as three trophic levels (for example, a lion that preys upon large herbivores such as wildebeest which in turn eat grasses).
A predator at the top of any food chain (that is, one that is preyed upon by no organism) is called an apex predator; examples include:
and even omnivorous humans and grizzly bears.
An apex predator in one environment may not retain this position as a top predator if introduced to another habitat, such as a dog among alligators or a snapping turtle among jaguars
Apredatory species introduced into an area where it faces no predators, such as a domestic cat or a dog in some insular environments, can become an apex predator by default.
Many organisms (of which humans are prime examples) eat from multiple levels of the food chain and thus make this classification problematic. A carnivore may eat both secondary and tertiary consumers, and its prey may itself be difficult to classify for similar reasons. Organisms showing both carnivory and herbivory are known as omnivores. Even herbivores such as the giant panda may supplement their diet with meat. Scavenging of carrion provides a significant part of the diet of some of the most fearsome predators. Carnivorous plants would be very difficult to fit into this classification, producing their own food but also digesting anything that they may trap. Organisms which eat detritivores or parasites would also be difficult to classify by such a scheme.
Predation as competition
An alternative view offered by Richard Dawkins is of predation as a form of competition: the genes of both the predator and prey are competing for the body (or 'survival machine') of the prey organism. This is best understood in the context of the gene centered view of evolution. Another manner in which predation and competition are connected is throughout intraguild predation. Intraguild predators are those that kill and eat other predators of different species at the same trophic level, and thus that are potential competitors.
Predators may increase the biodiversity of communities by preventing a single species from becoming dominant. Such predators are known as keystone species and may have a profound influence on the balance of organisms in a particular ecosystem. Introduction or removal of this predator, or changes in its population density, can have drastic cascading effects on the equilibrium of many other populations in the ecosystem. For example, grazers of a grassland may prevent a single dominant species from taking over.
The elimination of wolves from Yellowstone National Park had profound impacts on the trophic pyramid. Without predation, herbivores began to over-graze many woody browse species, affecting the area's plant populations. Additionally, wolves often kept animals from grazing in riparian areas, which protected beavers from having their food sources encroached upon. The removal of wolves had a direct effect on beaver populations, as their habitat became territory for grazing. Furthermore, predation keeps hydrological features such as creeks and streams in normal working order. Increased browsing on willows and conifers along Blacktail Creek due to a lack of predation caused channel incision because they helped slow the water down and hold the soil in place.
Adaptations and behavior
The act of predation can be broken down into a maximum of four stages:
- detection of prey
- and finally consumption.
The relationship between predator and prey is one which is typically beneficial to the predator, and detrimental to the prey species. Sometimes, however, predation has indirect benefits to the prey species, though the individuals preyed upon themselves do not benefit. This means that, at each applicable stage, predator and prey species are in an evolutionary arms race to maximize their respective abilities to obtain food or avoid being eaten. This interaction has resulted in a vast array of adaptations in both groups.
One adaptation helping both predators and prey avoid detection is camouflage, a form of crypsis where species have an appearance which helps them blend into the background. Camouflage consists of not only color, but also shape and pattern. The background upon which the organism is seen can be both its environment (e.g. the praying mantis to the right resembling dead leaves) or other organisms (e.g. zebras' stripes blend in with each other in a herd, making it difficult for lions to focus on a single target). The more convincing camouflage is, the more likely it is that the organism will go unseen.
Mimicry is a related phenomenon where an organism has a similar appearance to another species. One such example is the drone fly, which looks a lot like a bee, yet is completely harmless as it cannot sting at all. Another example of batesian mimicry is the io moth, (Automeris io), which has markings on its wings which resemble an owl's eyes. When an insectivorous predator disturbs the moth, it reveals its hind wings, temporarily startling the predator and giving it time to escape. Predators may also use mimicry to lure their prey, however. Female fireflies of the genus Photuris, for example, copy the light signals of other species, thereby attracting male fireflies which are then captured and eaten (see aggressive mimicry).
While successful predation results in a gain of energy, hunting invariably involves energetic costs as well.
When hunger is not an issue, most predators will generally not seek to attack prey since the costs outweigh the benefits.
For instance, a large predatory fish like a shark that is well fed in an aquarium will typically ignore the smaller fish swimming around it (while the prey fish take advantage of the fact that the apex predator is apparently uninterested).
Surplus killing represents a deviation from this type of behaviour. The treatment of consumption in terms of cost-benefit analysis is known as optimal foraging theory, and has been quite successful in the study of animal behavior. Costs and benefits are generally considered in energy gain per unit time, though other factors are also important, such as essential nutrients that have no caloric value but are necessary for survival and health.
Social predation offers the possibility of predators to kill creatures larger than those that members of the species could overpower singly. Lions, hyenas, wolves, dholes, African wild dogs, and piranhas can kill large herbivores that single animals of the same species could never dispatch. Social predation allows some animals to organize hunts of creatures that would easily escape a single predator; thus chimpanzees can prey upon colobus monkeys, and Harris's Hawks can cut off all possible escapes for a doomed rabbit.
Extreme specialization of roles is evident in some hunting that requires co-operation between predators of very different species: humans with the aid of falcons or dogs, or fishing with cormorants or dogs.
Social predation is often very complex behavior, and not all social creatures (for example, domestic cats) perform it.
Even without complex intelligence but instinct alone, some ant species can destroy much larger creatures.
Size-selective predation involves predators preferring prey of a certain size. Large prey may prove troublesome for a predator, while small prey might prove hard to find and in any case provide less of a reward. This has led to a correlation between the size of predators and their prey. Size may also act as a refuge for large prey, for example adult elephants are generally safe from predation by lions, but juveniles are vulnerable.
It has been observed that well-fed predator animals in a lax captivity (for instance, pet or farm animals) will usually differentiate between putative prey animals who are familiar co-inhabitants in the same human area from wild ones outside the area. This interaction can range from peaceful coexistence to close companionship; motivation to ignore the predatory instinct may result from mutual advantage or fear of reprisal from human masters who have made clear that harming co-inhabitants will not be tolerated.
Pet cats and pet mice, for example, may live together in the same human residence without incident as companions. Pet cats and pet dogs under human mastership often depend on each other for warmth, companionship, and even protection, particularly in rural areas.
Main article: Antipredator adaptation
Antipredator adaptations have evolved in prey populations due to the selective pressures of predation over long periods of time.
Predatory animals often use their usual methods of attacking prey to inflict or to threaten grievous injury to their own predators. The electric eel uses the same electrical current to kill prey and to defend itself against animals (anacondas, caimans, jaguars, egrets, cougars, giant otters, humans, and dogs) that ordinarily prey upon fish similar to an electric eel in size; the electric eel thus remains an apex predator in a predator-rich environment. A predator small enough to be prey for others, the domestic cat uses its formidable teeth and claws as weapons against animals that might confuse a cat with easier prey. Many non-predatory prey animals, such as a zebra, can give a strong kick that can maim or kill, while others charge with tusks or horns.
Main article: Mobbing behavior
Mobbing behavior occurs when members of a species drive away their predator by cooperatively attacking or harassing it. Most frequently seen in birds, mobbing is also seen in other social animals. For example, nesting gull colonies are widely seen to attack intruders, including humans. Costs of mobbing behavior include the risk of engaging with predators, as well as energy expended in the process, but it can aid the survival of members of a species.
While mobbing has evolved independently in many species, it tends to be present only in those whose young are frequently preyed on, especially birds. It may complement cryptic behavior in the offspring themselves, such as camouflage and hiding. Mobbing calls may be made prior to or during engagement in harassment.
Mobbing can be an interspecies activity: it is common for birds to respond to mobbing calls of a different species. Many birds will show up at the sight of mobbing and watch and call, but not participate. It should also be noted that some species can be on both ends of a mobbing attack. Crows are frequently mobbed by smaller songbirds as they prey on eggs and young from these birds' nests, but these same crows will cooperate with smaller birds to drive away hawks or larger mammalian predators. On occasion, birds will mob animals that pose no threat.
A Thomson's gazelle seeing a predator approach may start to run away, but then slow down and stot. Stotting is jumping into the air with the legs straight and stiff, and the white rear fully visible. Stotting is maladaptive for outrunning predators; evidence suggests that stotting signals an unprofitable chase. For example, cheetahs abandon more hunts when the gazelle stots, and in the event they do give chase, they are far less likely to make a kill.
Aposematism, where organisms are brightly colored as a warning to predators, is the antithesis of camouflage. Some organisms pose a threat to their predators—for example they may be poisonous, or able to harm them physically. Aposematic coloring involves bright, easily recognizable and unique colors and patterns. Upon being harmed (e.g., stung) by their prey, the appearance in such an organism will be remembered as something to avoid. While that particular prey organism may be killed, the coloring benefits the prey species as a whole.
Domestic cats, animals similar in size to such prey species as rabbits, make a hissing sound reminiscent of a snake, advertising that they can put up formidable defenses for their size. Such can deter confrontations harmful to both the cat and to an animal in search of small animals as prey.
Main article: Chemical defense
Some organisms have evolved chemical weapons which are effective deterrents against predation. It is most common in insects, but the skunk is a particularly dramatic mammalian example. Other examples include the Bombardier beetle which can accurately shoot a predator with a stream of boiling poison, the Ornate moth which excretes a frothy alkaloid mixture, and the Pacific beetle cockroach sprays a quinone mixture from modified spiracles.
Terrain Fear Factor
The "terrain fear factor" is an idea which assesses the risks associated with predator/prey encounters. This idea suggests that prey will change their usual habits to adjust to the terrain and its effect on the species' predation. For example, a species may forage in a terrain with a lower predation risk as opposed to one with high predation risk.
It is fairly clear that predators tend to lower the survival and fecundity of their prey, but on a higher level of organization, populations of predator and prey species also interact. It is obvious that predators depend on prey for survival, and this is reflected in predator populations being affected by changes in prey populations. It is not so obvious, however, that predators affect prey populations. Eating a prey organism may simply make room for another if the prey population is approaching its carrying capacity.
The population dynamics of predator-prey interactions can be modelled using the Lotka–Volterra equations. These provide a mathematical model for the cycling of predator and prey populations. Predators tend to select young, weak, and ill individuals.
Evolution of predation
Predation appears to have become a major selection pressure shortly before the Cambrian period—around 550 million years ago—as evidenced by the almost simultaneous development of calcification in animals and algae, and predation-avoiding burrowing. However, predators had been grazing on micro-organisms since at least 1,000 million years ago.
Humans and predation
Humans are omnivorous. They hunt and trap animals using weapons and tools like snares, clubs, spears, fishing gear, firearms to boats and motor vehicles. Humans even use other predatory species, (such as dogs, cormorants, and falcons) in hunting and fishing; some people even enlist such non-predatory beasts, like horses, camels, and elephants in getting approaches to prey.
Humans have reshaped huge expanses of the world as ranges and farms for the raising of livestock, poultry, and fish to be eaten as meat. However, it can be debated whether or not harvesting livestock fits strictly in the definition of predation.
Human raising and eating of livestock is part of agriculture, and involves the feeding of and caring for animals, followed by their being slaughtered with an appropriate tool, cutting up, and cooking. In many cultures, animals are hunted or farmed by specialists (such as ranchers or fishermen), brought to a marketplace, and sold in pieces to the people who actually consume the meat.
A lone naked human is at a physical disadvantage to other comparable apex predators in areas such as speed, bone density, weight, and physical strength. Humans also lack innate weaponry such as claws. Without crafted weapons, society, or cleverness, a lone human can easily be defeated by fit predatory animals, such as wild dogs, big cats and bears. There are even recorded instances of lone humans being preyed upon by large carnivores (see Man-eater). However, humans are not solitary creatures; they are social animals with highly developed social behaviors. Further, humans and their ancestors (such as Homo erectus) have been using stone tools and weapons for well over a million years. Anatomically modern humans have been apex predators since they first evolved, and many species of carnivorous megafauna actively avoid interacting with humans; the primary environmental competitor for a human is other humans. The one subspecies of carnivorous megafauna that does interact frequently with humans in predatory roles is the domestic dog, but usually as a partner in predation especially if they hunt together. Cannibalism has occurred in various places, among various cultures, and for various reasons. At least a few people, such as the Donner party, are said to have resorted to it in desperation. In conservation
Predators are an important consideration in matters relating to conservation. In many cases, the predators are not only apex predators, but are also endangered species themselves as they have lower population sizes than prey species and are much more vulnerable to extinction because of their population size, competition with other predators, and the fluctuations in prey populations.
Having small population size is a characteristic almost universally inherent to apex predators. Low numbers wouldn't be a problem for apex predators if there was an abundance of prey and no competition or niche overlap, a scenario that is rarely, if ever, encountered in the wild. The competitive exclusion principle states that if two species' ecological niches overlap, there is a very high likelihood of competition as both species are in direct competition for the same resources. This factor alone could lead to the extirpation of one or both species, but is compounded by the added factor of prey abundance.
A predator's effect on its prey species is hard to see in the short-term. However, if observed over a longer period of time, it is seen that the population of a predator will correlationally rise and fall with the population of its prey in a cycle similar to the boom and bust cycle of economics. If a predator overhunts its prey, the prey population will lower to numbers that are too scarce for the predators to find. This will cause the predator population to dip, decreasing the predation pressure on the prey population. The decrease in predators will allow the small number of prey left to slowly increase their population to somewhere around their previous abundance, which will allow the predator population to increase in response to the greater availability of resources. If a predator hunts its prey species to numbers too low to sustain the population in the short term, they can cause not only the extinction or extirpation of the prey, but also the extinction of their own species, a phenomenon known as coextinction. This is a risk that wildlife conservationists encounter when introducing predators to prey that have not coevolved with the same or similar predators. This possibility depends largely on how well and how fast the prey species is able to adapt to the introduced predator. One way that this risk can be avoided is if the predator finds an alternative prey species or if an alternative prey species is introduced (something that ecologists and environmentalists try to avoid whenever possible). An alternative prey species would help to lift some of the predation pressure from the initial prey species, giving the population a chance to recover, however it does not guarantee that the initial prey species will be able to recover as the initial prey population may have been hunted to below sustainable numbers or to complete extinction.
Biological pest control
Main article: Biological pest control
Predators may be put to use in conservation efforts to control introduced species. Although the aim in this situation is to remove the introduced species entirely, keeping its abundance down is often the only possibility. Predators from its natural range may be introduced to control populations, though in some cases this has little effect, and may even cause unforeseen problems. Besides their use in conservation biology, predators are also important for controlling pests in agriculture. Natural predators are an environmentally friendly and sustainable way of reducing damage to crops, and are one alternative to the use of chemical agents such as pesticides.
Bird of prey
Built for the Kill, a major nature series on the habits of predatory animals
Overpopulation in wild animals
^ a b Begon, M., Townsend, C., Harper, J. (1996). Ecology: Individuals, populations and communities (Third edition). Blackwell Science, London. ISBN 0-86542-845-X, ISBN 0-632-03801-2, ISBN 0-632-04393-8.
^ Encyclopædia Britannica: "predation"
^ Getz, W. (2011). Biomass transformation webs provide a unified approach to consumer–resource modelling. Ecology Letters, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01566.x.
^ Godfray, H.C.J. (1994). Parasitoids: Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 0-691-03325-0, ISBN 0-691-00047-6. P. 20.
^ Feener, Jr., Donald H.; Brian V. Brown (January 1997). "Diptera as Parasitoids". Annual Review of Entomology 42: 73–97. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.73. PMID 15012308. Retrieved 2009-03-04.
^ Dawkins, R. (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
^ Fedriani J. M., Fuller T. K., Sauvajot R. M., York E. C. (2000). "Competition and intraguild predation among three sympatric carnivores". Oecologia 125 (2): 258–270. doi:10.1007/s004420000448.
^ Changing the distribution of predators and prey in an ecosystem can turn things upside down. March 1, 2013 Scientific American
^ Botkin, D. and E. Keller (2003). Enrivonmental Science: Earth as a living planet. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-38914-5. P.2.
^ a b William J. Ripple and Robert L. Beschta. "Wolves and the Ecology of Fear: Can Predation Risk Structure Ecosystems?" 2004.
^ a b Alcock, J. (1998). Animal Behavior: An Evolutionary Approach (6th edition). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-009-4.
^ Bondavalli C., Ulanowicz R.E. (1999). "Unexpected effects of predators upon their prey: The case of the American alligator". Ecosystems 2: 49–63. doi:10.1007/s100219900057.
^ Dawkins, R. (2004). The Ancestor's Tale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-00583-8.
^ Lloyd J.E. (1965). "Aggressive Mimicry in Photuris: Firefly Femmes Fatales". Science 149 (3684): 653–654. doi:10.1126/science.149.3684.653.
^ a b Molles, Manuel C., Jr. (2002). Ecology: Concepts and Applications (International ed.). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. ISBN 0-07-112252-4.
^ Caro T. M. (1986). "The functions of stotting in Thomson's gazelles: Some tests of the predictions". Animal Behaviour 34 (3): 663–684. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80052-5.
^ Ripple William J., Beschta Robert L. (2004). "Wolves and the ecology of fear: Can predation risk structure ecosystems?". BioScience 54 (8): 755–66. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054[0755:WATEOF]2.0.CO;2.
^ Horning, M., Mellish, J.E. (2012). "Predation on an Upper Trophic Marine Predator, the Steller Sea Lion: Evaluating High Juvenile Mortality in a Density Dependent Conceptual Framework". PLoS ONE 7 (1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0030173. PMID 22272296.
^ Genovart M, Negre N, Tavecchia G, Bistuer A, Parpal L, Oro D. (2010). The young, the weak and the sick: evidence of natural selection by predation. PLoS One. 19;5(3):e9774. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009774 PMID 20333305
^ Grant, S. W. F.; Knoll, A. H.; Germs, G. J. B. (1991). "Probable Calcified Metaphytes in the Latest Proterozoic Nama Group, Namibia: Origin, Diagenesis, and Implications". Journal of Paleontology (JSTOR) 65 (1): 1–18. JSTOR 1305691. PMID 11538648.
^ a b Bengtson, S. (2002). "Origins and early evolution of predation" (PDF). In Kowalewski, M., and Kelley, P.H. The fossil record of predation. The Paleontological Society Papers 8. The Paleontological Society. pp. 289–317. Retrieved 2007-12-01.
^ McNamara, K.J. (20 December 1996). "Dating the Origin of Animals". Science 274 (5295): 1993–1997. doi:10.1126/science.274.5295.1993f. Retrieved 2008-06-28.
^ Awramik, S.M. (19 November 1971). "Precambrian columnar stromatolite diversity: Reflection of metazoan appearance" (abstract). Science 174 (4011): 825–827. doi:10.1126/science.174.4011.825. PMID 17759393. Retrieved 2007-12-01.
^ Stanley (2008). "Predation defeats competition on the seafloor" (extract). Paleobiology 34 (1): 1. doi:10.1666/07026.1.
Barbosa, P. and I. Castellanos (eds.) (2004). Ecology of predator-prey interactions. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-517120-9.
Curio, E. (1976). The ethology of predation. Berlin; New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-07720-0.
Wolfram Demonstrations Project: Predator-Prey Equations by Eric W. Weisstein
Predators, three articles by Olivia Judson, NY Times, Sept. & Oct., 2009
|Wildlife film shows how intense the competition is between lions and hyenas in Africa.|
Violent, savage, brutal, horrific — adjectives used in the comments below relating to the 'natural world'.
Imagine being alone in the jungle, without weapons, being caught by a tiger, and then eaten alive. Where would you prefer the carnivore to begin eating you? Starting at your legs, and working its way up, or head first?
The animal experience of life — as food for other animals and fear of being the next meal.
Could a more cruel and dangerous world be designed?
Upon time and space is written the thoughts, the deeds, the activities of an entity – as in relationships to its environs, its hereditary influence; as directed – or judgment drawn by or according to what the entity's ideal is. Hence, as it has been oft called, the record is God's book of remembrance; and each entity, each soul – as the activities of a single day of an entity in the material world – either makes same good or bad or indifferent, depending upon the entity's application of self towards that which is the ideal manner for the use of time, opportunity and the expression of that for which each soul enters a material manifestation. The interpretation then as drawn here is with the desire and hope that, in opening this for the entity, the experience may be one of helpfulness and hopefulness.
— Edgar Cayce Reading 1650-1
The Akashic Records or "The Book of Life" can be equated to the universe's super computer system. It is this system that acts as the central storehouse of all information for every individual who has ever lived upon the earth. More than just a reservoir of events, the Akashic Records contain every deed, word, feeling, thought, and intent that has ever occurred at any time in the history of the world. Much more than simply a memory storehouse, however, these Akashic Records are interactive in that they have a tremendous influence upon our everyday lives, our relationships, our feelings and belief systems, and the potential realities we draw toward us.
It is no exaggeration to state that the computer has transformed (and is still in the process of transforming) the entire planet. Whether it's technology, transportation, communication, education, or entertainment, the computer age has revolutionized the globe and the ways in which we understand and interact with one another. No segment of modern society has gone unaffected. The amount of information now stored in computer memory and crossing the Internet highway daily is literally unfathomable. And yet, this vast complex of computer systems and collective databases cannot begin to come close to the power, the memory, or the omniscient recording capacity of the Akashic Records.
The Akashic Records contain the entire history of every soul since the dawn of Creation. These records connect each one of us to one another. They contain the stimulus for every archetypal symbol or mythic story which has ever deeply touched patterns of human behavior and experience. They have been the inspiration for dreams and invention. They draw us toward or repel us from one another. They mold and shape levels of human consciousness. They are a portion of Divine Mind. They are the unbiased judge and jury that attempts to guide, educate, and transform every individual to become the very best that she or he can be. They embody an ever-changing fluid array of possible futures that are called into potential as we humans interact and learn from the data that has already been accumulated.
Biblical References: Book of Life
Information about these Akashic Records – this Book of Life – can be found in folklore, in myth, and throughout the Old and New Testaments. It is traceable at least as far back as the Semitic peoples and includes the Arabs, the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Babylonians, and the Hebrews. Among each of these peoples was the belief that there was in existence some kind of celestial tablets which contained the history of humankind as well as all manner of spiritual information.
The first reference in Scripture to some unearthly volume is found in Exodus 32:32. After the Israelites had committed a most grievous sin by worshiping the golden calf, it was Moses who pleaded on their behalf, even offering to take full responsibility and have his own name stricken "out of thy book which thou hast written" in recompense for their deed. Later, in the Old Testament, we learn that there is nothing about an individual that is not known in this same book. In Psalm 139, David makes reference to the fact God has written down everything about him and all the details of his life – even that which is imperfect and those deeds which have yet to be performed.
Akashic Records or "The Book of Life"
For many individuals this Book of Life is simply an imagery symbol of those destined for heaven and has its roots in the custom of recording genealogical records of names or perhaps early census taking. Traditional religion suggests that this book – either in literal or symbolic form – contains the names of all those who are worthy of salvation. The Book is to be opened in connection with divine judgment (Dan. 7:10, Rev. 20:12). In the New Testament, those redeemed by Christ are contained within the Book (Philippians 4), those not found in the Book of Life will not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
As an interesting corollary, in the ancient world, a person's name was symbolic of his or her existence. According to Sir James George Frazer, author of The Golden Bough – one of the most extensive volumes on world mythology – there was such a bond between one's name and one's existence "that magic may be wrought on a man just as easily as through his name as through his hair, his nails, or any other material part of his person." In ancient Egypt, to blot a name out of a record was equivalent to destroying the fact that the person had ever even existed.
H.P. Blavatsky and Rudolf Stiener on the Akashic Records
Closer to our current era, a great deal of contemporary information on the Akashic Records has been made available by both reputable psychics and modern-day mystics – individuals who have somehow perceived beyond the limits of three dimensions. According to H.P. [Helena Petrovna] Blavatsky (1831-1891), Russian immigrant, mystic, and founder of the Theosophical Society, the Akashic Records are much more than simply an account of static data which may be gleaned by a sensitive; instead, the records have an ongoing creative stimulus upon the present:
Akasha is one of the cosmic principles and is a plastic matter, creative in its physical nature, immutable in its higher principles. It is the quintessence of all possible forms of energy, material, psychic, or spiritual; and contains within itself the germs of universal creation, which sprout forth under the impulse of the Divine Spirit.
Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925), the Austrian-born philosopher, educator, and founder of the Anthroposophical Society possessed the ability to perceive information beyond the material world: a "spiritual world" which was just as real to him as the physical world was to others. Steiner claimed that the ability to perceive this other world could be developed, enabling an individual to see events and information every bit as concrete as the present:
...man can penetrate to the eternal origins of the things which vanish with time. A man broadens his power of cognition in this way if he is no longer limited to external evidence where knowledge of the past is concerned. Then he can see in events what is not perceptible to the senses, that part which time cannot destroy. He penetrates from transitory to non-transitory history. It is a fact that this history is written in other characters than is ordinary history. In gnosis and in theosophy it is called the "Akasha Chronicle"...To the uninitiated, who cannot yet convince himself of the reality of a separate spiritual world through his own experience, the initiate easily appears to be a visionary, if not something worse. The one who has acquired the ability to perceive in the spiritual world comes to know past events in their eternal character. They do not stand before him like the dead testimony of history, but appear in full life. In a certain sense, what has happened takes place before him.
Edgar Cayce and the Akashic Records
In terms of contemporary insights, perhaps the most extensive source of information regarding the Akashic Records comes from the clairvoyant work of Edgar Cayce (1877-1945), Christian mystic and founder of A.R.E. For forty-three years of his adult life, Edgar Cayce possessed the uncanny ability to lie down on a couch, close his eyes, fold his hands over his stomach, and put himself into some kind of an altered state in which virtually any type of information was available. The accuracy of Cayce's psychic work is evidenced by approximately one dozen biographies and literally hundreds of titles which explore various aspects of his information and the thousands of topics he discussed.
When asked about the source of his information, Cayce replied that there were essentially two. The first was the subconscious mind of the individual for whom he was giving the reading and the second was the Akashic Records.
Cayce's Sojourn to Access the Records
Most often, when giving a reading which discussed a person's soul history and his or her individual sojourn through space and time, Cayce would begin with a statement such as, "Yes, we have before us the records of the entity now known or called _________." In discussing the process for accessing these records, Edgar Cayce described his experience as follows:
I see myself as a tiny dot out of my physical body, which lies inert before me. I find myself oppressed by darkness and there is a feeling of terrific loneliness. Suddenly, I am conscious of a white beam of light. As this tiny dot, I move upward following the light, knowing that I must follow it or be lost.
As I move along this path of light I gradually become conscious of various levels upon which there is movement. Upon the first levels there are vague, horrible shapes, grotesque forms such as one sees in nightmares. Passing on, there begin to appear on either side misshapen forms of human beings with some part of the body magnified. Again there is change and I become conscious of gray-hooded forms moving downward. Gradually, these become lighter in color. Then the direction changes and these forms move upward and the color of the robes grows rapidly lighter. Next, there begin to appear on either side vague outlines of houses, walls, trees, etc., but everything is motionless. As I pass on, there is more light and movement in what appear to be normal cities and towns. With the growth of movement I become conscious of sounds, at first indistinct rumblings, then music, laughter, and singing of birds. There is more and more light, the colors become very beautiful, and there is the sound of wonderful music. The houses are left behind, ahead there is only a blending of sound and color. Quite suddenly I come upon a hall of records. It is a hall without walls, without ceiling, but I am conscious of seeing an old man who hands me a large book, a record of the individual for whom I seek information. Reading 294-19 Report File
Yes, we have the body here, and the record as has been made and as may be made with the will as exercised, and the condition irrespective of the will's influence or effect as has been created. We have conditions that might have been, that are, and that may be. Do not get the three mixed up or crossed purposes of either. Reading 304-5
Once given the record, Cayce had the ability to select the information which would be most capable of assisting the individual at that time in his or her life. Frequently, a reading might suggest that only a selection of the available material was being provided, but that the individual was being given that which would be "most helpful and hopeful." Additional insights were frequently provided in subsequent readings once an individual had attempted to work with and apply the information which had been given previously.
As a means of perhaps alluding to the fact that the Akashic Records were not simply a transcription of the past but included the present, the future, and certain probabilities as well, in reading 304-5, Cayce began the reading with a curious statement.
When discussing the Book of Life, he stated it that it was "The record of God, of thee, thy soul within and the knowledge of same." (281-33)
On another occasion (2533-8) Cayce was asked to explain the difference between the Book of Life and the Akashic Records:
Q. [What is meant by] The Book of Life?
A. The record that the individual entity itself writes upon the skein of time and space, through patience – and is opened when self has attuned to the infinite, and may be read by those attuning to that consciousness...
Q. The Book of God's Remembrances?
A. This is the Book of Life.
Q. The Akashic Records?
A. Those made by the individual, as just indicated.
The Edgar Cayce readings suggest that each of us writes the story of our lives through our thoughts, our deeds, and our interactions with the rest of creation. This information has an effect upon us in the here and now. In fact, the Akashic Records have such an impact upon our lives and the potentials and probabilities we draw toward us that any exploration of them cannot help but provide us with insights into the nature of ourselves and our relationship to the universe.
There is much more to our lives, our histories, and our individual influence upon our tomorrows than we have perhaps dared to imagine. By accessing information from the Akashic Records, the universe's computer database, much might be revealed to us. The world as we have collectively perceived it is but a faint shadow of reality.
Sex is an explosive subject, one that many people just cannot deal with. Religious people like to make judgments about sex that can turn ugly as they are threatened with anything that takes them out of their box of fixed concepts and ideas. Doctors on the other hand have to deal with human sexuality in a straight-forward manner, which is not easy for anyone.