In that case, is it even a border if people aren’t frequently peeing all along it?
“… and that’s how I got arrested by border control.”
Look you can either have borders or toilets. Pick one.
I love how people call it natural when anyone but a human does something.
That is one literal definition of natural, yes.
I must have totally forgotten that I’m a Wolf. I’ve always thought that I’m a Human. Crazy. Good to know that now. But I want that Friedrich Merz pisses on all of them trees at the German Border, because thats how the natural way to mark ur territory just works. And everything from nature is always the perfect and correct bahaivor for everyone!
Exactly. Wolves are also one of the species that practice infanticide. Clearly there is no point in being better, and we should just replicate everything we see in nature.
Whenever someone makes an appeal to nature, you know you’re in for a treat.
I pissed in my neighbor’s garden, got his wife pregnant and then ripped apart his newborn with my bare teeth and now my neighbor just wanders in the communal parking lot. At first I felt like the bad guy but I feel a lot better now, because his wife snarls at him whenever he gets close to the house.
Sometimes life surprises you.
Human communities have borders and territories though
Turns out humans like borders too
Good to know that Humans are a Hivemind. Until now I acctually disliked borders. But I am a Human, and you say Humans like Borders. Man thanks for the Warning. I will be working on adapting the Hiveminds Opinion.
“Timberwolf Hivemind” is a damn good band name…
But we DO form similar social structures to that of wolf packs. The majority of human history has been one of tribadism
Pretty sure you mean tribalism.
Tribadism (NSFW) is something different.
But it stays an Argument purly on Nature. And someone still needs to explain to me why nature automatically means better.
Also, I’d like to know why one animal doing one thing is used to justify human behaviour as “natural” while another animal doing something else is not. (Or even the same animal doing something else is not.)
There are tons of non-territorial animals, for example.
These are processes that’ll just happen organically and those usually have the least upkeep. If something is made artificially it needs to be artificially maintained. I’ll be honest, I am personally against borders, I greatly enjoy open borders in the EU but the fact that borders form naturally is a process we’d be aware of. Just like wealth accumulation in capitalism, its a natural conclusion that’d take measures to avoid.
Why are some things that some animals do used as a justification for humans to do the same, while other animals doing something else isn’t?
For example, Wikipedia says this about the topic:
Territoriality is only shown by a minority of species. More commonly, an individual or a group of animals occupies an area that it habitually uses but does not necessarily defend; this is called its home range. The home ranges of different groups of animals often overlap, and in these overlap areas the groups tend to avoid each other rather than seeking to confront and expel each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_(animal)
It is natural to not have borders, and only a few species do.
Our entire world couldn’t be more far away from what nature once was. And there are just so many “artificial” things that have proven to be better than nature. What I’m saying is that just saying that something is natural really does mean nothing. I can be both, good or bad. It’s not like I’m denying nature. Because you said that I need to be aware of it.
Well borders are rather useful and good. Everyone has boundaries with other people, it’s even kinda mandatory for mental well-being. Everyone has borders with their home. Those are even legally enforceable.
I’m fairly sure you’d be rather pissed off if i would randomly walk into your home and started harassing you.
I’m not the State. You are confusing personal boundaries with state borders. Totally different topics. Always a nice try to place state interests into personal interests of an individual. Oldest trick in the book. That’s just like that argument that I need to go die for my country because if I was personally attacked on the street I would also defend myself. These are totally different scenarios. We can live together in big scale while still having private spaces. These things can coexist.
I’d say it’s the exact same principle, just scaled up.
From personal boundaries and home rules, which are set up by each individual themselves. To HOA or apartment complex equivalents boundaries and rules which are set up by democratic voting(hopefully). To a district or state rules and boundaries to country to unions.
Borders are trees covered in pee.
Sigh Unzip. If that’s what I’ve got to do to carve out some space, then so be it!
Welcome to Border Peetrol.
Paw Peetrol
Maintaining healthy trees with urine covering with federal employee benefits and a government pension sounds like a dream job.
No doubt they’d find a way to make it a bureaucratic nightmare of a job. But I’m down.
Maybe a different interpretation is that “We may belong to a land but the lands don’t belong to us.”
I know it’s just a shitpost but it’s so fucking stupid.
It’s comparing a home to a country. Like arguing “If you’re so against borders, I’ll just come into your house at any time.” No, fuckface, there’s a difference between personal space and (what should be) public land.
Walled towns/cities used to be common. In some contexts, it makes more sense than walled countries.
People build structures to form their communities. Not everyone from outside the community can be trusted to respect the integrity those structures, especially when a rival community builds an army or if there are roaming bands of raiders or whatever. In those situations, a walled town becomes necessary for the common defense, provides a refuge for the surrounding villagers, and overall just makes it a lot easier for people to protect themselves.
Not only that, it’s just much more practical materially. It’s easier to build and man a wall one mile in circumference than it is to build one 500 miles long with no closure.
In the modern context, walled towns aren’t really as necessary as they were in say medieval times when basically any land outside a fiefdom was more or less unpatrolled and most places didn’t have a unified body-politic maintaining civic order.
However, as society breaks down, communities polarize, extremists turn to political violence, and law enforcement agencies no longer feel obligated to protect people, a time may come again when building a wall around your town or neighborhood and controlling access points may become useful. Especially in say a post-apocalyptic scenario where there’s a complete breakdown of society and you can no longer trust that the people in the next town over or the trailer park beyond that aren’t gonna bring violence to your door.
Of course now there’s aerial technology which can defeat the purpose of a wall, but it might at least keep Johnny Redneck with his extra big-ass truck and AR-15 out of your town. And nets and things might snare drones before they can detonate…
What are you even talking about? Geopolitical borders are not the same as walls, towns are not countries, and we’re not in medieval times or the apocalypse.
That’s why I was saying they were different. Do you not know what it means to contrast things?
Yes we are primitive animals indeed!
At the end of the day, yes we are.
Return to monkey.
Not just any. Bonobos.
The modern notion of nation States, with clearly defined borders, and mechanisms of violence to enforce them, only arose around the 17th century.
Wolves don’t build border walls, have customs checkpoints, or leave refugees to drown in the Mediterranean.
This isn’t a “science meme”, it’s a falacious attempt to cloak reactionary rhetoric in the aesthetic garb of scientific rigor.
Might as well show plant tissues with defined cell walls and say “borders are natural”.
Wolves don’t build border walls, have customs checkpoints, or leave refugees to drown in the Mediterranean.
Only a half truth. Borders may have been loosely defined but they were absolutely defended with violence. You couldn’t wander in and hunt in your neighbors woods, take their timber or set up a farm too close. Hell, sometimes they even had well defined natural borders or walls (see: Hadrian’s wall, the great wall of China)
Moving through an area in large numbers might draw a violent response and you might be coerced to leave if you spoke the wrong language or dressed the wrong way. If you were an unknown group of strangers they may well let your boat sink or leave you to starve outside their walls. Modern states have simply codified these reactions into law.
Proto-states and the associated mechanisms developed extremely quickly once sedentary agriculture became dominant. If your entire livelihood is tied to a field of grain you no longer get to run or hide from conflict; controlling who can and can’t get near it becomes imperative.
Only a half truth. Borders may have been loosely defined but they were absolutely defended with violence.
Yes, but the means by which that state violence was organized and carried out often looked very different. Obviously there was some sort of distinction between medieval lordships or what have you, but the organizational form of the modern nation state wasn’t codified until the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30 years war. This was co-constitutive with the enclosure of common land, and the birth of modern capitalist property relations.
But the nitty gritty details are besides the point. The main thing I’m stating in my comment is that OP is making a falacious appeal to nature. As though a dog pissing on a rock somewhere says anything at all about how humans should conduct border policy.
“Sorry sir, we have to deport you back to your impoverished, war-torn country, because wolves pee on trees”.
Very compelling.
It’s as good an excuse as any 🤷♂️
Yes, exactly what they’re saying. lol
Also, countries need authoritarian governments because lobsters pee on each-other’s faces.
Excuse me but the trees get off on it why are we punishing our neighbors for a little harmful fun?
It really bothers me when people use “fear” and “respect” interchangeably. This borders on that.
wrong, there are no borders… so this cant border on anything
They overlap significantly. In addition to what’s seen in the image, the wolves’ territories will move around due to various conditions. There are no fixed lines that could be likened to states’ borders, only vague areas that can be likened to respecting personal space. Compare the wolves’ ranges with the white line indicating the national park border also seen in the image, which does not move around based on vibes.
Pretty sure their borders aren’t made up of countries, taxes, and slavery.
and they aren’t forcing other animals to comply and pay taxes for the maintenance of those borders
they aren’t forcing other animals to comply
They might be. It’s still no reason for us to do the same
Aside from like not having a country name or formal procedures, I think you’re probably mostly wrong actually.
oof
Yes but humans are not wolfs. Each behave differently.
Yeah, humans are two wolves. Way different psychology.
We have to feed the good wolf…
Primates also have territories, and chimps, one of our closest relatives, have wars over them.
And they’re so much smarter than us, we saw no reason to change such a winning strategy.
As a whole, humanity is still just a bunch of angry apes.
and bonobos, chimpanzee’s closest relatives have found evolutionary strategies that work without wars. we have changed our ways of eating and living before, we can again. all we need, as a society, is the imagination to remake ourselves as we have before
There is a study from 2024 that says bonobo chimpanzees can be even more agressive than Gombe chimpanzees
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(24)00253-7
Edit; Sync did not play nice with the link.
We have so much extra food we don’t even really need to change much.
um… sorry but no, bonobos are as prone to extreme violence as any other chimps. They’ve even been seen to form groups and beat to death problematic (or in one case just unpopular) members of the community.
That’s not accurate. Humans behave very predictably in most cases
The generally and predictably do not like borders and keep crossing them. You know, passwports in modern society.
Speak for yourself. There are two wolves inside me --one of them respects boundaries.
Is this meant to be serious?
I hope not, it’s pretty pathetic to try and compare animals or packs of animals having territories, with militarized borders and state appointed violence. I don’t think that’s what the OP is doing, but many other people in these comment absolutely are serious.
