The animal world was well established for eons before humans came along. I say some people have always been able to figure this out.
At one time you also have to figure that learning from nature was the most predominant way for eons too. The animal world is where behavior of some other thriving species can be observed somewhat clearly, and there are so many behaviors that can be mimicked in some way. Even a cave man could do it. Don't see how they could avoid it.
The most stark thing that many have handled as subtle, is the physical possibility to live no differently than animals, and following that example for eons build a culture that thrives as well as many of the species that have been in existence long before humans. Survival of the fittest in a dog-eat-dog world and all that.
But the human mind is so much different in so many ways compared to all other species, while having incredible physical similarity to some other species.
At the other end of the spectrum, observers having a different point of view may want to spend eons trying to avoid living like animals as much as possible. Resulting in a very stark difference in activities, conducted in completely different terms than animals do, or could even be capable of. That's the idea of humanity to begin with. Survival of the fittest in a non-dog-teach-non-dog world, something like that.
There's lots of choices there.
>There's multitudes of great individuals that are just unknown to history
This is what so many people forget.
When those multitudes get together or arise through population growth, not everything is lost to history, even if there is no documentation.
Sometimes they create great societies, and depending on how fortunate they can be protecting their creation from those who are not so great, a few of those cultural centers still exist today.
Not every one has been sacked, and not sacked completely at that.
And then there's the diaspora effect where displaced greatness disperses stealthily (akin to spores) under threat, or when a diluting force adopts a measure of found greatness.
As civilization goes, it looks like right now is just one of those times when those who can learn humanity from nature are vastly outnumbered by those who fail to do so.
"Ewes prefer subordinate rather than dominant rams as sexual partners" (alas, not "who do ewe choose?")
If the rams control mating*, obviously the physically dominant rams butt the subordinate ones out, and mate preferentially.
According to this study, by tying the rams to opposite corners and hence letting the ewes choose between them, the physically subordinate males got not just relatively, but absolutely, more action.
Is the ovine equivalent of a "soy boy" a "ma'am ram"? Do the ewes prefer them because they get serenaded with sweet nothings?
Elect me, my sweet embraceable ewe
Elect me, you irreplaceable ewe
That's a lot funnier than my wall of text, and maybe contains a true bit of observed animal behavior for one species too.
Perhaps a nugget of wisdom about when animal-inspired approaches overwhelm the non-animal, some humanism is lost in the world at large, and that can be far & wide, but can also drill deep and affect the relations between mates. Animals in nature can set an even worse example for humans in this regard.
>rural australian b&s parties
I've really got to get out more. Sounds like the kind of place where you can come across all kinds of unexpected things.
> Animals in nature can set an even worse example for humans in this regard.
Or worse yet, domesticated animals (of which I claim we also count).
Want to run human societies according to pig practice? Get fascism. (TIL the weak piglets only die because we've bred domesticated pigs to have too big a litter [12-14]; wild sows have litters [4-6] they can feed)
(Want to run human societies according to sheep practice? Do we get manufactured consent or theocracy or ?)
Want to run human societies according to horse/cattle practice? Get feudalism.
Want to run human societies according to horse/cattle practice, in the regime where a little food waste is cheaper than a vet call? Get socialism.
That people known for their solutions often spend time considering the problems and prior art, or that playing in the woods as a child equates to a mastery of engineering, philosophy, and art later in life.
I'm not sure which. It's very hard to say, especially since none of us are LeonardoDaVinciologists.
When it comes to scholars, if they came along after Da Vinci, there is some likelihood they studied at least a little something descended from Leonardo himself.
Exactly, so if there are multitudes of great individualss both have and haven't studied nature then why make a bald statement about the practice of a single individual? I'm asking what was being initially implied.
That, since your kids aren't likely to become the next Leonardo da Vinci, they shouldn't play outside? That playing in the woods as a child isn't a substitute for a world-class education later in life?
Did they teach you that at the university?
Because I'm pretty sure nobody else here is equating playing in the woods as a kid with becoming a famous artist and engineer later in life.
