The truth is that sloths are incredibly slow movers, but for a very simple reason: survival.
The fact that slow sloths have been on this planet for almost 64m years shows that they have a winning strategy. But in order to understand exactly what it is that makes them such slow movers, and why this works so well, we have to look at the biology of these unusual animals in more detail. Three-toed sloths are indeed the slowest-moving mammals on the planet, but exactly how slow is slow?
They do move, but very slowly and always at the same, almost measured, pace. Sloths are not the only creatures in the animal kingdom to adopt a slow pace. Cold-blooded ectotherms such as frogs and snakes, are commonly subject to enforced slow movement when faced with cold temperatures, due to their inability to regulate their own temperature independently of the environment. Just like any chemical reaction, cold muscles are slow muscles so cold reptiles are slow reptiles.
This is in stark contrast to most homeothermic mammals which maintain a stable, high core temperature via a process of adaptive thermogenesis , and are consequently able to move fast and effectively regardless of the ambient conditions. But this athletic ability comes at a cost: high body temperatures mean high metabolic rates, and somehow the energy bill must be paid using food.
So where do sloths fit into this dichotomy? They move slowly at all temperatures and, unsurprisingly, deviate from the typical homeothermic mammalian plan by operating at lower body temperatures than most mammals, while apparently having a reduced ability to thermoregulate. The average temperature of the three-toed sloth is around Both two and three-fingered sloths have a predominantly folivorous leaf-based diet, consuming material with a notably low caloric content. There are plenty of other mammals which specialise on a leaf-based diet, but usually these animals compensate for their low-calorie diet by consuming relatively large quantities of food.
Fellow leaf-eating howler monkeys move at a normal pace but consume three times as many leaves per kilogram of body mass as sloths, digesting their foodstuff comparatively quickly. It swims with its head swinging side-to-side in order to sense any changes in the electric field to see where its food is hiding. It sucks in the walls of its abdomen so fast and with so much force that the walls burst open spilling out toxins.
The Ants: Volume 2; Volume Harvard University Press, Meet the incredible self-freezing frog! The glucose acts as antifreeze, working to keep this little guy alive while staying still. As the temperature drops the Wood frog will stop moving and breathing, its blood stops flowing and even its heart stops! Once things warm up a bit the frog comes back to life so-to-speak and returns to normal. This beetle knows just how to keep enemies away hot liquid eek! For electro location the eel uses a low voltage discharge about 10 V and reaching about 25 Hz but the eel soups-up its discharge to high voltage about V and reaching several hundred Hz to keep predators away.
While I know the reductive nature of your premise is by necessity, you seem to have a good grasp on why we do what we do. I agree that some knee-jerk reactions we all have run contrary to our hyper-socialized society and might not serve us in the short-game. Maybe not even in the long game--at least in the moment. Perhaps that job was going nowhere, and they were headed for more than one type of brick wall. And once actual survival instincts kick in, they might have taken the time to re-evaluate priorities.
Is Our Survival Instinct Failing Us? | Psychology Today
No, people don't "flee" like impalas, but we emotionally flee when we are in emotional danger and we know it. When it becomes extremely dangerous is when that instinct is hampered by the societal normalization and acceptance of abuse against individuals by other individuals, or—the most pervasive form of modern abuse—abuse against a certain individual or GROUP of individuals by systemic bullying, failures, and abuses of power that coincide with them.
Since its publication, the alarming trend of suicide has risen, exponentially. I'm baffled as to why this issue isn't brought forth in conjunction with the most powerful of human instincts—the literal loss of the survival instinct, which is at the very heart of this act. To take one's own life for no other purpose than to no longer be alive isn't altruism, self-sacrifice for the "whole" of the tribe. We don't feel guilty when we break our arm. Why do we feel shame and guilt when our hearts are "broken" by an emotional event?
When you suffer a loss, why should you not feel the loss? Why haven't people rallied around me, for example, due to the severe iatrogenic harm my family and I have endured? I'll tell you why: because when a hurricane hits, everyone is equally hurt and threatened. When too many people are hurt by "the system," they are isolated, afraid, and others, afraid of reprisal, distance themselves.
- Prophets Male and Female: Gender and Prophecy in the Hebrew Bible, the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Ancient Near East.
- Debate: Which is the world's most invaluable species??
- Kind pulls its fruit snacks, but begins a fight against synthetic dye.
- Wittgenstein as Dialectician.
- Optimal design of experiments : a case study approach;
- Working together.
I know this. I am living this. As we progressed into more advanced civilizations, certain people amassed more wealth, more power, and they did it through the de-equalizing of one another into such things as caste systems, then came feudal rule, and so forth. Uprisings were met with violence, and dissent with death. While the mere peasantry's lives were absolutely on the line, the tool used by those in power was the same one used today: granting power to some over others, and remunerating loyalty and those willing to forego the many to support the few.
These medications numb, mute, and eventually damage--on a biological level--the 4-F's of the limbic system. And to LIVE means saying "yes. Life is not just being alive, it's feeling alive.
They lack feeling, good AND bad, positive and negative. That is the Human Experience. Welcome to it. Hold on tight. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals I have yet to find the "statistics" to support any "evidence-bases" therein , are created and funded by those who stand to gain financially and professionally by pathologizing human behavior as thoroughly as possible. Talk about job creators.
Secrets Of Street Survival - Israeli Style: Staying Alive In A Civilian War Zone
They create jobs and interminable "income streams" of their mentally ill patients. These texts are comprised of fast-and-loose conjecture and oddly coincide with many EPS of the very drugs the manuals help to "diagnose.
How very convenient. The manuals were collated in closed-door meetings with non-disclosure agreements--the opposite of scientific transparency and for the greater good of humanity. That's how science is supposed to work. You share information.
And those who have participated in creating the DSMs are completely blatant in their attempts to homogenize humanity due to the above motivations--plus, IMO, the desire to be accepted by their colleagues in neurology and other medical arts and sciences--and quite possibly a smattering of self-loathing for their own humanity. Then they proceeded to systematically lop off huge sections of the grand and wondrous spectrum of human emotion and behavior into a single-note samba of vanilla. On both ends. What about survival, not of the fittest, but of the most resilient? A population of frightened victims don't speak out.
They are too busy trying to survive, not just the real threats to their basic needs, but the wonky state their brain stem and limbic systems are in due to their "harmless little helpers. The sad part? Their doctors think they're safe, too. They aren't the bad guys here, either. What hypocrisy. Doing better? It's reprehensible the way we treat those who suffer with these illnesses everywhere, not just in the U. And if I don't fit in the box, then I must be mentally ill.
I believe human beings, and our emotions and behavior, become pathological because we reflect our world and society—and we developed pathological responses to pathological systems that are currently in place.
Bonnier Corp. Website Data Disclosure
And while serious mental illnesses are very real and people absolutely need help and treatment, it is YOU, Dr. Taylor, you and other psychologists, therapists, etc. While psychiatry has an illustrious history and frankly, a shameful current state, I believe psychiatrists go into it to help, really help people. But they've been given faulty tools and faulty information. Then, they must choose between basic survival—their jobs—or actually helping people. That is an immoral choice. But also? They ought to know better, too. It's their jobs to know better.
Further, psychiatry is a guessing game at best, and sorry guys and gals, unless your'e willing to pop the same pills as we are to see how it "feels" for you? You shouldn't be medicating with them. And yes, they will re-arrange your "brain chemistry" the same way they did, and do, ours. You willing to take that risk, Doc? We are not experiments. If SSRI does what they do to serotonin in my brain, why wouldn't it do it in yours. If someone has an un-diagnosed or misdiagnosed head injury, but they "present" with a form of mood disorder The drugs might compound their injuries.
Are they to blame for their lack of knowledge about the human brains, or Do you know how little it takes to sustain a TBI? You must. Do you know how many TBI symptoms mimic mental illness? In an article in this very magazine, Psychology Today, "Mental Illness Does Not Equal Dangerous, Mostly" and countless other articles, the authors and research speak of the mentally ill as for the most part, non-violent--but when they turn violent?
Nary a word is uttered about the role their medications, past or current, play. All that's mentioned in the media is their LACK of medication. How insidious. When violence is turned outward, no one looks to see what they took or take for bipolar disorder, only that they were diagnosed with it. Then why are we bothering to de-stigmatize it? So we know who NOT to invite to dinner? Or to be inclusive and invite them anyway but maybe ix-nay on the ife-knay. With all the new medications on the market to fix those who don't fit in the tiny, little vanilla-white box, they'll be right as rain after the array of rainbow-colored pills on which they'll carousel for the better portions of their lives because withdrawing form them is a new brand of nightmare.