They’re also heavily used in paintball and airsoft, and some other quasi-combat games. The best ones I’ve used are sold by a company called Enola Gay, and they advertise simultaneously to photographers (as you said) and paintball/airsoft users. They’re really fun, ring-pull devices and produce a truly impressive amount of smoke for minutes at a time. The first time I used one I giggled like a kid.
Single-use flares/smoke generators are nice if you are sure you will be spotted during that specific fly-through by rescue team. If not, you need to pack some amount with you. You need to be sure they don't 'expire' and don't get wet.
What about some emergency signal mirrors with pinhole? It can be plastic so nearly indestructible, weights few grams, basically credit-card size, cost nothing, due to pinhole you can point the sun reflection pretty precisely towards rescuers and it doesn't run out.
Drawback is obviously inefficiency without direct sunlight, but this is something I carry on every camping trip and I don't even think about it anymore.
That is cool if you are in fairly open high country. But these guys had climbed into the canopy of a tree, so both the sunlight, and the reflected light from the mirror could have been blocked by foliage. Smoke (or a flare) was about the only thing that could move above the treeline and be visible to an aircraft.
Not OP, but I know the Spot products are pretty popular (https://www.findmespot.com/en/). Though, the Gen3 is quite a bit thicker than a credit card and they do run $20/month for service.
I have a Fastfind PLB as my primary (doesnt need a subscription, but one-time use), but I'm interested in this CC-sized device OP mentioned as an every-day carry.
That's the parent's point, isn't? It's normal, i.e. not bad, that there's lots of alligators there; and calling it infested, in other words, implying that we'd prefer that they not be there, is disturbing in its human-centricity.
Exactly! Both examples, the "infestations" of meat and wood, are quite human-centric as they describe value loss of what humans would consider "useful material". Even though they are both relevant parts of a cyclical ecosystem.
And for the guys stuck in the trees, the presence of crocodiles in the water minimized the value of the water as a "useful material" for use as a means of transport out of where they were.
If you were stuck in a tree in a mangrove, would you want alligators swimming about?
Its negative because they might eat you. If it were ponies, I wouldn't use the word infested.
Yes it is human centric. That isn't necessarily bad, we are human after all. Just like ponies being harmless is human centric. To a blade of grass that pony is very much not harmless.
The point of view that I'm attacking, whether it is shared by some of the parents or not, is "I don't know where I am, and I don't care, all that matters is that I am inconvenienced by X, and therefore X is bad". If someone were to ride a road bicycle through a mountain trail, and complain about it not being paved, I'd be similarly aching to ask "maybe you're the problem?".
We could write and talk in a way which is 100% factually correct and unbiased. But then it would take ages to say anything and nobody would bother reading it.
| is disturbing in its human-centricity
I can't help but notice that you're writing in english. A language known for being not only human-centric but also western-centric.
At the end of the day information theory always takes over. Commonly used ideas will be represented by short sequences.
They could have said, "There were a lot of alligators (apparently these were crocodiles?) present. These creatures have teeth and aquatic adaptations which make them efficient at inflicting damage or even death to animals that otherwise do not frequent the water. Damage and death do not promote evolutionary fitness for any given individual. Therefore, the individuals present were not comfortable with the presence of these creatures. Please see appendix A, B, and C for additional details."
This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that.
Nobody is saying we should talk in a 100% factual and unbiased way, what they are saying is that we should inspect and minimize the biases we have. The best way to do that is through altering and correcting our use of language to better describe reality, while ensuring it stays convenient.
I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we speak in the way you proposed in your example. While you are correct that shorter language sequences usually win out, the shorter and just as informative "Alligator lake", did not win out. The just as complex "Alligator-occupied lake", would serve just as well in it's informative capacity, but did not win out either.
We are now in a position where so many critical species have been destroyed or usurped by humans, that a good 70% of the earth's ecosystems are reliant on human maintenance to continue existing. Meanwhile, animals that have survived for millions of years, such as the Alligator and the Crocodile, are becoming endangered and at threat from human-led ecosystem destruction. It is important to note there are still many, many humans with the idea that the human is at the top of the food chain, and that animals exist only for our use.
In this context, the thread-parent makes an incredibly valid point -- the language use in the article carries with it an implicit assumption that animals are 'out of place' or otherwise 'wrong' in their natural habitat. Is it not right that we should examine and attempt to correct biases like these? Given that they were influencing factors that lead to the behaviour and attitudes that cause destruction?
Why shouldn't we question those biases and influences? Why shouldn't we attempt to question implicit ideas that have the power to lead to the genocide and destruction of entire species. Isn't examining our language usage to ensure we are not enabling attitudes like those, part of pushing against those attitudes?
| This attitude seems to me to be rather obtuse, and a straw-man, at that.
I mean, not really. My argument is simple and not particularly nuanced, but checkout what it's a response to:
| Infest is not the right word to use for animals in their natural habitat. In wilderness, it is humans who can be considered to be infesting...
AND
| is disturbing in its human-centricity
It's unreasonable to ask everyone else to change how they speak because one person finds something disturbing.
I'm not going to write a book saying why that person is wrong when they can't be bothered to write a reasonable proposal as to why everyone else needs to change their language patterns.
The onus is on the one asking for a wide scale change to provide a reasonable argument.
Your statement is much better than the original one as it actually starts to make headway as to why language changes might be desirable.
However, I can still just respond with "I care more about people than I do about crocodiles, so my language pattern is staying the same."
So you kind of need studies on ecology (how do crocodile populations help people), studies on psychology (how will changing language help the crocodiles), and studies on language efficiency (will the cost of the language change be worth the benefit to crocodiles and indirectly people).
Meanwhile, a person with a box of free t-shirts with pictures of cute crocodiles on them with the back saying "save Katie the Krock" will do mountains more to actually help crocodile populations than random people arguing about language on the internet ... which kind of proves my point about information theory compressing things down.
Am I the only one with cognitive dissonence about the "South Alligator River" being described as "crocodile-infested", which is in Australia (a country with absolutely no alligators).
According to Wikipedia, "They were explored by Lieutenant Phillip Parker King in 1820, who named them in the mistaken belief that the crocodiles in the estuaries were alligators."
It's a known colloquial quirk that is accepted by locals. (A bit like how Greenland isn't really green, and Iceland isn't really all ice (Apparently named so by the ancient vikings to confuse potential enemy invaders)).
I would prefer alligators over saltwater crocodiles. Alligators attack if feel treatened or for territorial purposes. Saltwater see humans as prey and go for them actively if they are enough close.
Not being familiar with the area, I had a couple questions I’ve hypothesized answers for.
Why didn’t they drink the river water if they were dehydrated? It was probably too salty. This river is close to the sea.
Why didn’t they swim to high ground instead of climbing a tree? Unless crocodiles are particularly aggressive, I don’t think they likely feared being attacked. More likely they either could not swim, or high ground is much too far away to reach, this being a swamp. (I’m from Florida - gators rarely attack humans.)
Aussie crocs are notoriously aggressive. The salt water croc, which infests these waters, can grow upwards of 20+ feet. It doesn't really matter how far from land these guys were nor how deep the water, it's pretty unlikely they'd survive a swim.
Salt water crocs are active human hunters and will almost definitely kill. They have also dragged humans and livestock from the land back to water. In the water is obviously dangerous and near the water is also fatal.
from the looks of the photo, they only survived because crocodiles didn't find them. It wouldn't take a very large crocodile to snatch them right out of those trees.
Florida Gators are water puppies. Australian salties will hunt humans down even if you are on a beach or within their sight. There is close to zero percent chance of survival even if you as much get closer to the river to drink some water. Some of the crocs fight great white sharks.
The Aussie crocs are a nightmare and are one of the few predators to actively hunt and kill humans.
The only other predator I know of that sees humans as prey most of the time is the polar bear. Sharks sometimes bite humans as a “test” and then lose interest, wolves need to be desperate or sick to hunt humans, lions and other big cats can become “man eaters” and yet it isn’t their norm. Polar bears just look at us and see a snack.
Thanks. Wikipedia confirms: Of all the crocodilians, the saltwater crocodile and Nile crocodile have the strongest tendencies to treat humans as prey. The saltwater crocodile has a long history of attacking humans who unknowingly venture into its territory. As a result of its power, intimidating size and speed, survival of a direct predatory attack is unlikely if the crocodile is able to make direct contact. By contrast to the American policy of encouraging a certain degree of habitat coexistence with alligators, the only recommended policy for dealing with saltwater crocodiles is to completely avoid their habitat whenever possible, as they are exceedingly aggressive when encroached upon.
43 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 111 ms ] threadWhat about some emergency signal mirrors with pinhole? It can be plastic so nearly indestructible, weights few grams, basically credit-card size, cost nothing, due to pinhole you can point the sun reflection pretty precisely towards rescuers and it doesn't run out.
Drawback is obviously inefficiency without direct sunlight, but this is something I carry on every camping trip and I don't even think about it anymore.
But, they're designed for exactly this.
Wood infested with woodworm.
Infest has negative connotations, in the sense that it isn't something good. It doesn't indicate unnaturalness though.
It's bad from the point of view of the monkeys that were infesting the trees above the river.
Its negative because they might eat you. If it were ponies, I wouldn't use the word infested.
Yes it is human centric. That isn't necessarily bad, we are human after all. Just like ponies being harmless is human centric. To a blade of grass that pony is very much not harmless.
| is disturbing in its human-centricity
I can't help but notice that you're writing in english. A language known for being not only human-centric but also western-centric.
At the end of the day information theory always takes over. Commonly used ideas will be represented by short sequences.
They could have said, "There were a lot of alligators (apparently these were crocodiles?) present. These creatures have teeth and aquatic adaptations which make them efficient at inflicting damage or even death to animals that otherwise do not frequent the water. Damage and death do not promote evolutionary fitness for any given individual. Therefore, the individuals present were not comfortable with the presence of these creatures. Please see appendix A, B, and C for additional details."
Or they could just say "infested".
Nobody is saying we should talk in a 100% factual and unbiased way, what they are saying is that we should inspect and minimize the biases we have. The best way to do that is through altering and correcting our use of language to better describe reality, while ensuring it stays convenient.
I don't think anyone is seriously proposing that we speak in the way you proposed in your example. While you are correct that shorter language sequences usually win out, the shorter and just as informative "Alligator lake", did not win out. The just as complex "Alligator-occupied lake", would serve just as well in it's informative capacity, but did not win out either.
We are now in a position where so many critical species have been destroyed or usurped by humans, that a good 70% of the earth's ecosystems are reliant on human maintenance to continue existing. Meanwhile, animals that have survived for millions of years, such as the Alligator and the Crocodile, are becoming endangered and at threat from human-led ecosystem destruction. It is important to note there are still many, many humans with the idea that the human is at the top of the food chain, and that animals exist only for our use.
In this context, the thread-parent makes an incredibly valid point -- the language use in the article carries with it an implicit assumption that animals are 'out of place' or otherwise 'wrong' in their natural habitat. Is it not right that we should examine and attempt to correct biases like these? Given that they were influencing factors that lead to the behaviour and attitudes that cause destruction?
Why shouldn't we question those biases and influences? Why shouldn't we attempt to question implicit ideas that have the power to lead to the genocide and destruction of entire species. Isn't examining our language usage to ensure we are not enabling attitudes like those, part of pushing against those attitudes?
I mean, not really. My argument is simple and not particularly nuanced, but checkout what it's a response to:
| Infest is not the right word to use for animals in their natural habitat. In wilderness, it is humans who can be considered to be infesting...
AND
| is disturbing in its human-centricity
It's unreasonable to ask everyone else to change how they speak because one person finds something disturbing.
I'm not going to write a book saying why that person is wrong when they can't be bothered to write a reasonable proposal as to why everyone else needs to change their language patterns.
The onus is on the one asking for a wide scale change to provide a reasonable argument.
Your statement is much better than the original one as it actually starts to make headway as to why language changes might be desirable.
However, I can still just respond with "I care more about people than I do about crocodiles, so my language pattern is staying the same."
So you kind of need studies on ecology (how do crocodile populations help people), studies on psychology (how will changing language help the crocodiles), and studies on language efficiency (will the cost of the language change be worth the benefit to crocodiles and indirectly people).
Meanwhile, a person with a box of free t-shirts with pictures of cute crocodiles on them with the back saying "save Katie the Krock" will do mountains more to actually help crocodile populations than random people arguing about language on the internet ... which kind of proves my point about information theory compressing things down.
If it was reported by the crocodiles the humans might have been described as "disappointingly out of reach"
(edit typo)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_Rivers
Why didn’t they drink the river water if they were dehydrated? It was probably too salty. This river is close to the sea.
Why didn’t they swim to high ground instead of climbing a tree? Unless crocodiles are particularly aggressive, I don’t think they likely feared being attacked. More likely they either could not swim, or high ground is much too far away to reach, this being a swamp. (I’m from Florida - gators rarely attack humans.)
River could be salt water.
A lot of river water contains bacteria that will give you severe diarrhea, so drinking the river water will actually further dehydrate you.
> Why didn't they swim
The river MAY be going too fast to safely swim as well.
This situation is the stuff of nightmares.
The Aussie crocs are a nightmare and are one of the few predators to actively hunt and kill humans.
Note to self: avoid crocodiles.