this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
17 points (87.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
3101 readers
4 users here now
There is no such thing as a Stupid Question!
Don't be embarrassed of your curiosity; everyone has questions that they may feel uncomfortable asking certain people, so this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.
- ex. How do I change oil
- ex. How to tie shoes
- ex. Can you cry underwater?
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca still apply!
Thanks for reading all of this, even if you didn't read all of this, and your eye started somewhere else, have a watermelon slice ๐.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just because some property can be owned does not mean all property must be owned.
Land rights are sometimes split up e.g. a wolf pack might mark and defend their territory - but this is only with respect to other wolves; they are not claiming ownership of the bird nesting areas. But a bird would not appreciate another bird taking their nest.
In all honesty the argument is silly because the concept of "ownership" has a lot of human fluff on top. Animals use a certain area. From a large territory to a single small nest.
Consider the seagull with her nest on the North side of a beautiful artificial garbage island. Her wife and her have their eggs and babies there. They do not also go to the South side of the garbage island and build (or take over) a bunch of other nests that nobody can use without paying rent. The modern human concept of property encompasses this situation. In this example we could also have the gulls refusing to fix defects in the nest while prohibiting the tenants from doing so. Does this sound like typical bird behaviour?
Consider the dog that barks at/attacks anyone who approaches its yard, even though the dog uses it for nothing more than crapping in.
What you are describing sounds more like all leasing is theft - holding property not just for personal use, nor just to deprive others of it (as in the dog), but to extract additional gain.
Certain breeds of dogs have been intentionally made to be that way by humans. The comment I responded to was regard to an unqualified statement about animals in general and as a whole. That there is some inherent sense of "ownership" present to all animals. The argument being best backed up by a domesticated animal shows how silly it is.
Ok, magpies.
No, I don't think all animals necessarily have a significant sense of ownership. But plenty do.
This is the argument you are defending:
How much roaming territory does a magpie express?
Silly argument.
Crows will fend off an eagle coming into their murder area
But which crow is the owner
You would have to ask them, they all look the same to me