Are mice and rats dependent on humans?

GiratinaIsGod

GiratinaIsGod

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
{Note from mods - this thread split from here: Stupidest Exhibit Ideas Ever}




ThylacineAlive said:
Umm a man-made kitchen is not a native habitat, and how is creating a fake kitchen cheaper than creating a fake wooded or grassy areas?

~Thylo
Click to expand...

Mice and Humans coevolvred for over 10 000 years.In such an extant that the majority of the population of many mice and rat species is compleatly dependent on human life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GiratinaIsGod said:
Mice and Humans coevolvred for over 10 000 years.In such an extant that the majority of the population of many mice and rat species is compleatly dependent on human life.

And my comment of being cheap is more about how their are lot of
unnecessary expensive enclousres (asian temples are a good example, which are also, unlike human living sapces NOT the native habitat of animals like elephants or tigers)

"Native" exhibits fit much better to species who life in them exclusively.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't... Even if so, for the vast majority of those 10,000 years humans did not have kitchens :p I have not heard of a single rodent species which is dependent on human life for the continued survival except for species which have become endangered due to human interference.

~Thylo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GiratinaIsGod said:
Mice and Humans coevolvred for over 10 000 years.In such an extant that the majority of the population of many mice and rat species is compleatly dependent on human life.
Click to expand...
No they didnt...

In order for them to be dependent on us, we'd have to care for them. In many wild rodents, pests for example, they benefit off of us and our belongings, but in no way do they depend on them.
GiratinaIsGod said:
And my comment of being cheap is more about how their are lot of
unnecessary expensive enclousres (asian temples are a good example, which are also, unlike human living sapces NOT the native habitat of animals like elephants or tigers)
Click to expand...
Mice and rats did not evolve into the "kitchen pest" niche. Neither did humans. These are wild animals, not kitchen appliances ;) :p.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZooBinh said:
No they didnt...

In order for them to be dependent on us, we'd have to care for them. In many wild rodents, pests for example, they benefit off of us and our belongings, but in no way do they depend on them.

Mice and rats did not evolve into the "kitchen pest" niche. Neither did humans. These are wild animals, not kitchen appliances ;) :p.

I do like the look of this exhibit, but it definitely is not the native mice/rat habitat.
Click to expand...

I say the majority of the world wide population of species like the house mouse and the brown rat are directly depedent. they live in every human habitat. From the biggest metropolis, to the smales farming village. To such an extant that the majority of the worldwide population would starve without us. Their genome changed to survive in human society. The literall difeniation of adaption. I not only talk about mice as "kitchen pests" I talk about from the little farm house, to the canalisation. They colonized the whole wolrd with us. Nearly every single settlement is colonized by mice and rats aswell.
 
ThylacineAlive said:
No, they didn't... Even if so, for the vast majority of those 10,000 years humans did not have kitchens :p I have not heard of a single rodent species which is dependent on human life for the continued survival except for species which have become endangered due to human interference.

As for the cost, a small mammal enclosure for a rodent will always be cheaper than major exhibits for megafauna such as great apes, big cats, and elephants.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
My comment talks about the millenia long co habitation of human and rodent, which devoloped with agraculture. They changed their genome to live with us, even before civilation started. They co clonized evey corner of the world with us. They live every were with us, from remote farming village, to downtown New York. Like I said, if Humans would just disaprear. Most broewn rats, house mice and many more would starve in a short time. They are dependent on us to survive, like to german cockroach or the house sparow. They are able with their extrem adaptivity to colonize new eccosystems aswell. But the large majority of them is to 100% dependent.
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
I say the majority of the world wide population of species like the house mouse and the brown rat are directly depedent. they live in every human habitat. From the biggest metropolis, to the smales farming village. To such an extant that the majority of the worldwide population would starve without us. Their genome changed to survive in human society. The literall difeniation of adaption. I not only talk about mice as "kitchen pests" I talk about from the little farm house, to the canalisation. They colonized the whole wolrd with us. Nearly every single settlement is colonized by mice and rats aswell.
Click to expand...

This... is not true. Humans having introduced a couple rodent species (and it's a couple, not "many") across most of the globe--along with a handful of other species to smaller portions of the globe--does not make any of them "directly dependent". These animals are completely capable of surviving on their own and live in many habitats outside of developed areas. Just because they are well-suited to surviving in urban areas does not mean they're dependent on us, or that they coevolved with us, or that they "would starve without us". They wouldn't. In fact, their ability to survive in all sorts of habitats they've been introduced to is part of why they're such a big problem for native species.

~Thylo
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
My comment talks about the millenia long co habitation of human and rodent, which devoloped with agraculture. They changed their genome to live with us, even before civilation started. They co clonized evey corner of the world with us. They live every were with us, from remote farming village, to downtown New York. Like I said, if Humans would just disaprear. Most broewn rats, house mice and many more would starve in a short time. They are dependent on us to survive, like to german cockroach or the house sparow. They are able with their extrem adaptivity to colonize new eccosystems aswell. But the large majority of them is to 100% dependent.
Click to expand...

Not one of those species are dependent on us for survival.. You seem to be confusing humans introducing exotic species to new areas for them having evolved with us. They did not, they just happened to come along for the ride (or in the case of the sparrow, deliberately introduced). As I said before, House Mice and Brown Rats would not disappear if humans did because they live outside of areas where humans live today. Sure, urban areas are beneficial to them, but they are not dependent on them. Which other species besides House Mouse and Brown Rat are you referring to when you say "many more"? The only other major introduced Muridae species I can think of are the Black Rat and Polynesian Rat, neither of which are as widespread or successful as the House Mouse and Brown Rat, but nonetheless are not dependent on humans for survival in their introduced habitats.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
This... is not true. Humans having introduced a couple rodent species (and it's a couple, not "many") across most of the globe--along with a handful of other species to smaller portions of the globe--does not make any of them "directly dependent". These animals are completely capable of surviving on their own and live in many habitats outside of developed areas. Just because they are well-suited to surviving in urban areas does not mean they're dependent on us, or that they coevolved with us, or that they "would starve without us". They wouldn't. In fact, their ability to survive in all sorts of habitats they've been introduced to is part of why they're such a big problem for native species.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand the point. There are million of rats and mice that spread with us to new eccosystems. But many million more direcvtly live from us. With out farming, 100s of million ,if not billion would starve. Their is NOT ENOUGH FOOD with out us. New York allone New York allone has over 2 million rats. Even if we would destroy the citiy and replace it with an forest/grasland. It would still not be able to feed the rat population, and most would starve. Brown Rats for example, they would of corse survive, and the in natural habitats would not be effected. but this is the point. Most mice and rats don't live in natureal conditions.
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
You don't seem to understand the point. There are million of rats and mice that spread with us to new eccosystems. But many million more direcvtly live from us. With out farming, 100s of million ,if not billion would starve. Their is NOT ENOUGH FOOD with out us. New York allone New York allone has over 2 million rats. Even if we would destroy the citiy and replace it with an forest/grasland. It would still not be able to feed the rat population, and most would starve. Brown Rats for example, they would of corse survive, and the in natural habitats would not be effected. but this is the point. Most mice and rats don't live in natureal conditions.
Click to expand...

As you know, there is a high density of rodents in cities like NYC because resources like food and shelter are plentiful, so there’s little competition from their species as well as others. But still, they aren’t ‘dependent’ on humans. Human actions have only caused them to live in denser populations in unnatural environments. So if you replaced NYC with a forest, of course some will die because there won’t be enough resources for such a huge population, but they’d just spread out. Yet in other forests/grasslands, where there isn’t as many mice and rats, they thrive because forests/grasslands provide plentiful food and shelter for the appropriate population of said species. Plus, there aren’t any humans in many of these forests and grasslands, proving that they aren’t dependent on humans, otherwise they’d die or wouldn’t live in the forest ecosystems or any natural habitat. However, theyd still be one of the most successful species without humans.
 
They aren't dependent, they're commensal. I haven't come across anything saying they directly evolved with humans, do you have sources for that? The two most widespread species - black and Norway - largely spread on their own, without humans (bar crossing the Atlantic). Norway rats didn't even make it to Europe until at least 1000 AD, possibly even more recently, and it was likely on their own. Rodents are densely populated in major cities, yet, but there's also plenty outside of cities; those ones just aren't as documented and studied. They would do fine without humans.
 
Azubaa said:
As you know, there is a high density of rodents in cities like NYC because resources like food and shelter are plentiful, so there’s little competition from their species as well as others. But still, they aren’t ‘dependent’ on humans. Human actions have only caused them to live in denser populations in unnatural environments. So if you replaced NYC with a forest, of course some will die because there won’t be enough resources for such a huge population, but they’d just spread out. Yet in other forests/grasslands, where there isn’t as many mice and rats, they thrive because forests/grasslands provide plentiful food and shelter for the appropriate population of said species. Plus, there aren’t any humans in many of these forests and grasslands, proving that they aren’t dependent on humans, otherwise they’d die or wouldn’t live in the forest ecosystems or any natural habitat. However, theyd still be one of the most successful species without humans.
Click to expand...
read your answer slowley again. I say that mice and rats who life in cities/farmland are dependent on human activity to survive, in the scale they do. You agree with it. But still say that the other population in natural are unefected. even though I clearly said that I talk exclusively about the farmland/citiy populations ?
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
read your answer slowley again. I say that mice and rats who life in cities/farmland are dependent on human activity to survive, in the scale they do. You agree with it. But still say that the other population in natural are unefected. even though I clearly said that I talk exclusively about the farmland/citiy populations ?
Click to expand...

You didn't, though :p You initially insisted that up to billions of rodents from "many" different species and populations evolved due to humans and would die entirely without them. That is what's incorrect, the above is more correct probably.

~Thylo
 
ThylacineAlive said:
You didn't, though :p You initially insisted that up to billions of rodents from "many" different species and populations evolved due to humans and would die entirely without them. That is what's incorrect, the above is more correct probably.

~Thylo
Click to expand...
Like I said, I said that the POPULATIONS in Farmland/Cities would collapse. I said that these species adapted to live with humans. You should realy look up waht this term means. I never claimed that any recent species came to exsitnece because of human influence
 
OstrichMania said:
'That has evolved, along with another organism, via coevolution'
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean the same thing as adaptation does it? No, it doesnt. Mice and rats adapted to symbiotically live alongside humans in a commensal way, in no way are they dependent on human life. We just create ecosystems that they flourish in. They got used to us being around and lived alongside us, but they didn't "alter their genome" to live with us...
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
read your answer slowley again. I say that mice and rats who life in cities/farmland are dependent on human activity to survive, in the scale they do. You agree with it. But still say that the other population in natural are unefected. even though I clearly said that I talk exclusively about the farmland/citiy populations ?
Click to expand...

GiratinaIsGod said:
Like I said, I said that the POPULATIONS in Farmland/Cities would collapse. I said that these species adapted to live with humans. You should realy look up waht this term means. I never claimed that any recent species came to exsitnece because of human influence
Click to expand...

I’m really not sure what you are trying to get at...
You proposed to replace NYC with a forest/grassland....
The huge populations would decline, but they wouldn’t collapse. That’d mean a severe decline in numbers and I doubt that’d happen. They wouldn’t starve as they scavenge on many things, not just a burger on the sidewalk or an half-empty trash can. Forests would and do provide food to sustain huge brown rat populations. But humans didn’t provide those food sources. The species themselves are not dependent on humans, large populations definitely do survive in non urban environments, and they definitely didn’t co-evolve with humans as already stated.
 
GiratinaIsGod said:
Like I said, I said that the POPULATIONS in Farmland/Cities would collapse. I said that these species adapted to live with humans. You should realy look up waht this term means. I never claimed that any recent species came to exsitnece because of human influence
Click to expand...
After the island of St Kilda was evacuated, the local House Mouse population disappeared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top