Forum home Wildlife gardening
This Forum will close on Wednesday 27 March, 2024. Please refer to the announcement on the Discussions page for further detail.

Would you rescue something from a spider's web?

13

Posts

  • JoeXJoeX Posts: 1,783
    No
    I can’t think of anything worth saving more than the usual fair.

    I’d probably rescue my wife and kids, but as above - spiders got to eat.
  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    edited August 2021
    It depends on what was trapped
    There is something here for me about  "do-as-you-would-be-done-by". I hope someone would rescue me from a web if I was struggling. Type thing.

    "Meh. Spider's gotta eat"

    🤷🏽

  • B3B3 Posts: 27,505
    To extend the debate a little, do we consciously or subconsciously believe that pretty things have more right to life?
    If butterflies looked more like flying spiders and hedgehogs looked like huge prickly spiders, would we be so keen to save them?
    What if ladybirds were fat and slimy but ate aphids?
    In London. Keen but lazy.
  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    It depends on what was trapped
    Interesting questions. I'm not sure about 'prettiness', but for humans, size matters, for sure. People are more or less oblivious to anything they can't see - as if those creatures don't really exist. They care little for animals like fleas or gnats, and happily swat anything small. The concern (and notice) grows a bit more for larger creatures like ladybirds or bees. Scale up to cat, dog and chickens and suddenly 'rights' come into it. By the time you get to apes and elephants the debate turns to whether they should have the same legal status as humans.

    Those people that might happily step on a baby ant would probably not think of stepping a kitten. They would feel distressed for an injured horse, where they might pass by an injured pigeon; And a poisoned elephant can turn into a full scale international newsworthy incident.

    I personally think it's about the eyes. If we can look into a creature's eyes and see someone looking back, we imagine intelligence, pain and parity. The dog looks sad, the chicken looks alarmed, the whale looks desperate. It's harder to anthropomorphise a tick than an dolphin and imagine it's smiling back at us.
  • FairygirlFairygirl Posts: 55,117
    No
    That's exactly the problem @B3.
    The other problem is that when we start interfering with nature [however tempting it can be] it causes an imbalance. It's why we have to cull deer up here - no wolves to keep them in check   ;)

    I love spiders.  :)
    It's a place where beautiful isn't enough of a word....



    I live in west central Scotland - not where that photo is...
  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    It depends on what was trapped
    "The other problem is that when we start interfering with nature it causes an imbalance."

    That ship sailed long ago.
  • Fire said:

    I personally think it's about the eyes. If we can look into a creature's eyes and see someone looking back, we imagine intelligence, pain and parity. The dog looks sad, the chicken looks alarmed, the whale looks desperate. It's harder to anthropomorphise a tick than an dolphin and imagine it's smiling back at us.
    Charities, whether for humans or animals, twigged the "eye" thing long ago - children, puppies and kittens.....little faces, big solemn eyes. Instant impact.
    I'm not so sure this method works for the likes of chickens or whales/dolphins simply because their eyes are relatively small to the body mass. Seals may get away with it tho  ;) . Most charities know how to appeal to their audience whichever method they use.
    It's an interesting subject and perhaps the fact that humans like "eye contact" when socialising also comes into it. 
  • B3B3 Posts: 27,505
    I've noticed some of the charity ads enlarge the children's eyes so much that they look like aliens.  This dehumanises the children and totally negates the advertiser's purpose.

    In London. Keen but lazy.
  • FireFire Posts: 19,096
    edited August 2021
    It depends on what was trapped
    People associate more of an 'expression' to a chicken than a tick. 

    I personally notice that the real interest for me with the insect and wildlife pics are the eyes. Without eyes clear in the pic, the whole is much less engaging. Looking into a butterfly's eye close up seems like a special thing.

    If a kitten was caught in a spider's web would you say "well, spiders have got to eat. Don't interfere"?
  • B3 said:
    I've noticed some of the charity ads enlarge the children's eyes so much that they look like aliens.  This dehumanises the children and totally negates the advertiser's purpose.

    I agree but aren't so many images altered these days ?  Almost to the degree that "normal" now almost looks weird to a lot of people.
    Some images of people ( posted by themselves or in ads ) immediately bring to mind the question - how do they manage to even stand up ? Whether ill considered plastic surgery or simply digital manipulation - stunningly fat lips, enormous breasts/chests, miniscule waists and legs twice the length of even a naturally tall person. 
    It would actually be interesting to know whether people who give to charities are actually less inclined to donate than they were say 10 years ago.

    @Fire I have to confess I haven't come face to face with a Tick but when I've had Chickens, it was their whole behaviour/characteristics which appealed to me. Apart from the fact they usually had their heads down poking about in the garden so too busy for much eye contact  :D   As a member of the BHWT, some of the photos they show in their newsletters are wonderful.
Sign In or Register to comment.