First use of the expression "food chain"?; notion that humans are on top of it?

[Leo_Bloom]

See subjects. It’s possible that they both came together, as the statement “humans are on the top of the food chain.”

I think the statement is both silly and wrong, FWIW.

[Giles]

The first usage recorded by OED is in 1927, and it’s talking about animal ecology, not humans.

[Leo_Bloom]

Can you reprint the comple cite here? Humans of course are animals, and I’m interested in the scientific context, if any, of its usage.

[samclem]

@OED

Ecol.
1.
a. A series of organisms, each of which is dependent on the next for food, esp. by direct consumption or predation.

1920 Sci. Monthly Oct. 295 Each such fish has its ‘food-chain’..leading back from the food of man to invertebrates upon which it preys and then to the food of these.

2. The system or sequence of events by which food comes to be consumed by human beings.

1951 Ecology 32 351 The base of the human food chain is the production of plant organic matter.

There you go.

[Chronos]

How is it silly to say that humans are on the top of the food chain? Aside from very isolated incidents, nothing preys upon us. We’re not the only species for which that’s true, of course, but there’s no reason we can’t share the “top” position with elephants, polar bears, etc.

[naita]

@Chronos

How is it silly to say that humans are on the top of the food chain? Aside from very isolated incidents, nothing preys upon us. We’re not the only species for which that’s true, of course, but there’s no reason we can’t share the “top” position with elephants, polar bears, etc.

Elephants are not on the top of the food chain. Adult elephants may be nearly “immune” to predation, but calfs are not.

[Colophon]

@Chronos

How is it silly to say that humans are on the top of the food chain? Aside from very isolated incidents, nothing preys upon us. We’re not the only species for which that’s true, of course, but there’s no reason we can’t share the “top” position with elephants, polar bears, etc.

“Primary predator” was the term I learnt at school, but apex predator seems to be preferred.

[Chronos]

Adult elephants may be nearly “immune” to predation, but calfs are not.

They are when they’re surrounded by adults. And human young are even more vulnerable, when unattended. In response to which, of course, both species hardly ever leave their young unattended.

[Peter_Morris]

@Chronos

How is it silly to say that humans are on the top of the food chain? Aside from very isolated incidents, nothing preys upon us. We’re not the only species for which that’s true, of course, but there’s no reason we can’t share the “top” position with elephants, polar bears, etc.

When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connnected in the great Circle of Life.

[Leo_Bloom]

Thanks for the cite. I also stand corrected in the FWIW sentence. But here’s what prompted it:

I have seen the expression used many times–as I see now, incorrectly–to mean “Humans are the most successful species. Therefore we’re the best that Nature has come up with, so go suck it.” (My loose wording.)

Correct meaning: Except for that darn predation thing, every species is the best Nature has come up with, in that they are a living species.

But the questions “which species has survived longest so far” and “which species would you put your money on to survive longest” are, to my mind, respectively “more or less answerable” and “more or less unanswerable.”

And this leads me to the proximate cause of why I posted OP: I was thinking about the tardigrade and that those little suckers, who are animals, <Yay! Suck it all other Kingdoms!> can withstand such crazy physical extremes (I don’t know how it responds to biological attack).

What evolutionary pressure(s) could have led to such ability? I think I know that evolutionarily, some features that come along for the ride may prove to offer an advantage. But for such overkill, as it seems to me?

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Chronos

How is it silly to say that humans are on the top of the food chain? Aside from very isolated incidents, nothing preys upon us. We’re not the only species for which that’s true, of course, but there’s no reason we can’t share the “top” position with elephants, polar bears, etc.

Humans hunt elephants, polar bears, etc. (or they did until a lot of it was banned). Hence the idea that we can hunt anything, and nothing hunts us, therefore we are at the top of the food chain.

They were still teaching this kind of attitude when I went to school in the 70s. I don’t know exactly when it fell out of favor but I have the impression it was around the late 70s and early 80s.

I know that the idea of man being the supreme predator dates back at least to the Roman days. They would bring animals like lions and elephants all the way to the Roman Colosseum to show how great the Empire was and how they had conquered both nature and amazing far away lands. Admittedly that was more of a human-centric man conquering nature idea rather than a food “chain” where smaller animals get eaten by bigger animals all the way up to the top predators. It’s still the same basic idea though.

[Chronos]

Sure, we can hunt polar bears. But how often do we?

[Senegoid]

@engineer_comp_geek

I know that the idea of man being the supreme predator dates back at least to the Roman days. They would bring animals like lions and elephants all the way to the Roman Colosseum to show how great the Empire was and how they had conquered both nature and amazing far away lands. Admittedly that was more of a human-centric man conquering nature idea rather than a food “chain” where smaller animals get eaten by bigger animals all the way up to the top predators. It’s still the same basic idea though.

. . . wherein, said lions were fed their daily ration of Christians.

Was someone saying something about humans (even Christian ones) being top-level predators?

[engineer_comp_geek]

@Chronos

Sure, we can hunt polar bears. But how often do we?

Often enough that they’ve had to put restrictions on it to prevent polar bears from going extinct.

The Native people of the north have long hunted polar bears. Polar bear hunting plays a central role in long-held traditions and also provides food and fiber for traditional lifestyles. Polar bears in some areas were severely over-hunted in the past when trophy hunters utilized light aircraft and large motorized vessels to go into the ice to catch bears in large numbers. The introduction of high-powered rifles and snowmobiles also increased the ability of local Native people to kill polar bears. Aerial and ship-based trophy hunting was banned by international agreement in the mid 1970s. Polar bears are now mainly hunted by residents of the north.

Over most of the polar bear range, hunting is now governed by a quota system designed to keep the kill within the bounds that populations can support. Each village gets a number of tags allowing hunters residing there to take the number of bears the population can sustain.

From here: http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/what-scientists-say/why-polar-bear-hunting-allowed

[the_diego]

I think the term is contrived to trace human consumption. We are at the end of the chain, not the absolute end.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Chronos

How is it silly to say that humans are on the top of the food chain? Aside from very isolated incidents, nothing preys upon us.

You’ve obviously never been on a northern Minnesota lakeshore in the evening when the mosquitoes are out!

Then there are worms, and lice, and bedbugs, and many more, but I have to quit now because I’m getting all itchy.

[naita]

@t-bonham@scc.net

You’ve obviously never been on a northern Minnesota lakeshore in the evening when the mosquitoes are out!

Then there are worms, and lice, and bedbugs, and many more, but I have to quit now because I’m getting all itchy.

In the biological food chain parasites are considered to be something other than predators. They’re not above us on the food chain, they’re over there, in the shadows.