How would an intelligent predator interact with an intelligent prey species?

[Souper]

We have two species. One species, the predator species, has evolved to hunt the other prey species, and the prey species is their primary source of food. The two species evolve to sapience as a consequence of adapting to one another, and surely enough start using basic stone tools and tech.

How would the two species' interactions go? How would their societies form and treat eatchother? If the predators are able to use animal husbandry to feed themselves without needing to prey on the other species, could there be peace? Could such a setup evolve to a modern world? If so, could there emerge equality / acceptance between the two eventually?

Edited October 25, 2019 by Souper
oof title

[guesswho2778]

hmm... just look at humans... we arent technically predator/prey but look at how a lot of "strong" people treat the "weak" people, not necessarily right now but in the past people would enslave others for being different or "weaker" than them... and thats just because they felt like it or believed they weren't doing anything wrong. a predetor/prey species interactions (in my opinion) would be fairly similar, except it wouldn't be greed that drives it but hunger and instinct. you can say that they evolved beyond instinct but... we as humans have not... our instinct to eat overrides our mind when we are too hungry... and we (well... a lot of us) hide or freeze by instinct when we feel fear.

but thats just my opinion i look forward to see other opinions emerge as i find this quite interesting and hope that i am incorrect

*cough* it aint like pred/prey uhh... stories *cough*

Edited October 25, 2019 by guesswho2778
i realise none of this answers the question but im no story teller and this is something you might want to consider before posting your "in an ideal world" post

[micha]

Stone tools and tech is not limited to species which have formed societies; critically, societies in which members can communicate complex ideas.

Looking at Earth, humans are preying on pretty much everything; even if we don't actively eat the animals, we destroy their habitats.  We are now starting to realise that animals can also have significant levels of "intelligence" and display human traits such as empathy and sorrow etc.

So what makes a creature "intelligent"? Having progressed beyond stone tools to forming cooperative societies?

In your example, let's say instead of stone-age, the predator-and-prey species have each managed to evolve beyond that and each has started to realise that the other is intelligent, and perhaps have even managed to work out some way of communicating with each other.  For this to happen there must be some way for the bulk of the prey species to be safe from the predator species such as geographic separation, otherwise I doubt the pressure of predation would allow their society to progress that far.

However, given they have, I'd like to think that eventually the predators would stop preying on the prey species and feed themselves using alternative sources.  Even our species is starting to show some limited respect for our environment and we have (mostly) stopped killing some animals which we consider to have above-average levels of intelligence although there are plenty more we continue to prey on which have proven significant levels of intelligence (eg, octopus).

 

The other point is that necessarily the prey species would have to _significantly_ outnumber the predator species, which means if both species get as far as tool use (even just stone tools), the prey species would quickly be able to fend off the predators at that point (natural weapons becoming less effective compared to artificial ones) which would either result in the predators dying off or necessarily having to turn to other sources of food.  Which again means that by the time the species evolve further they would no longer be in a predator-prey relationship. And the prey species would likely evolve their technologies and societies significantly faster than the predator species, again due to numbers, making it more likely that in future the predator species is on the backfoot.

[kerbiloid]

Is the prey species another predator in turn?
If yes - no problem, humans were cannibals during the primitive times, but don't eat each other now.... erm... often.

If no - unikely a non-predator could become sapient, as it doesn't need an active seeking stragegy,

Edited October 25, 2019 by kerbiloid

[Wjolcz]

I feel like the problem with this kind of co-evolution is that eventually one species will evolve and become much smarter than the other one (most likely the predator) so if the predators become better at hunting, their numbers rise higher and overwhelm the prey forcing the prey extinct. Either that or it becomes an omnivore and eventually doesn't need to hunt anymore.

BUT, we can assume the actually co-evolve to the stage of stone tools and become more or less equal. The closest thing I can think of is human cannibalism. The relations would probably be similar to that.

[Kerbart]

We’ve been hunting the Sasquatch and they have become so good at avoiding us, that there are even people who think they don’t exist.

[Rakaydos]

I've been working on a fictional universe with a similar setup...

Inteligent drakes drove other races into forests, caves and narrow ravines because of the ability to drop rocks on the groundlings and scavange the carcasses. But with bows, pike cavalry, and armor, the groundlings pushed the drakes back, attacking where they needed to land to rest, until the drake's territory is mountians and cliffsides.

[farmerben]

I think cannibalism in humans is rarely a case of running out of all other food supplies.  It serves religious, political, social functions.  We have the cases of individual cannibals and whole society cannibals.  There is no normal consumption where one household only eats flesh and saves the rest by smoking or salting it, and the neighbors know they are doing this but do not participate.  

When social dysfunction occurs people want to blame somebody.  They look for a scapegoat.  They have a witch-hunt and kill the witch.  Some of the people believe this actually works.  Some of the people don't want this to happen to them, and they shut up.  Some people care only that the fighting in their community seems temporarily mollified, and the status gaps between people have grown wider.  The leaders of the scapegoat campaign are either loved or feared, but nobody wants to engage them in petty squabbles.  A ruling class can understand this and use ritual human sacrifice to dominate a large complex society.  Cannibalism makes everybody complicit.  So if a non-elite person declares the rituals to be nonsense, and the effects to be evil.  It will be difficult and dangerous for him to share this view with others.  

The rulers now need to execute several scapegoats every year to keep the system going.  They need a lineup of victims to sacrifice on a regular basis.  So they keep prisoners.  But prisoners are an economic liability.  As Marx points out hunter-gathers have no slavery except in fertile young females, because there is no economic surplus, and hunters might escape or kill you.  So the ruling class needs to make work that a chain gang of prisoners can do.  The perfect fit from the perspective of the ruling class is to force them to move rocks and soil to make monuments, except for the fact that monuments do not create food.  The next best is to make them mine for gold or other precious minerals.  But none of these things are possible unless the rulers can find a way to generate massive food surplus, without dispersing its labor force.  

[Scotius]

2 hours ago, Wjolcz said:

I feel like the problem with this kind of co-evolution is that eventually one species will evolve and become much smarter than the other one (most likely the predator) so if the predators become better at hunting, their numbers rise higher and overwhelm the prey forcing the prey extinct. Either that or it becomes an omnivore and eventually doesn't need to hunt anymore.

BUT, we can assume the actually co-evolve to the stage of stone tools and become more or less equal. The closest thing I can think of is human cannibalism. The relations would probably be similar to that.

Our ancestors were in such a pickle about two millions years ago.

After wikipedia:

"Dinofelis fossils and bones have been found in South Africa near those of the baboons that it possibly had killed. Bones from several specimens of Dinofelis and baboons were found in a natural trap, where Dinofelis may have been lured to feed on trapped prey. Several sites from South Africa seem to show Dinofelis may have hunted and killed Australopithecus africanus, since the finds mingle fossilized remains of Dinofelis, hominids, and other large contemporary animals. In South Africa, Dinofelis remains have been found near Paranthropus fossil skulls, a few with precisely spaced canine holes in their crania, so it is possible Dinofelis preyed on robust hominids as well. This may been rare, however, as carbon isotope ratios contradict this."

In that case prey species won the arms race and continued to evolve, while saber-toothed cats went extinct. I would assume that prey species would be social and of comparable body mass to predators. In such case a herd should be able to reliably defend against the attack, and even go on offensive. This in turn would probably mean that only social species of predators (like wolves or lions) would still have a chance to survive.

[Wjolcz]

2 hours ago, Scotius said:

Our ancestors were in such a pickle about two millions years ago.

In that case prey species won the arms race and continued to evolve, while saber-toothed cats went extinct. I would assume that prey species would be social and of comparable body mass to predators. In such case a herd should be able to reliably defend against the attack, and even go on offensive. This in turn would probably mean that only social species of predators (like wolves or lions) would still have a chance to survive.

I'm fully aware of that. I was thinking about a situation where the predators are 100% carnivorous (and stay that way until the stone age) and the prey are 100% herbivorous (and stay that way until the stone age). All in all I think such scenario is highly unlikely because oportunistic omnivores seems to be the best path to bigger brains but, for the sake of discussion, I assumed the predators never run out of their primary food source (the prey).

Edited October 25, 2019 by Wjolcz

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

I think cannibalism in humans is rarely a case of running out of all other food supplies.  It serves religious, political, social functions.  We have the cases of individual cannibals and whole society cannibals.  There is no normal consumption where one household only eats flesh and saves the rest by smoking or salting it, and the neighbors know they are doing this but do not participate.  

Just because when you have enough food to feed your food then why feed the food instead of eating that food itself.
I.e. it's usually easier to rob the neighbor tribe and eat their supplies, because they will probably prefer to escape being defeated. And later they can gather more food to be robbed again.
An armed human is not very easy prey when both predator and prey are armed with same axes and spears.

But on the other hand, when we are talking about "only ritual/religious/etc" cannibalism, let's remember that a cannibal food is mass available only after a winned battle.
And what deserves a good ritual/religious ceremony/festival/feast more than a winned battle?
So, it's just not daily but not unusual. When they have meat, they eat it, those simple, honest people.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

As Marx points out hunter-gathers have no slavery except in fertile young females

Unfortunately they haven't read Marx and poorly knew their historical duties.
When HG have a good year and excessive food, they capture slaves and make them work (carry, craft, gather, etc). When the year is thin, the slaves are food.
So, no problem at all for them to have a slave of any gender. Just males are expendable.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

and hunters might escape or kill you

That's when they have enough healthy limbs to do that and aren't morally broken.

2 hours ago, farmerben said:

The perfect fit from the perspective of the ruling class is to force them to move rocks and soil to make monuments, except for the fact that monuments do not create food.  The next best is to make them mine for gold or other precious minerals. 

Mostly they carried things (HG), digged water channels (Mesopotamia and Egypt), and sometimes crafted goods (everywhere).

[Scotius]

1 hour ago, Wjolcz said:

I'm fully aware of that. I was thinking about a situation where the predators are 100% carnivorous (and stay that way until the stone age) and the prey are 100% herbivorous (and stay that way until the stone age). All in all I think such scenario is highly unlikely because oportunistic omnivores seems to be the best path to bigger brains but, for the sake of discussion, I assumed the predators never run out of their primary food source (the prey).

Mmmmm, yes... But then... 100% predatory species is at a serious disadvantage. What happens when prey species gets too well organized? It can mount effective defense now, arm themselves, take full advantage of "strength in numbers". Maybe even move camps to unreachable places and build fortifications? All of it means that predator rapidly faces extinction by starvation, while prey species is not threatened seriously in any way.

It's not any new idea anyway. Recently i've read series of sci-fi novels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Fleet#Beyond_the_Frontier), where protagonists encounter technologically advanced alien species. Those fellows evolved from herd herbivores, taking herd mentality to the extremes. In short, they've become extremely gregarious, violent xenophobes, treating any and all other animals as either potential predators or competitors for living space. Their planets became tightly packed mega-cities devoid of animal life, with every suitable space turned into arable land.

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, Scotius said:

What happens when prey species gets too well organized?

They start eating another prey, unless they are the only species on the planet.

But +1, a 100% predator is bad because it needs 10 times more herbivorous biomass to live, so its population is limited and volatile.

A herbivorous+casual scavenger+casual predator like the proto-humans is nice.

Edited October 25, 2019 by kerbiloid

[farmerben]

4 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

And what deserves a good ritual/religious ceremony/festival/feast more than a winned battle?
So, it's just not daily but not unusual. When they have meat, they eat it, those simple, honest people.

When HG have a good year and excessive food, they capture slaves and make them work (carry, craft, gather, etc). When the year is thin, the slaves are food.

There is nothing simple and honest about it.  You can't tell somebody to manufacture tables for me until I decide to eat you.  An artificial layer of repurposed bovine waste to surround pure force is immediately called for.  

[Nuke]

im gonna need more charcoal. were having some aliens over for dinner. 

Edited October 26, 2019 by Nuke

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, farmerben said:

You can't tell somebody to manufacture tables for me until I decide to eat you.

There is an alternative option to be eaten right now.
And the tables are an overcomplicated hi-tech for the hunters-gatherers. Skinning, cleaning the skins, weaving mats, doing various dirty and hard job for the owners.
The tribe doesn't walk around daily. They make seasons camps, so a slave is a part of the camp equipment daily and a pack animal when they move the camp to another place.
Don't forget, Marx&Engels were writing before electricity, machines, cars, and with very limited library sources written mostly in XVIII cent.

[Scotius]

In many cases captives in hunter-gatherer tribes were also prospective members of said tribe. After period of integration they were essentially adopted. With high mortality rates it was one of most efficient ways to keep the tribe thriving and ahead of competition. Not to mention, it was also a boon for genetic diversity of the tribe.

[Nothalogh]

On 10/24/2019 at 10:24 PM, Souper said:

How would an intelligent predator interact with an intelligent prey species?

Probably by eating it.

[sevenperforce]

Obligatory:

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Obligatory:

So, by eating the purple alien, we'll proove that we are too stupid to be eaten, as we had eaten a specimen of a low-order species whuch just reacts on stimulus..
Also, because we've done that despite of the anti-matter charges (a conscious species wisely wouldn't do that).

Also we can engage blogosphere as heavy artillery to prove that we even don't react on someone's arguments.

Edited October 26, 2019 by kerbiloid

[WinkAllKerb'']

orobouros

Edited February 5, 2020 by WinkAllKerb''
been away a while, out of like

[Just Jim]

I'm really surprised no-one has mentioned this yet...
This subject was explored in great detail, actually, in one of the greatest sci-fi classics of all time

Prey:  The gentle Eloi
Predators: The one and only flesh eating Morlocks...  
 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Just Jim

[adsii1970]

Rod Serling's Twilight Zone comes to mind, particularly the episode "To Serve Man."

 

 

[Just Jim]

6 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Rod Serling's Twilight Zone comes to mind, particularly the episode "To Serve Man."

Oh... yes... yes yes yes!!!  How could I forget??? 
One of my top five favorite episodes!!!
 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Just Jim

[kerbiloid]

Soylent Green.