why caterpillars eat their eggshells

[Anne Kilmer]

The fairies tell the caterpillars what to eat, Ron. 
Can we give this a rest? 
Teleology is not the worst of the anti-scientific positions, and it is a
relatively harmless logical shortcut. 
Caterpillars are programmed by what works, just as computers are
programmed by what works. A difference is that we know who programs the
computers, and we still don't know a lot about how the bugs are
programmed. 
Can we, when discussing a question, perhaps rephrase it to avoid
teleological minepits rather than belaboring people who reply to the
question as couched? 
What the original poster (now huddling in a closet and crying, and in
such nice weather, too) wanted to know was whether eating the eggshells
confers any benefits on caterpillars, and, if so, what benefits. 
One hopes that "Why" is a question peculiar to man, and that the cows in
Great Britain, for instance, are not currently wondering about the odors
of blood and burning in the air. One hopes that the butterfly in the
grip of the dragonfly is not wondering "why". 
We have supposed, grandly, for a good many years, that we alone dread
death, understand and are capable of suffering, and can plan for the
future. Everybody else is traveling on automatic, and we are God's,
Nature's or the Universe's special choice. (Probably because we have
sinned, but never mind that.)
Now, with great apes that can mourn a dead kitten and ask about it ...
seeing the films of elephants visiting the bones of their dead ... we
find ourselves extending the mantle of thought farther down the food
chain. 
Bees? Do bees (as a hive mind) think and plan? Romantically, we'd like
to think so, or we'd like to think not. 
But that is not the point at issue. 
You are not going to teach Liz your style of philosophy, at 3:30 am or
any other time of day. She, and the rest of us, would be happy to learn
what you know about butterfly eggshells, however, if you happen to
actually know anything. 
Now that it's Monday and the scientists are back at work, perhaps one of
them will direct us to an accessible reference or give us an
intelligible explanation. 
Me, I'm going back to bed with a hot water bottle. 
Sheesh
Anne Kilmer
South Florida

Ron Gatrelle wrote:

You should probably ignore this post - it is 3:30 a.m. and I am actually
asleep and not responsible for anything.


 > >....But in either case, the eater risks getting a disease, so
>  >maybe that's why they don't do these things.
> > Liz Day
> >
> 
> I know I should just keep out of this. But. My only objection is when
> thought gets expressed in an anthropomorphic manner. "...the eater risks
> getting a disease, so maybe that's why they don't do these things." This
> again, necessitates pretty deep intellectual thought. e.g. "Humm, I _risk_
> getting sick if I eat this. I better not eat this for lunch today." or
> "Momma told me to never eat frass no matter how edible it looks."  - Sorry,
> the sentence says that because of - risk - they may not do...  The eater -
> risks.
> 
> I surely know that Liz is not purporting that the larvae "think" about
> this.
> And it is surely true that it is a  _fact_ that eating certain things
> mentioned here could likely lead to sickness and death. But they don't know
> this one bit. They don't know anything. Evolution and/or God have
> produced/programmed all  kinds of stimuli reactions into living things
> (including humans) to affect some end (esp. survival), but it is a reflex -
> period. Now, we can still find out the stimuli and the benefit, or
> detriment. I just get tired of people talking about mommy Monarch and here
> family. I guess the real reason the Monarchs all go to Mexico is for the
> family reunion. Hey, why not? I just wish they would wise up and take the
> bus. Oh, boy.
snip
>

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl