I witnessed an interesting phenomenon : invariably when information is presented from some article that hints at either animal intelligence or harmful influence of humans on animals, some armchair commentator will come forward with an alternate explanations that reduces the observed behaviour to a basic mechanistic instinct related to feeding or reproduction or survival. That comment will also be the most upvoted one. The commentator does not present additional information, but for some reason his opinion is given more value than that of the experts who wrote the original study. That phenomenon is particularly prevalent on Reddit.
> The commentator does not present additional information
The commentator pointed out that the video is literally sped up which changes the entire meaning.
Have you considered this has nothing to do with hating animals and entirely to do with hating articles written to create drama and/or crisis where there is none?
The fact that the video is sped up is not new information. It is immediately known when you watch it, it says that the video shows a week in the life of a whale yet the video lasts only 45s. You can only pretend in bad faith that it is not immediately obvious that whales and boats don't travel at tens of thousands of kilometers per hour across the ocean.
The commenter has unsubstabtiated opinion, no expertiese and has brought no extra factual information to support his point the discussion. Its literwlly just soreading FUD
It could be a collective defense mechanism. The idea of animal intelligence being a threat to what many people perceive as the necessary status quo of being able to endlessly consume the resources of nature without consequence.
