[sitkack]

> It’s no accident that many of the same genes active in embryonic development have been implicated in cancer. Pregnancy is a lot more like war than we might care to admit.

Amazing article. Another reason that hardshelled laid eggs are such a great invention. The offspring can do its thing from a safe distance.

[andai]

The article suggests the external egg also limits the creature to a small brain.

[nine_k]

Birds, the inheritors of the venerable Dinosaur brand, managed to both produce very large eggs (e.g. ostriches), and impressively capable brains, rivaling those of larger mammalians (e.g. parrots, corvids), interestingly, without the use of very large eggs.

[__s]

Also amazing with birds is how effectively they've evolved intelligence with a small brain

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-06-term-bird-brain.html

[sitkack]

We overfocus on brain volume, when we should be calculating the number of neurons and neuron size varies wildly.

I can't find the original video, but Suzana Herculano-Houzel developed a technique to measure total neuron counts by liquefying the brain and then counting the cell nucleus density / volume.

WSU Master Class: Big Brains, Small Brains with Suzana Herculano-Houzel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDM3TcfGoBY

(nice short popsci intro) The woman who turns brains into soup: Suzana Herculano-Houzel https://youtu.be/d2Uhv0_Ji1k?t=362 (talks about racoon and bird brains)

https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/09/07/brainiac-with-her-inn...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

This paper is really fun, "Brains matter, bodies maybe not: the case for examining neuron numbers irrespective of body size" https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Brains-matter%2C-bodie...

[pragma_x]

It's something to marvel at, really. Birds _needed_ to evolve super efficient brains due to all the constraints that flight puts on the organism; they have to be more efficient by weight as well as by size. Meanwhile, being earthbound like you or I lets our DNA get away with a lot more slop.

[c22]

Okay, crows are impressive. But I'm not going to let one do my taxes.

[thih9]

Not doing taxes is a plus for corvids in my book. Seriously, you picked one of the least impressive human activities. Makes me think about my potential reincarnation choices.

Crows fly, mate for life and are considered positive for the ecosystem. Humans do taxes.

[throw-qqqqq]

The crow wouldn’t let you build its nest either ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[mort96]

No, but humans would be capable of making something which could serve as a crow's nest, while a crow wouldn't be able to do taxes if we let it...

[throw-qqqqq]

Are you sure? I would be very surprised if a human could build a nest that a crow would accept unaltered.

Most birds’ nests are built much more intricately than just a pile of sticks thrown together! Usually built from layers of different materials, sometimes weaved or plastered with mud/clay/bird-spit.

E.g. sparrows pick up lavender in my garden, because the oils repel some pests etc.

[ekianjo]

Still nothing remotely close to a human brain.

[alganet]

That seems about right according to research.

There are many articles about bird intelligence available from multiple sources.

A more open minded perspective would instead try to look to what is "remotely close" to a human brain.

Although primates can't quite communicate like humans, they are known for being our closest relatives in scientific biological terms.

I know I am deviating from the birds subject a little, but stick with me. I need to address the "remotely close" expression you used.

Primates can display what humans would recognize as human behavior. Work in groups, social dynamics, use of simple tools.

The "looks like human" effect could be explained by anthropomorphization performed by those very humans (to put it simply: an effect where humans see human features in non human things). In fact, some behaviors considered as human are not commonly displayed by primates, like the ability to keep a pet. There is no clear definitive answer to it, and any dismissal of such behaviors could be also used to dismiss humans themselves, therefore I must refrain from entertaining them too much.

Birds also show a lot of human like behavior. Like the ability to gather objects (to construct a nest and to attract a partner are common examples).

Remember, the closest thing to humans in anatomy and biology (primates) is not very much different from birds in terms of "how it presents human-like" behavior.

So, as a counter argument, I would ask: what makes the difference of thinking between a primate and a bird so different to you? Is it their anatomy that prevents you from anthropomorphizing it so readily? Or do you also think primate brains are "nothing remotely close to a human brain"?

It cannot be denied that "closeness" is a loose definition and could generate endless discussion. I tried to concede a little bit to find a reasonable common ground that is both based on rational thinking and a little bit of open mindedness.

Under such criteria, I can assert that birds might be much more intelligent than previously assumed.

[disqard]

Thoughtful (and thought-provoking) comments like yours are why I frequent this site.

Thank you, stranger!

For my part, I'll add that "Humans are visual creatures", which biases every aspect of our culture -- and might help explain why many would consider other primates "closer" to us than birds.

[ekianjo]

Thanks for your answer. Let me elaborate a little bit. What diffentiates humans from most animals is not about solving complex puzzles (some birds are able to do that) or be able to learn things (birds and primates can do that as well) but in the ability of humans to plan for the future. As far as I know (but do correct me if you have better information) there is no animal that exhibits:

1) the ability to plan ahead of time 2) in a non innate way

The consequence is that humans actually build stuff by investing time and energy by visualizing a future benefit without immediate gratification. I believe this is unique in the realm of animals, at least for now.

[alganet]

Primates do display acquired learning. Like the knowledge to hunt ants with sticks. A non innate ability that requires planning and is passed along to members of the same social group.

It has been reported that some eagles and hawks spread fire to drive out prey from dense vegetation. Whether that is learned behavior and planning for the future, a previously undiscovered innate behavior, or just a myth, depends on results of further research.

Whales wearing salmon hats is a story that, if happens to be true, would also be a non-innate behavior, whose purpose we don't know, that could point to something close to what you described.

Humans are different, I cannot disagree.

My play was to challenge our assumptions of what that perceived distance from humans to animals is consisted of.

We can come up with increasingly more convoluted ways of defining what we are. Animals can't. Maybe that is our innate ability.