You ever think about how crows are acting not unlike how early humans probably did and you’re just like. Oh ok
I saw a Thing one time about how the earliest sign of civilization is a healed femur because that shows that we were taking care of each other because if we Didn’t a broken leg would mean you Die because you can’t. Do things
And I was thinking about this and I remembered also seeing an article about this one mated pair of crows where one of them broke its beak and thus couldn’t properly feed itself on its own. So the other one helps
So basically I have connected the two dots (“you didn’t connect shit”) I’ve connected them
And also they not only use tools but teach each other how to construct them, so uh
Really makes you think
Realistically I know immortality would kinda suck but I’d love to see where crows are going with this
Fun fact, there is little info on crows (as far as species of interest go) because they’re so good at evading human tactics for collection and observation. I had a friend who studied them in grad school. Not only do they describe humans to each other (so crows you’ve never seen before will avoid you), they also learn the precise distance of net cannons (for trapping and tagging) after 1 encounter and then stand at that distance the entire time (making naive researchers think maybe they can juuuust caych em). So basically you need to befriend them (a common strategy), or find a murder that’s never seen you before (researchers wear presidents masks to throw them off, but then they remember and describe the cars). In this case, you have one chance to collect enough in the group to get good data. Whatever crow you catch once, you probably will never catch again, ruling out biosensing devices (like they use with other birds and turtles n junk).
The latest big finding about crows is that they have a grasp of knowledge breadth, meaning they “know what they know” meaning they are conscious (self aware), have subjective experiences and can reflect on their knowledge. (Source) This also implies they have an understanding of the unknown.
Look up Andreas Nieder and Jon Marzluff’s work if you want the deep skinny.
That is astonishing but, considering their behavior in general, unexpected.
I’m watching The Sword in the Stone for the first time in decades and I’ve gotten to the part where Merlin is trying to get Arthur to lose his virginity to a squirrel.
Y’know, if Merlin turned that squirrel into a human it would save Camelot a significant amount of problems down the road.
“Squirrels mate for life Arthur, so the chances of her fucking your best friend and inadvertently causing a schism that leads to the downfall of an entire utopian kingdom are completely nil!”
Ok hopefully this is the last time I add onto this but Arthur marrying the squirrel would stop both of the events that destroyed Camelot - namely the aforementioned falling out with Lancelot AND the birth of Mordred. Being with him since youth, Squirrel would keep Arthur from being seduced by his half-sister Morgause (or Morgan Le Fay in the versions of the myth that cut Morgause out) when he was young and foolish, as he’d already be in a committed relationship and thus wouldn’t be able to be tricked into starting one with said half-sister. No incest means no Mordred. Then, as mentioned above, Squirrel would be a faithful wife, which means Guenevere would be single, which means Lancelot and Guenevere could pork each other without causing a huge row that ends with Lancelot killing dozens of his fellow knights of the round and inspiring several others to turn against Arthur out of loyalty to him.
Camelot would have been saved if Arthur just. Fucked. That. Squirrel.
You say all that but all I hear is “here is how Merlin trying to convince Arthur to become a furry could have saved the world”
Look this was a journey for me ok?
It started as “I can’t believe Disney made a movie where Merlin tries to get a squirrel to take Arthur’s virginity” and slowly became “I can’t believe Disney’s weird bestiality subplot actually solves the two biggest problems that cause Camelot’s downfall.”
Because as baffling as the squirrel fucking plotline is just on its own, the fact that it’d actually be solution to the eventual problems Arthur faces - whether anyone at Disney was actually thinking about that or not (and I’m guessing not) - is even more so. It is bizarre and unsettling to me that squirrel fucking could have saved Camelot, and that’s, uh, the point of this I guess.
So, pointless fun fact. Around 2008, someone on 4chan actually made a ‘humanized’ version of the squirrel called ‘Hazel’ (i.e. one who had been changed to a human to be with Arthur). For a little while, there were a number of artists making pieces about her, and stories written suggesting alternate histories.
I know it’s a minor point, but I still love the notion that people are still finding ways to rewrite the story so Arthur can f*@# the squirrel.
To an ever widening group of people, I am “that guy who ranted about Arthur fucking a squirrel.”
Of all my legacies, this is certainly one of them.
I think I’ve posted about this before buuuuuuut fuck it? This makes me deliriously happy and sad. The resolution of Arthur becoming human and having to try to explain himself to a sobbing squirrel is one of my strongest childhood memories about having to deal with heartbreak and I’m literally fucking tearing up right now GOD DAMN YOU TYRANTIS.
Does this mean there’s an alternate version of history where Camelot never fell and Britain just always carried on its legacy.
Are you trying to tell me that in the fixed up version of the Arthur mythos the entire royal family is part squirrel?
I mean, it’s not the weirdest AU I’ve seen with Arthurian legends…
@break-rpg I’m bringing this to your attention so you can tell Rey.
