I expected to see a great epic battle when I downloaded the quicktime movie of the giant octopus attack against a remotely operated submarine off the waters of Canada, but I’m not sure that’s what I saw.
The news releases were gasping with excitement. A gigantic pacific octopus, scientific name octopus dofleini, viciously attacked the submarine, said the reports, and was about to bite its way inside the submarine, rip it apart and destroy it, when the submarine’s operators bravely fended off the attack by aiming the thrusters at the octopus until the octopus gave up the fight. Apparently, a couple of big pieces of tentacle were still attached to the submarine when it was brought to the surface.
What I saw was this: A big octopus came ambling up to the submarine, a tentacle on the submarine. Then, almost immediately, before the octopus had a chance to further investigate the submarine, the operator aimed the thrusters at the octopus and blew it away, ripping up the octopus’s tentacles in the process.
But, maybe I wasn’t interpreting the movie correctly. Maybe, I thought, I’m just too much of a soft-hearted pacifist to not tell when a violent animal is on the attack. So, I gave the movie the 5 year-old test. I asked my son to come over to the computer screen with him and watch the movie with me. As he watched, I asked him what was going on.
Watch our version of the movie of a giant pacific octopus filmed by an ROV submarine, and you’ll hear what he had to say.
My son comments. You decide.
I get your point, but it looks like an attacking octopus to me. No organism in the ocean would sit by while an 80 pound octopus laid a tentacle on it and started to curiously check it out. The octopus knows this. If that octopus had climbed on and gotten a good hold of the ROV, it would have been lost and the octopus would have gotten hurt a lot worse while they tried to free the ROV from him. The ROV only weighs 50 kilos.
I think the operator acted appropriately to protect the equipment. The media is sensationalizing it a bit, but that’s what they’re for.
Now this is a good attacking octopus video.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/octopus/media_players_blue/shark_hi.html
Have your son watch that one and tell us what he sees! Then have him watch the ROV video and ask him what that octopus is going to do to it.
Ah, but we’re not any old ocean organisms, are we?
What you’re saying is really not there was an attacking octopus, but rather that there was an octopus that might have caused some technical problems for the ROV.
At most, you may be saying that there might have been an attack, later, if nothing had been done.
In our current culture of preemptive attacks, that distinction is very important.
That’s not what this has been called. That’s not how people are describing the video. They’re saying that the video shows an attack by a giant octopus. They’re writing about how people might want to think twice about going diving in Pacific ocean waters where the giant pacific octopus is known to exist.
Sensationalizing it a bit? That’s an understatement. And since when is distortion of information what the news media is for?
It seems likely that the octupus would try to pry the hard shell off the ROV so that it could get to the tasty innards.
I think that thinking twice about going where there are nasty predators is a fine bit of advice. Does that mean “Don’t go there?” No, it means “think carefully about what you’re doing, or risk getting eaten.
And is a giant pacific octopus nasty?
That has yet to be proved. You’ve accepted the frame of the “It’s a giant octopus attack” crowd.
Your son is quite an astute reader, its nice to hear the wise remind us that “the emperor wears no clothes.” When is he going to offer political analyis of Bush’s speeches? I would pay money for such a refreshing viewpoint of our political moment!
Yes, a giant pacific octopus is nasty in the senses that “if you annoy it, it may well kill you,” and “If you look tasty, it may eat you.” Is it nasty in the sense of being maliciously evil? Probably not. Anyone who has studied the octopus family knows they’re clever and strong predators.
Has anyone here ever heard of a non-poisonous octopus killing anyone?
It’s true that they specialise in prying open and eating shellfish, but I fail to see how it could mistake something as large as a submarine for its prey.
Investigating and attacking are very different things.
That said, octopi can regrow limbs and are generally pretty hard-wearing animals, so at least it’ll probably be fine.
I recall vividly the commentary of a three year old to Zel Miller’s speech at the Republican National Convention: “He’s angry.”
That got it pretty well.
There is a good point here. The media chose the word attack because it resonates with people’s fear of the unknown. I think the octopus chose to “investigate,” which led researcher Mr. Wood to become fearful for his $20,000 of uninsured equipment.
I recommend Jim Lynch’s novel The Highest Tide. The 13-year-old boy in the novel is obsessed with ocean life and like JClifford’s son has an astute eye. It’s a book about the things we choose to see in the world around us.
If they had to pry the tips of the tentacles off it constitutes as some form of an attack
..no doubt! I don’t think it was playing or just curious.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7004909622962894202
Pingback: advicefromgod.com » Blog Archive » Did you send that giant octopus to attack the submarine?
Octopus swims. Octopus sees somthing interesting that might be food or something to have sex with. Octopus crawls over to investigate. Octopus gets blasted. Octopus is just being an octopus. Humans just being humans. And the beat goes on…
you suckkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
Well, you stutter.