Seventh post: Carnivore Requim

In a prior post I talked about the polarising nature of species that I have taken note of in a lot of fan work I’ve managed to get round to reading, especially with regard to the herbivore/carnivore divide. I also note that the issue of species is recognised really only in the context of a wider conflict or tension between the two species, and more often acts as a place holder for nations, Sovereignties or political ideology . That’s not to say that species and what that means to the characters involved doesn’t come up in other kinds of narratives, the romance genre being also a popular niche for species drama, particularly the Dragon/Pony kind. Mostly a credit to Spike and his status as the primary bachelor on the show, but I digress. Those kind of stories do delve into the issue in more depth and on a more personal level, but usually it lacks the scope of world building I am keen on (if not bypass it entirely via a transformation spell or similar dues ex Machina). I can make some assumptions on why this kind of simplified portrayal of species are made; time constraints, the demands of the plot, a lack of interest in exploring that aspect and more. But let me talk about my own problems and challenges in handling such issues between species for the setting in a little more detail.

The singular issue that’s most obvious is the concern of diet for the carnivore species and thus it’s far reaching implications. Right from the start we are faced with a fundamental conflict of Interest between species of Intelligent Carnivores and Intelligent Herbivores; One species requires itself to consume the other for its perpetuated survival, the other resists this for their own survival. Essentially one party is doomed to death by the other. One can argue the morality of either's action but if I try to be objective here, the biological drives and needs should be neutral traits so their shouldn't be morality attached to the fact that Intelligent Carnivores would have to eat Intelligent Herbivores, its just a consequence of their nature. But that train of thought does a disservice to their nature as Intelligent, Rational, Thinking, Feeling beings who have to partake in the destruction of other equally Intelligent, Rational, Thinking, Feeling beings for their continued existence. I have tried looking for other fiction that has tried to tackle this idea but I haven't found much success, so I am open to any recommendations in the comments. In any case I want to really tackle this problem of addressing the issue that one kind of people needs to eat another kind of people and how is anyone involved okay with that?

So what about individuals who recognise this issue? Rather than simply accepting the way things are as the natural state of things, why not challenge that idea and find an alternative? Well to put it simply it’s a futile and ultimately self destructive wish. If by an Intelligent Carnivore very nature they require fresh meat to live and all other creatures are of similar Intelligence and Sapience then spiritual cannibalism is an inevitable course of action for survival. That is assuming that all other creatures are sapient. In the show other animals and creatures are portrayed differently, they have no speaking roles, require supervision from more intelligent creatures to thrive and don't seem to inherently hold the same rights and privileges as the Intelligent Creatures do. Essentially they are sentient but not sapient. If such animals exist it could be considered the least morally repugnant option to consume these creatures as opposed to Intelligent Herbivores, however it could well be argued that it’s still immoral as it still calls for a life to end, even if that life isn't identically comparable to the Intelligent Species, its undeniable that these animals are alive and responsive and aware of the different states of their being. But still, is it not the preferable evil considering the alternative? So on one hand we have the unmitigated embracing of 'naturalism' and thus hunter and hunted being simply the way things are, or side step the issue entirely and present the Carnivore an option that bypasses the need to eat other Intelligent Creatures. In most examples I've looked for most setting settle on a variant of one or the other of the two but I feel like the issue is mostly unexplored by both the world and characters. I've struggled greatly with the issue myself, on one hand I don't want to generalise an entire species as remorseless killers, and on the other I don't want to simply conveniently ignore the very nature of the Carnivore by introducing a dues ex Machina that allows morally acceptable carnivores to never face this dilemma at all. Because this issue is so very worth exploring, it’s just a problem of how?

Surprisingly (or not, they are very good writers after all) my answer has come from the show itself.

As canon stands right now, almost all intelligent talking species portrayed so far are unambiguous hoofed herbivores, cows, buffalo, horses and so on. But there are few species that break that trend; Griffins, Dragons and possibly talking monster species such as Minotaurs, Sea Serpents, Diamond Dogs and most notably the Chimera. So far the only creatures to be an unambiguous predator is the Chimera and possibly Dragons, as evidenced by the show.

Griffins as a concept are typically carnivores, being two top tier predators, a lion and an Eagle, combined. It would be natural to assume they are similarly predators too. Except for the fact the Griffins in the show directly contradict this assumption with the way they act and interact with Equestrians and their society. Gilda was a colossal jerk, but she never inspired any fear or dread that a natural predator would, Gustaf was a pastry chef and a team of Griffin Ariel acrobats is participating in the Equestrian Games without issue. Gilda and Gustaf show that Griffins have an omnivorous diet at most, being fully able to live within Equestria and eat a number of equestrian food stuffs with no consequence, the reaction they get from other Ponies is also very mild, being either curiosity, minimal interest or annoyance, all due to their actions rather than for what they are.

Dragons on the other hand are seen as much more intimidating, and the narrative of the show does go some ways to show the validity of the Ponies concerns. The sheer size of dragons, their natural prowess, fire breath and possibly carnivore (or at least extreme omnivore) nature all have noticeable implications within the canon. But Dragons are mostly seen as dangerous due to these traits rather than by the virtue that they eat Ponies, in fact it’s only said in an offhand comment they could eat ponies in a single bite, and this possibly says more about their size than diet. The greatest proof contradicting the status of Dragons being carnivores is Spike; who has successfully lived in equestria on a diet of vegetable goods and mineral formations without repercussions. More mind is paid to them being akin to walking natural disasters, possibly due to the feral nature of dragons which implies that Dragons are a natural event rather than a entity like nations, there isn’t any hard evidence for a collective dragon culture and Dragons aren’t talked about much outside of the individual instances of Dragons showing up or Spike’s rarely touched upon identity issues. The only collection of Dragons is the once in a generation Dragon Migration, and by the fact it’s a migration we have further basis of the natural rather than the artificial ruling their natures. But Bottom line is Dragons are intelligent Extreme Omnivores rather than high tier predators.

Minotaurs and Sea Serpents both talk, and Iron Bull is an active member within Equestria herself, working as a Public Motivator. Both are recognised with the term monster but this seems to a faux pas and possibly an unfortunate term of slang that Ponies use, so it doesn’t mean it holds the usual connotations of ‘monster’ as it does in other fiction. It could simply mean non-pony, or unusual non-pony creature. But once again there isn’t any real connection between these species and their negative stereotypes being associated with diet. In fact nothing suggests that an issue of diet or them being carnivores is the problem that Equines see with them. If they are even carnivores in the first place.

Diamond Dogs were outright antagonistic, but the actual confrontation was based on their actions rather than natures. Kidnapping, imprisonment and coercion are crimes, surely, but at no point was the threat made, that Rarity would be eaten. No comment is made on Diamond Dog diet in fact, and I can only assume that they share similar diets with traditional dogs, but without in show evidence there is equal reason to assume the same dietary needs for traditional dogs need not apply to Diamond Dogs. While a comment on their monstrous appearance is made its ultimately their behaviour is what is deplorable, not their nature and thus diet.

One episode introduces a new monster, The Chimera. She is actually shown as an unambiguous carnivore, or rather an omnivore willing and able to eat ponies. She out right stated she ate ponies and was shown to aggressively hunt ponies. So far she is the only instance of a full blown intelligent Predator. The reaction of ponies confronted with the chimera was as expected, fearful and lead to conflict. But interestingly in the same episode there was the implication that dealing with chimera is a common enough occurrence that known tactics and counter measures against them have been developed. As a single incident it’s hard to gauge a species aptitude for the Chimera, if they are indeed a species at all and not a one off mythological creature. From what I could gleam from the episode the whole incident was treated as just a fact of life for those involved, ‘Fish gotta swim, Birds gotta fly, Cats gotta eat’.

Now that the canon has brought forth an intelligent carnivore I suppose it would be natural to base speculation about other intelligent carnivores around this example.

So to continue the precedence put forth by what I’ve noted other intelligent carnivores could similarly adopt that mind set, they may acknowledge that their prey talks but they still need to eat. So the rule of nature is supreme and pretty much guarantee’s the vast majority of interactions between the carnivore species and susceptible prey is universally conflict. However the suitability of prey species could have very varied implications.

In the wild the failure rate for most predators is pretty high, and that’s when the animals involved are of comparable skill and intelligence, with the mix of sapience, magic and tool use and I can easily see these failure rates escalating. In fact it could be so high that Intelligent Carnivores may see it as unfeasible, so actively discourage the hunting of Intelligent Herbivores in favour of simpler and thus easier to hunt prey. In this scenario Intelligent Carnivores and Intelligent Herbivores may tolerate each other as a conflict (such as predation) between the two would be mutually disastrous. Another angle to play into things is the fact that by and large herbivores vastly out number carnivores in every ecology. This would undoubtedly carry over to this setting too. Now intelligence of the species does allow for population limits to be overcome by ingenuity and infrastructure but I think an appreciable population difference is persistent between populations of Intelligent Herbivores and Carnivores, it takes for less effort for Herbivores to find locations that can support larger numbers as compared to Carnivores after all. So by and large most Intelligent Carnivores would be pretty discouraged from predating Intelligent Herbivores who can coordinate and plan retribution on scales comparable to war.

But can a third kind of setup exist? If Carnivores are persistent in their discretion and have the intelligence to pursue other avenues to fulfil their dietary needs then ist possible the avoidance of Intelligent Herbivores for purely pragmatic reasons may shift and evolve as a society in contact with herbivores develops. Inevitable cultural exchange and osmosis occurs and the society may develop more complex interactions with other similar societies, languages are bridged, Trade of goods occur, stories are shared. So a shifting of attitudes occurs were the avoidance of meat from intelligent creatures for purely practical reasons, changes to be a moral norm and the society reinforces that as it goes on. Thus the carnivores and herbivores may not only just tolerate each other, but form more intricate diplomatic practices, appreciate each other’s identities and cultures and have respective populations of differing species grow within their own cultural spheres. Thus coexistence occurs and a symbiosis can present itself.

So to sum up things: Three broad categories of intelligent carnivore Societies could be presented in the setting. 1) Apex predators who hunt indiscriminately, it is not a moral issue to hunt, as survival is be all and end all. Universal predation is the Norm. 2) Predators who use discretion in hunting practices to pragmatic ends to avoid unfeasible prey, the discretion can be altered by circumstances though and is also not morally bound and set. Toleration of the other species is the norm. And 3) Predators with an evolved society that has created alternate ways to sustain itself and thus eliminates the necessity of identifying intelligent Creatures as possible prey, making it a moral concern on how they interact with them. Coexistence rather than toleration is the norm

So I think a nuanced setting would be dotted with a multitude of species that present multiple examples of the above categories. Each category could have further sub divisions but that’s a post for another day. In any case it provides a huge spectrum of opportunities for very different species and cultures to interact, come into conflict and live along side each other which is what I want.

TL;DR version:

In the show we have several distinct ways that possible and confirmed Intelligent Carnivores interact with similarly intelligent Ponies.
i) Intelligent carnivores are indiscriminate with their hunting and can and will eat ponies given the opportunity, E.g. Chimera.
ii) Intelligent Carnivores tolerate Ponies, but if suitable motivated by one thing or another can act suitably threatening to Ponies E.g. Dragons, Diamond Dogs.
iii) Intelligent Carnivores coexist with Ponies and actively discourage or eliminate predation of ponies for a variety of reasons; moral, political, cultural and so on. Thus interact benignly with ponies E.g. Gryphons, Minotaurs, Sea Serpents, Bears.
From these observations its reasonable to assume a variety of differing groups, nations and entities have a range of responses and relationships with other intelligent species influenced by a number of factors.
So a setting like equestria would host a spectrum of societies and species of Intelligent Carnivores, which have developed different ways to exist in the world, guided by their biology, history, location, culture and interactions with the wider world.