Does intelligence equate to the desire to kill? Why?

We all know that animals come in three basic varieties,

1. Herbivores - which usually fight only as part of their mating season activities, and even then rarely end up killing their opponents. Yet some species DO get violent (rhinos and water buffaloes, for instance).

2. Omnivores - which, eating everything, can kill for food and sometimes kill for other reasons, too.

3. Carnivores - who eat meat exclusively and HAVE TO kill to survive, so killing comes more naturally to them. Yet, even THEY don't usually run around indiscriminately killing anything and everything else they encounter.

I suppose it could be argued that carnivores would HAVE TO be able to outwit their prey to keep from starving. However, you could also turn right around and say that the herbivores have to be smarter than the carnivores to keep themselves from all being eaten to extinction!

Nature plays both ends against the middle. It gives each side advantages over the other. It gives predators special adaptations to help them catch their prey AND it gives the prey animals special adaptations to help them avoid getting caught. It plays NO favorites.

When you balance all of that out, it seems to me that all intelligence ranges are to be found in each one of these groups. I would logically think there are intelligent herbivores and stupid carnivores out there, too.

If we related the idea of "intelligence = murderous intentions" to the sentient intelligence of us humans, it would have us seeing Newton, Galileo, DaVinci, Einstein, etc as murderous monsters when we all know that they were nothing of the sort!

It seems to be a popular activity, taking socio/philosophical pot-shots at desirable qualities - which one envies, but feels may not be obtainable or attainable - in order to make them seem LESS desirable and less enviable. Hence we have ideas floating around like "Rich people are unhappy." "There is a fine line between genius and insanity." And now we have "Intelligence = murderous urges." joining the list?

Sorry, but I just can't buy into that.

We humans are all individuals. There are some patterns of behavior that are more or less common to all of us, but for the most part, each of us lives by a slightly different set of personal standards, and animals are not so different. I owned one dog that would go after ANY other animal that it saw if I didn't restrain it from doing so, and I had another dog at another time that loved everything and just wanted to be friends with every other creature it saw. The first dog was not noticeably smarter or dumber than the second one - it was purely a matter of individual personality.

I firmly believe it is PERSONALITY, NOT level of intelligence that determines how animals react to members of their own and other species - whether they walk on four legs or two.

I find this very interesting as well. Although I am unsure that other animals don't kill for fun. I had a cat who loved to kill birds or mice to play with but would never eat them.

It is also possible that there are reasons for the octopi to have killed the shark that we are unaware of, such as territory, or to establish dominance in a certain area. I would be interested to find out more about the event.

As far as does intelligence make us more likely to kill..... I would lean towards yes. I have been researching serial killers and a large number of them are very intelligent. Food for thought I suppose.

None. Intelligence may lead to killing for sport, but it doesn't equate to a desire to kill. Less intelligent animals kill often too, only for purposes (food, protection, territory, etc...). Watch a cat playing with a mouse it just caught and wonder if it's not just getting a little bit of entertainment uot of it. Just because you don't know why the octpus killed the shark doesn't mean it didn't have a reason, just that we don't understand it yet. And hunting and killing for sport has grown out of killing for food, so that also had a reason.

I believe that humans who kill for sport do it out of a herbivore mentality. To eat what is the biggest, brightest, cleanest, most colourful, firmest, most nutritious food we can eat to maintain proper health.

Carnivores will eat what is lame, sick, small, injured, weak for easy game and so they don't get fatally wounded in the process.

You may also note that bodily designs of herbivores and carnivores vastly differ. Such as the length of the intestinal track. herbivores have a long intestinal track for absorbing plant nutrients. While carnivores have a short intestinal track, so they don't absorb too much fat or get sick from eating sick animals.

And the Jaw pressure of humans measures roughly around 150 PSI while a grey wolf's bite measures at 500 PSI, a jagaur's bite measures at around 700 PSI and an alligator's bite measures at 3,500 PSI.

If animals were to eat the strongest and healthiest animals of other species, it would run those species into extinction.

I won't be able to answer your question completely, but I'll touch up on one variable you may wish to take into account.

One of the problems with the approach is that you cannot apply situations such as these in a generalistic way across the entire species, as due to our evolution from simple eukaryotes there is enough genetic diversity between indivudals of the same species, that very few traits are carried through an entire species, especially ones that depend partially on environmental factors like intelligence and aggression

Unfortunately, you ask for an opinion but only offer one side of the argument. To really get a clear picture you need to study the habits of seemingly "dumb" animals also.

no, its the opposite.