How humans relate to other species

[Sy Borg]

This spring in Sydney there has been a spate of magpie attacks. Researchers have verified that magpies are intelligent enough to recognise human faces and pick their targets (their targets have known this for a long time).

abc.net.au/news/2015-09-01/magpies-how- ... ks/6740448

Dr Jones said his team was still baffled as to how the magpies decided on their targets.

When I eat in the public space they huddle around and I throw them bits of food. I try to ensure than none of them miss out, especially the young and weak hanging around the back. They seem remarkably similar to dogs and children in the way they scavenge for treats.

While walking, if I see a magpie that's in my way I show respect and try to walk around them rather than thoughtlessly bullying past. I'd be hostile to someone who treated me like that too. After all, we'd show respect if it was a snake in our path. Why should we only show respect to those capable of retribution?

I expect that most would consider this an eccentric attitude, which I think says more about the self-absorption of humans than it does about me. Why are we so blind to the cognition of other species? It's as though we think other animals behave randomly and pointlessly; in truth, they tend to operate more or less like empowered young children. For such an intelligent and knowledgeable species humans can be remarkably selfish, thickheaded and insensitive, which is a conundrum in itself.

You won't be surprised to find that so far magpies have never swooped at me. No doubt there are nasty or disturbed magpies, just as with any other animal, so an attack is still possible. You can never fully trust anyone who lives wild because they must battle daily for survival.

Why do you think humans tend to be so unaware when it comes to dealing with other species? Some of it is surely species wide solipsism, but I also suspect that humans get a small kick out of bullying other creatures, as a reminder of our dominance.

Agree? Disagree?

[Sy Borg]

Three days and just one asinine post. Even so-called "thinkers" here are too blinkered to care. Just avoidance, excuses and rationalisations. The future of humanity is surely set.

Look at the situation of other animals and then consider the situation of the poor. Then note the cries of the the shrinking middle class. Just as we treat other species, the strongest humans treat the weakest. This cycle continues as each weakest group is "consumed" to a point where the most vulnerable in the dominant group becomes the next target.

Anyone who worries about human inequality but does not control their own consumption is a hypocrite. Can't pay your mortgage or your kids are hungry while you and yours consume far more meat, consumer goods and energy than is necessary? What goes around comes around. You are just more bullies being bullied by bigger bullies.

I've never been a great fan of schadenfreude but it's never too late to start!

[Wilson]

Greta, as I've said before, we all have different circles of empathy. We evolved to feel kinship with others, but not with all others. That's because when we were hunter-gatherers and becoming modern humans, it was not beneficial for a group to share food and tools with a competing group. So evolution gave us a capacity for empathy, but not universal empathy. Some of us are very tribal, to the point of having great concern for our immediate families, but not much for anybody else. A restricted empathy is the source of racism, nationalism, and religious intolerance.

Where I'm going with this is that you and I - and most people - are capable of feeling that our pets are part of our families. Then there are some people who feel great empathy for most other human beings but not much for animals. For whatever reason, that seems to be more common in the Asian cultures than say England. We all have a sliding scale of empathy - most for our families and friends, a bit less for others in our communities, perhaps a bit less for those in other nations or religions, a bit less still for animals. I'm afraid that the development of our empathy scale is mostly a matter of our early training and life experiences and is almost independent of logic. Someone who doesn't care what happens to an individual animal is probably not going to respond positively to being scolded, because they can't understand why anyone would see that animal as important.

Personally I love our two dogs and have affection for most dogs and cats I encounter. I'm fascinated by all kinds of animals and think cruelty to animals is a sign of someone I can't trust to be good to humans, either. However, I eat meat without guilt, knowing that if I stopped, it wouldn't save a single chicken or cow. Likewise, I don't feel guilty about using energy and consumer goods (although my wife does), because one person's actions don't mean diddly overall. However, I do vote for laws that I feel might make a real difference.

[Sy Borg]

Someone who doesn't care what happens to an individual animal is probably not going to respond positively to being scolded, because they can't understand why anyone would see that animal as important.

Ha! They are incapable of responding to any approach whatsoever. It's not as though I haven't tried numerous gentle ways of encouraging animal empathy here - every time falling on deaf ears.

The fact is that humans think the world consists of themselves, the occasional companion animals and resources. In truth, it's psychopathy. It's not that the behaviour falls short of of my expectations, it falls far short of the ludicrously self aggrandising claims humanity makes of itself.

The issue is matters of degree. It's one thing to prioritise empathy for other living things, another to have zero. How does having zero empathy for animals differ from psychopathy?

By the laws of supply and demand, reducing meat intake does save on animal suffering. Certainly if people blackbanned products from caged animals then farming practices would change. There's been small moves in this area but most of us apes are too blinkered to get it.

On the other hand, it's interesting to see how our attitudes unfold in society as we reap what we sow. The ultra wealthy are doing to us what we do to animals, with similar degrees of sympathy. I once thought i was unfair but these days, based on our behaviour knowing what we know, it simply seems like natural justice.

[Empiricist-Bruno]

Hey Greta, there are now over 100 posts in line waiting for approval and yours got in the fast track because of the interesting title, so nothing is lost. I'm now running as a candidate for Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada in the current 2015 Federal Election. I don't stand a chance. People tell me at the door that animals are last on their lists of concerns. Natural justice does appear to be the solution; when our society disappears due to its carelessness toward each other it will be something that perhaps some other species will learn from digging out our bones and figuring what happened to us. Human kind has even been given a hint of things to come this way: the Easter Islands. The native there had a thriving society but cut all the trees and then starved. That is indeed what's going to happen next, unless I get elected, of course... By the way, its a real pleasure to see all the words that I have to look up when you write!

[Lucylu]

Why do you think humans tend to be so unaware when it comes to dealing with other species? Some of it is surely species wide solipsism, but I also suspect that humans get a small kick out of bullying other creatures, as a reminder of our dominance.

I may be wrong but..

1. I feel that 'common knowledge' tells us that we are more intelligent than other animals and, further, that our aptitude for abstract thought, and language is what enables us to be aware of our existence. My own theory, from working with adults with mental disabilities is that, in fact, it is our 'basic' brain (for want of anatomical knowledge), which we all possess, regardless of intellect, which provides our sense of being and our 'higher' senses merely provide ways in which this can be expressed or understood. So with animals, to varying degrees, they are able to think 'what am I doing here', just as much as we are.

2. Also, after reading 'Don't shoot the dog' by animal trainer Karen Pryer (a daft title for a brilliant book on behaviourism) I think that the idea of dominance which has become part of our heritage since Darwin may be misplaced. I am now favouring the idea of cooperation rather than competition/ dominance. Its obvious that humans have been labouring under a misapprehension- the way we treat each other beggars belief- but my hope is that this could be remedied or at least helped by learning about behaviour from childhood rather than superstition and religion, which is all about intent, rather than practical guidance on how to relate to one another and how to have positive relationships. This cooperation theory would also, hopefully, include nature at large.

3. I had a summer job working in Sydney Harbour and I had to have my lunch on the roof to avoid the aggressive birds around the Quay! They were so used to being fed, they had become very demanding! Again, Pryor's book explains a lot about conditioning. You could say that humans have made a rod for their own backs. I think animals do 'talk' to us in their own way, but we are just not aware of the more subtle cues, especially after spending time in a city, away from the countryside.

[Sy Borg]

Hey Greta, there are now over 100 posts in line waiting for approval and yours got in the fast track because of the interesting title, so nothing is lost. I'm now running as a candidate for Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada in the current 2015 Federal Election. I don't stand a chance. People tell me at the door that animals are last on their lists of concerns.

If you stood for the Slaves Welfare Alliance in 1800 you would have been that slaves are last on their lists of concerns (and perhaps had a gun pointed at you). If you stood for the Women's Welfare Alliance in Saudi Arabia you'd similarly be given short shrift.

It's interesting to observe how, even when a blind spot is pointed out, people tend to remain oblivious. That lack of flexibility and awareness are shortfalls that we attribute to animals to explain our "superiority", and such ironies abound in this issue. Just as racism was acceptable and unquestioned in the southern US states in the 1800s, speciesism is similarly acceptable today. Only a minority object to the live cattle trade from Australia to Islamic countries - a practice that effectively tortures animals in order to profit from pandering to primitive religious superstitions.

Religion lies at the heart of our psychopathic behaviour towards other animals - "man having dominion" etc. The irony is that people, especially theists, tend to argue that only humans are moral beings and thus worthy of respect while their attitudes towards those weaker than themselves is entirely amoral.

Natural justice does appear to be the solution; when our society disappears due to its carelessness toward each other it will be something that perhaps some other species will learn from digging out our bones and figuring what happened to us. Human kind has even been given a hint of things to come this way: the Easter Islands. The native there had a thriving society but cut all the trees and then starved. That is indeed what's going to happen next, unless I get elected, of course... By the way, its a real pleasure to see all the words that I have to look up when you write! 8)

If you like looking up words I suggest you follow Belinda's posts :)

I actually doubt that natural justice will be meted out. Reality is built upon constant construction and destruction (with alternative being stagnation). In context, justice and morality are effectively attempts to slow down the inevitable, with the aim of reducing suffering on the path to inevitable outcomes. That is, while one cannot prevent change, one can slow it to reduce suffering along the way, essentially smoothing the path. To me, that's what the animal right debate is all about. We all die. All species are superceded. This does not change the ethical component - the attempt to minimise suffering.

The other aspect here is, as Wilson* rightly pointed out, spheres of concern. It doesn't make sense to give equal priority to a slug as a dog, so some level of speciesism does make sense. Meanwhile, nature resolves interspecies and intraspecies conflicts of interest with blood. In that context, Homo sapiens is no different to any other species - while claiming to be so. It is this double standard I am exploring - our profound failures to live up to our own standards, standards which appear to be more based on human potential than human reality.

Human morality has improved markedly over the millennia but this particular blind spot is at the heart of the greatest threats to our "thrival" and existence, but we cling to the myth of human specialness even as it threatens us; the weight of historical atrocities to all species including our own is not quickly overcome.

* Wilson, do you have a first name or nickname? I'm not comfortable calling people by their last names - I surely wouldn't call you "Wilson" in real life, and certainly not Mr/Dr Wilson - and "Willy" is out of the question :)

[Wilson]

Greta, Wilson could be a first name, no?

Signed,

Craig

[Sy Borg]

1. I feel that 'common knowledge' tells us that we are more intelligent than other animals and, further, that our aptitude for abstract thought, and language is what enables us to be aware of our existence. My own theory, from working with adults with mental disabilities is that, in fact, it is our 'basic' brain (for want of anatomical knowledge), which we all possess, regardless of intellect, which provides our sense of being and our 'higher' senses merely provide ways in which this can be expressed or understood. So with animals, to varying degrees, they are able to think 'what am I doing here', just as much as we are.

Agreed. There are qualitative differences but the basic sense of being safe, comfortable, threatened or excited seems common to all.

2. Also, after reading 'Don't shoot the dog' by animal trainer Karen Pryer (a daft title for a brilliant book on behaviourism) I think that the idea of dominance which has become part of our heritage since Darwin may be misplaced. I am now favouring the idea of cooperation rather than competition/ dominance. Its obvious that humans have been labouring under a misapprehension- the way we treat each other beggars belief- but my hope is that this could be remedied or at least helped by learning about behaviour from childhood rather than superstition and religion, which is all about intent, rather than practical guidance on how to relate to one another and how to have positive relationships. This cooperation theory would also, hopefully, include nature at large.

Agree again, although conflicts of interest are difficult to resolve. For instance, a rat problem is emerging at home. My aim, like that of any good psychopath, is to kill them. The issue came to a head for me when I saw one on the backyard table the other day and then yesterday, when I put on the gas heater, there was much scrabbling from behind it, putting the dog on alert. As she sniffed around I heard angry hissing coming from behind the heater. If I don't try to kill the rats they might chew through wires and create a fire hazard or they may raid and spoil food supplies. Such conflicts of interest is universal, not only between species and within them.

I think it most likely that humans will wipe out most animal species, with most humans also dying out, leaving a minority of technologically augmented humans (descended from today's uber-wealthy). The plight of the human poor is identical to that of other species. In that light, the issue is to slow the process and reduce suffering along the way. That alleviation starts with eliminating the most egregious cruelties such as factory farming, live export trades and mutilation of creatures for pseudoscientific Chinese "medicines" (they can find themselves other placebos).

3. I had a summer job working in Sydney Harbour and I had to have my lunch on the roof to avoid the aggressive birds around the Quay! They were so used to being fed, they had become very demanding! Again, Pryor's book explains a lot about conditioning. You could say that humans have made a rod for their own backs. I think animals do 'talk' to us in their own way, but we are just not aware of the more subtle cues, especially after spending time in a city, away from the countryside.

Another irony - mighty humans made in the image of an imaginary deity expect "lowly animals" to understand them while being profoundly stupid in the way they miss obvious communications from other species. For a long time our assumptions were based on the fact that animals are less adept at thinking like humans than humans. It took a long time for more enlightened researchers to notice that we could apply our "superior intelligence" to trying to understand animal language.

Yes, don't leave your lunch unattended at the Quay or Hyde Park or ibises or seagulls will steal it. In the spirit on non-speciesism, other animals can be real bastards too :). Dinosaurs had a long time to evolve and today's small evolved raptors are highly aware beings; underestimate them at your peril!

-- Updated 04 Sep 2015, 18:28 to add the following --

Greta, Wilson could be a first name, no?

Signed,

Craig

It could be but ... thanks Craig :)

[Lucylu]

I think it most likely that humans will wipe out most animal species, with most humans also dying out, leaving a minority of technologically augmented humans (descended from today's uber-wealthy).

Have you seen Elysium? Although the film itself wasn't brilliant the central premise that the wealthy would move off planet and leave the poor behind seems quite plausible to me. Once space flight becomes more accessible it will still only be an option for the super rich. They can 'start over' and colonise a new planet or large space station. I guess if humans can get to a stage where food can be created without livestock, then the only animals we may keep are domestic pets.

These days I work with animals, and I am constantly amazed at the stupidity of their owners. The ethos of master and slave is negative for both parties and allows the human to assume that the animal is stupid and cant understand when really it is the human who lacks communication skills. It's basically lack of education and lack of patience as far as I can tell. We have defined ourselves by our use of abstract thought and almost exclusively geared our education system towards it, when really we are still yet to learn the basics of relationships and self control. This teaching needs to be made explicit, as much as our ABC's.

Unfortunately negative behaviours and relationships seem to abound in human families also and the way we treat each other at large so I don't think its unique to our treatment of other species. Its just that we are more aware of our treatment of other humans these days because of improvements in travel, television, the internet and because of our self-centredness.

In the old days it was 'out of sight, out of mind' and other races were seen as more akin to animals than humans, so were treated as such. It seems to be a natural instinct within us that the 'other' is automatically seen as inferior, stupid or dangerous so we don't even bother to listen to them and take the time to understand their unique cues.

It was the same in the home for the mentally disabled in which I worked- at first, all I saw was their disability and I pitied them, if I'm honest (which is just another, more pious, form of thinking someone inferior). I wanted to work there because I wanted to be a good person and take care of these 'poor people'. But I learnt gradually that the residents had just as much personality and individuality as anyone else, and they understood their situation as much as anyone else too, but because of their disability it just took more time to get to know them and to understand their own individual social cues. I learnt to respect them and to listen and that was when I was able to start having a real relationship with them and really support them to live well.

Agree again, although conflicts of interest are difficult to resolve. For instance, a rat problem is emerging at home. My aim, like that of any good psychopath, is to kill them. The issue came to a head for me when I saw one on the backyard table the other day and then yesterday, when I put on the gas heater, there was much scrabbling from behind it, putting the dog on alert. As she sniffed around I heard angry hissing coming from behind the heater. If I don't try to kill the rats they might chew through wires and create a fire hazard or they may raid and spoil food supplies. Such conflicts of interest is universal, not only between species and within them.

That's tricky, especially when it gets up to small mammal size. It's interesting that a rat has a completely different association to a mouse, even though they are actually very similar (no doubt because of their association with the plague). And I would naturally be more likely to worry about a snail's welfare than a spider, a mammal's welfare over an insect, a cute and cuddly mammal over an ugly mammal etc.

I tend to think to myself, 'what would other animals do' rather than 'what would a human do'? What is natural? It's ok to defend yourself and your home against invaders. That's well within your rights. I'm sure if a rat went in to another animals home, the 'home owner' would either have to leave, if they were below on the food chain or, if above, they would chase the rat out or kill it, if needs be. You are above and there's no need to feel guilty about that. Its not retribution, its just self respect. You could try catching them in humane traps and letting them out in the fields far away, but it gets to a point where that's juts not good enough.

[Logic_ill]

One of the things that puzzles me is how organisms, whoever has observed them closely and gained knowledge from them (including humans), are designed and behave in ways that might actually be detrimental to their survival.

For example, human beings may be the pigs worst predators, but because pigs are domesticated they behave less aggressively and keep their more subtle characteristics, than if they were wild. The reasons biologists give, is that in the wild pigs turn feral in a matter of weeks because their bodies release hormones that make them more aggressive, in order to deal with their newer surroundings (more predators, more competition for food, worse elements, etc.)

It's interesting to note that consciousness, in this case human consciousness doesn't seem to be detected as one of those environmental risks for the pig. The pig doesn't realize that it's in danger, due to a more "intelligent" creature, but by the physical factors (less food, encounters with aggressive animals, heat, cold, etc.)

Likewise, human consciousness may not seem to be a major risk factor for other humans, yet it probably is the biggest threat. A person's anatomy may not change under the threat of a nuclear strike, although their consciousness might. They first become aware, and later try to develop their intelligence. Some have argued that physical changes might take place, due to physical trauma. I agree, hormones most likely are released and if the person is in a setting that seems more threatening than what they were accustomed to, they will change (morph) to a certain degree. They will become more aggressive too, and perhaps less rational.

When other species come into contact with humans, they might learn to relax in their presence, if they are well fed and humans do not seem to pose an immediate physical threat. It might take some species longer than others to let down their guard. Intelligence or consciousness seems to develop more in serene settings, yet the higher the intelligence, the higher the threat posed to others. That is if there is a destructive interest.

But my initial thoughts were centered on how organisms do not seem to be well equipped for survival. The latter I believe because of their default behaviours (instincts) seem to be aggressive but with no real or true advantage to them as a species. For example, they fight one another, even if there is enough food, mates, territory, etc. They may not realize it because it is not their behaviour to know, but there are possibilities. Human beings, however, can and do realize it, but it has taken them much experience and accumulated knowledge to get slightly close to achieving this overall awareness. They/we have yet to reach a general state of awareness and tame our instincts. It has been a long journey for human beings. I've always wondered why it has been so difficult, and it is probably why I have learned to view human beings as yet another organism.

[Sy Borg]

I think it most likely that humans will wipe out most animal species, with most humans also dying out, leaving a minority of technologically augmented humans (descended from today's uber-wealthy).

Have you seen Elysium? Although the film itself wasn't brilliant the central premise that the wealthy would move off planet and leave the poor behind seems quite plausible to me. Once space flight becomes more accessible it will still only be an option for the super rich. They can 'start over' and colonise a new planet or large space station. I guess if humans can get to a stage where food can be created without livestock, then the only animals we may keep are domestic pets.

I haven't seen it but the theme reminds me of Ben Elton's dark satire, Stark ("Star Ark"). I think it more likely that the wealthiest will increasingly be able to isolate themselves from the natural environment and be capable of generating energy, as you say, with minimal reliance on animals and plants. In theory, it's just a matter of manipulating atoms. One would hope that they would be chastened by "great dying" and grow in character. It could be that one day there will be forum threads by technologically enhanced Homo machina about the ethics of dealing with Homo sapiens.

These days I work with animals, and I am constantly amazed at the stupidity of their owners. The ethos of master and slave is negative for both parties and allows the human to assume that the animal is stupid and cant understand when really it is the human who lacks communication skills. It's basically lack of education and lack of patience as far as I can tell. We have defined ourselves by our use of abstract thought and almost exclusively geared our education system towards it, when really we are still yet to learn the basics of relationships and self control. This teaching needs to be made explicit, as much as our ABC's.

I was one of those stupid people. In lieu of understanding or any real attempt to understand there was a fear of losing control, thinking of these beautifully artificially selected animals as likely to go off the rails without iron discipline. One day I suddenly saw myself as acting like an unlikable dictator and realised that I was treating the dog more like a domestic slave than a family member and friend.

The difference is respect, trust and kindness. I consider the dog in my avatar to be one of my best character teachers and awareness raisers. Dogs (and many other beasties) are simply much more physically-oriented than us. More of who they are is on the outside, while we are more closed.

Today I walked past a pre-auction inspection of a property. All these genteel and disciplined people politely waiting their turn and seemingly professionally going about their business. Yet I knew that this was simply the permissable physical expression. If we could observe the internal dynamics, I imagine the scene would be more akin to animals fighting to the death, ready to tear others apart to get what they want. That's the process of civilisation - expressing ourselves ever more with information (mentally) rather than energy (physically).

Unfortunately negative behaviours and relationships seem to abound in human families also and the way we treat each other at large so I don't think its unique to our treatment of other species. Its just that we are more aware of our treatment of other humans these days because of improvements in travel, television, the internet and because of our self-centredness.

In the old days it was 'out of sight, out of mind' and other races were seen as more akin to animals than humans, so were treated as such. It seems to be a natural instinct within us that the 'other' is automatically seen as inferior, stupid or dangerous so we don't even bother to listen to them and take the time to understand their unique cues.

Yes, the discrimination was and is driven by twofold fear. One is the fear of the unknown and its potential dangers. The other fear is that exploitation of others are actually being perpetrated on sentient, eloquently feeling beings, not mere "beasts". This internal conflict relates to part of Craig's first post in this thread about our evolved ability to objectify prey, competitors and other exploited entities in the race to thrive and survive. How can lionesses tear a zebra apart to feed themselves and their cubs if they feel for the other species?

I have no problem with the instinct. Only the blind and blithe acceptance of it in the light of claims that we are "better".

It was the same in the home for the mentally disabled in which I worked- at first, all I saw was their disability and I pitied them, if I'm honest (which is just another, more pious, form of thinking someone inferior). I wanted to work there because I wanted to be a good person and take care of these 'poor people'. But I learnt gradually that the residents had just as much personality and individuality as anyone else, and they understood their situation as much as anyone else too, but because of their disability it just took more time to get to know them and to understand their own individual social cues. I learnt to respect them and to listen and that was when I was able to start having a real relationship with them and really support them to live well.

Thanks Lucy - that's a great lesson. I guess a lot of things start with "wanting to be good" and the depth follows. It show how ego - that much maligned quality - can lead to good things, including personal growth.

That's tricky, especially when it gets up to small mammal size. It's interesting that a rat has a completely different association to a mouse, even though they are actually very similar (no doubt because of their association with the plague). And I would naturally be more likely to worry about a snail's welfare than a spider, a mammal's welfare over an insect, a cute and cuddly mammal over an ugly mammal etc.

Mice can sneak through cracks, rats can chew through more. Aside from possible disease, a riled rat is a more formidable animal than a maddened mouse!

I tend to think to myself, 'what would other animals do' rather than 'what would a human do'? What is natural? It's ok to defend yourself and your home against invaders. That's well within your rights. I'm sure if a rat went in to another animals home, the 'home owner' would either have to leave, if they were below on the food chain or, if above, they would chase the rat out or kill it, if needs be. You are above and there's no need to feel guilty about that. Its not retribution, its just self respect. You could try catching them in humane traps and letting them out in the fields far away, but it gets to a point where that's juts not good enough.

Yes, yes and yes. Pest controllers say that if you see one rat then the chances are that there's a hundred plus of them (although they would say that). I'm okay with going into "great white hunter" mode when it comes to defending territory. It calls to mind videos I've seen of elephants shooing animals from their turf. Certainly the dog has no qualms if she spies a possum or rat. I've long been a ruthless killer of invading ants and cockroaches and have dealt with rats before, though you need to be careful about baits when you have pets. Ironically, the dogs are proving to be the rats' saviours.

[Lucylu]

Likewise, human consciousness may not seem to be a major risk factor for other humans, yet it probably is the biggest threat. A person's anatomy may not change under the threat of a nuclear strike, although their consciousness might. They first become aware, and later try to develop their intelligence. Some have argued that physical changes might take place, due to physical trauma. I agree, hormones most likely are released and if the person is in a setting that seems more threatening than what they were accustomed to, they will change (morph) to a certain degree. They will become more aggressive too, and perhaps less rational.

I agree. This is why it is so damaging (not just for the individual, but for humanity as a whole) for children to be raised in war zones. Our early years are a critical window of learning and it may take generations before this damage to a person's core beliefs and world view is overcome.

Another issue this OP has made me remember is the news that pandas raised in captivity are being artificially inseminated. This was reported to be a great humanitarian act, in rebuilding the numbers of pandas. Personally, my first thought was that it was horribly disrespectful of animals. If some alien species took over Earth and I was confined to a cage to be looked at as one the last remaining humans, the last thing I would want would be to be forcibly made pregnant. Likewise, I don't drink dairy milk as I think its awful the way that cows are treated; repeatedly impregnated and pumped with hormones, their offspring removed, so they can be impregnated again and again to produce unending milk.

[Sy Borg]

The reasons biologists give, is that in the wild pigs turn feral in a matter of weeks because their bodies release hormones that make them more aggressive, in order to deal with their newer surroundings (more predators, more competition for food, worse elements, etc.)

It's interesting to note that consciousness, in this case human consciousness doesn't seem to be detected as one of those environmental risks for the pig. The pig doesn't realize that it's in danger, due to a more "intelligent" creature, but by the physical factors (less food, encounters with aggressive animals, heat, cold, etc.)

I think that if I was out in the wild, trying to stay warm, dry, safe and find things to eat I'd probably be releasing a lot more stress hormones and behave more aggressively too!

Likewise, human consciousness may not seem to be a major risk factor for other humans, yet it probably is the biggest threat.

For sure. No human or other animal is in as much peril as when humans are hell bent on attacking them. Almost always curtains. Other animals may lose interest or decide to chase something easier. Determined humans are relentless.

Some have argued that physical changes might take place, due to physical trauma. I agree, hormones most likely are released and if the person is in a setting that seems more threatening than what they were accustomed to, they will change (morph) to a certain degree. They will become more aggressive too, and perhaps less rational.

Some information on this:

It’s also true that neuroimaging research does not implicate only the amygdala as the “cause” or source of PTSD. Traumatic stressors that involve a psychological assault, but not a physical assault on the brain, such as those experienced by military personnel in war (or anyone who suffers physical or sexual abuse, sexual assualt, exposure to a life-threatening accident, or natural disaster). Traumatic stressors do not injure the brain, but they DO change how the brain works.

Neuroimaging studies suggest that the change is a shift from a brain in which the stress, reward, and self-reflection systems operate in learning mode—enabling the individual to explore and enjoy the world, to gain and remember knowledge that enriches life—to a brain operating in survival mode. A brain in survival mode is on the defensive and prone to negative emotional, cognitive, and behavioral reactions. This shift is observed in changes in the relationship between the emotional brain’s limbic (amygdala, hippocampus) and deep midbrain areas, and the prefrontal and cingulate cortex.

This is not an injured or damaged brain, but a brain that has been hijacked by primitive areas that are essential to survival. This changes the relationship amongst these brain areas from one of dialogue and cooperation that enhances attention and thoughtful decisions to a struggle for control that leads to hypervigilance, impulsivity, and dysphoria.

psychologytoday.com/blog/hijacked-your- ... oe-s-brain

When other species come into contact with humans, they might learn to relax in their presence, if they are well fed and humans do not seem to pose an immediate physical threat. It might take some species longer than others to let down their guard. Intelligence or consciousness seems to develop more in serene settings, yet the higher the intelligence, the higher the threat posed to others. That is if there is a destructive interest.

Yes, there are surely more ways of escaping an enraged rhino or crocodile than a band of enraged humans. As with technology, intelligence is empowering and that empowerment is not value-dependent and can be used in numerous different ways.

But my initial thoughts were centered on how organisms do not seem to be well equipped for survival. The latter I believe because of their default behaviours (instincts) seem to be aggressive but with no real or true advantage to them as a species. For example, they fight one another, even if there is enough food, mates, territory, etc. They may not realize it because it is not their behaviour to know, but there are possibilities. Human beings, however, can and do realize it, but it has taken them much experience and accumulated knowledge to get slightly close to achieving this overall awareness. They/we have yet to reach a general state of awareness and tame our instincts. It has been a long journey for human beings. I've always wondered why it has been so difficult, and it is probably why I have learned to view human beings as yet another organism.

Well said. It's a balance between impulses and mechanistic responses with our ability to consider the future. The ability control our impulses and defer rewards to gain greater rewards is an important part of "the human difference". Yet we have blind spots and can easily be overwhelmed by impulses to our detriment - a favourite of prime time news shows. To be fair, we've come a long way in the last century; progress is accelerating. Not so long ago a conversation about this topic would have been far more unlikely and difficult.

[Wilson]

One of the things that puzzles me is how organisms, whoever has observed them closely and gained knowledge from them (including humans), are designed and behave in ways that might actually be detrimental to their survival.

Remember, evolution favors those qualities that help a species to survive and reproduce AT THE TIME WHEN CHANGES ARE TAKING PLACE. Evolution doesn't care about later on. Now if there were a God, he would have seen the future and would have designed us better for survival at this point.