How humans relate to other species
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: How humans relate to other species
In the interactions between organisms, of different species for the sake of this thread, there are both active and passive events. For example, if I walk around a magpie to avoid disturbing it, that is an active "positive" interaction. If I brusquely walk through a group of birds skattering them, that is a passive action (since I would have walked straight ahead birds or no), perhaps a "negative" one in the nomenclature of the OP. OTOH, there are too many cases of active "negative" interactions that make the rounds on YouTube: the pitbull with it's snout taped shut with electrical tape such that the dog required extensive surgery to save it's nose and the like. The animal kingdom would be much, much better served by the halting of active "negative" events than by having more active "positive" interactions with humans. After all, animals were doing just fine before Homo Sapiens ambled upon the scene a short while ago.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
I always felt there was a fault line in human morality in how the powerful are given respect and the weak trodden on. The ghost of Karen Silkwood tells us what can happen when we fail to show due disrespect to the powerful and it's true that when one shows respect for the weak it's not unheard of for them to take advantage and bring you down - such is the competitive nature of survival. There's nuance in these relationships - a queasy balance of ethics and self-preservation.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: How humans relate to other species
I don't see it as a balance. To me, if I help someone or something out, be it a homeless person or an animal, sure they get some help, but I am the big winner, that feeling of gratification (let alone the concept of karma) is my pay off, so it may as well be described as a "selfish" act geared towards "self-preservation".Greta wrote:Fir point about advice and passive events. I was just thinking that if I was standing around and a group of huge footballers bustled obliviously past, forcing me to get out of the way or risk being trampled I'd be hostile. After all, the group wouldn't bully past a rhino.
I always felt there was a fault line in human morality in how the powerful are given respect and the weak trodden on. The ghost of Karen Silkwood tells us what can happen when we fail to show due disrespect to the powerful and it's true that when one shows respect for the weak it's not unheard of for them to take advantage and bring you down - such is the competitive nature of survival. There's nuance in these relationships - a queasy balance of ethics and self-preservation.
-
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
So true, Lucy. I love milk, and I blind myself to the fact that animals are indeed being mistreated. I acquired the taste for both meat and milk at too early an age and have never really quit. This is very telling of our conditions as humans. We live in a world that we do not fully question because much of it has been long established and has become the norm. This may be why societies are also segmented. Changes gradually take place as information and knowledge spread and the ideologies that spring from them begin to take hold. But because there is resistance to change, due to interests a people might have in keeping the older ways and their habits, different groups form and they might even fight one another.Lucylu wrote: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.Logic_ill wrote: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.
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.
"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".
It's interesting that you mention this, Wilson. A person who studies evolution should be interested in the role of consciousness. Part of the reason I mentioned I was puzzled at the design that doesn't seem to favour survival was because as a "knowledgeable" being, I get to see or understand how instincts do not seem to work in favour of all organisms. I get to apply human logic to all these behaviours, that of other animals, and our own. My human consciousness seems to work better at this point, than evolutionary mechanisms. I do believe, however, that we (humans) are still in a process of learning how to use our consciousness too, and we still have to deal with our instincts. But I get what you're saying with what seems to be one of evolution's major strategies: reproduction. However, it did also produce and reproduce consciousness (as we know it).
The thing that strikes me the most is how what seems to be evolutionary mechanisms (epigenetics) in feral pigs are only brought about by abrupt changes or immediate dangers that the feral pigs sense. These mechanisms are not triggered or don't seem to be triggered upon the dangers of a higher consciousness. Immediate sensory knowledge of danger can cause physical changes in a short term, but the threat and knowledge of a "higher intelligence" or "a hidden/unkown consciousness" do not. I wonder if the latter is also true between humans, and I suspect it is not...
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
Then again, you could exploit them and gain more benefit. You might save your time and money and support political parties that strips rights and benefits from the underprivileged which superficially acts to improve others' financial positions. You might save your time and energy with the nonhuman animal and eat it, or perhaps you might sell it so its body parts can be used as a placebo for superstitious Chinese men with erectile dysfunction.LuckyR wrote:I don't see it as a balance. To me, if I help someone or something out, be it a homeless person or an animal, sure they get some help, but I am the big winner, that feeling of gratification (let alone the concept of karma) is my pay off, so it may as well be described as a "selfish" act geared towards "self-preservation".
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: How humans relate to other species
I'm not quite following. Are you saying that some of the adaptive characteristics of various animals, including us, don't appear to make sense? Or that it's hard to see how consciousness would have developed, since it doesn't resolve an immediate threat? Happy to discuss it further if you'll clarify.Logic_ill wrote: "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".
It's interesting that you mention this, Wilson. A person who studies evolution should be interested in the role of consciousness. Part of the reason I mentioned I was puzzled at the design that doesn't seem to favour survival was because as a "knowledgeable" being, I get to see or understand how instincts do not seem to work in favour of all organisms. I get to apply human logic to all these behaviours, that of other animals, and our own. My human consciousness seems to work better at this point, than evolutionary mechanisms. I do believe, however, that we (humans) are still in a process of learning how to use our consciousness too, and we still have to deal with our instincts. But I get what you're saying with what seems to be one of evolution's major strategies: reproduction. However, it did also produce and reproduce consciousness (as we know it).
The thing that strikes me the most is how what seems to be evolutionary mechanisms (epigenetics) in feral pigs are only brought about by abrupt changes or immediate dangers that the feral pigs sense. These mechanisms are not triggered or don't seem to be triggered upon the dangers of a higher consciousness. Immediate sensory knowledge of danger can cause physical changes in a short term, but the threat and knowledge of a "higher intelligence" or "a hidden/unkown consciousness" do not. I wonder if the latter is also true between humans, and I suspect it is not...
-
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
Then, there's the matter of consciousness, which in many species responds to immediate threats, but not to the knowledge of possible future threats, although some species other than human do. For example, some adult animal species have experience with their predators and seem to intuit possible future dangers, even if the risk is not imminent. They are able to plan an escape. Anyhow, consciousness resolves long term threats for humans too. Perhaps changes at the cognitive level and other changes take place in response to these dangers, as opposed to animal vs. human. The former do not seem to respond adequately to human intelligence or to future bad intentions.
Which brings childhood cognitive development into question. An adult is usually much more intelligent or experienced/knowledgeable than the younger, even than the younger childbearing ones. If consciousness plays an evolutionary role, why is it that the older, perhaps less fertile. have the cognitive advantage? The young will have too much to learn, in order to catch up with the adult. The reason why I ask this question is because it is in line with the idea stated earlier. The idea that the higher the intelligence, the higher the threat posed. But if the adults, less fertile ones are the more knowledgeable, what advantage could consciousness give to the childbearing? I suppose that will vary by the circumstances or conditions. While intelligence or knowledge can help adults find solutions to possible future dangers, if they fail to guard off the dangers, their bodies might let out. The younger may be able to adapt or survive better through the physical environmental changes. (bad climate, lack of food, water, shelter, etc.) Well, the thing is that human consciousness is not as developed in children or adolescents, as in adults.
Overall, I'm simply exploring the role of consciousness in evolution. I do not necessarily believe in a designer, but the development of life and its different forms, especially species behaviours seem flawed. This lack of rationality apparent in many living beings makes me believe so. It's funny how humans who are themselves products of evolution get to realize this. But I suppose a biologist simply views life as it was/is, not as it should be. It makes a person think that it was a chance happening.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: How humans relate to other species
Because our brains took longer to reach their potential, due to the fact that the process took time and experience, we get better at problem solving and common sense over time. In some ways we are smartest before 20, in terms of quickness and creativity, though our judgment takes longer to mature. Most of the great scientists did their best work before 30. So from the standpoint of evolution (and I speak of evolution as if it's an intelligent creator, even though it's an impersonal natural process) it wasn't that it wanted older people to be the smartest humans, it's just that the process took time.
And since children aren't smart (and strong) enough to take care of themselves, evolution made us social creatures who empathize with each other, and the adults take care of the youngsters until they can take care of themselves. And because teenagers lack good judgment, for the most part, in most cultures they are under the partial control of adults.
We may be getting a little off track here. Intelligence isn't exactly consciousness, to my way of thinking.
If you have another example of an evolved trait that doesn't make sense, we can try to figure out what advantage it might have had originally.
Of course there are some characteristics that probably came about by chance rather than offering survival advantages.
-
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
-- Updated September 7th, 2015, 11:28 pm to add the following --
I actually got these ideas from an earlier thread on predation. In some ways humans view life as flawed, but they may be be due to are inability to understand. Too many species who don't die off can cause problems.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
This comes down to game theory and evolution, kin selection and group selection. There is competition between groups and competition between individuals within those groups. A group with a high level of cooperation and low levels of internal competition will tend to out-compete a less cohesive group with more internal competition. Even though the more internally competitive group may produce more robust individuals, their lack of teamwork in challenging times will result in them tending to be less successful than more coordinated groups. Note: "tending to be less successful" as opposed to "are less successful". The smallest of subtleties can play out profoundly over very long time scales.Logic_ill wrote:I dont know whether the traits some species possess have evolved or not, but some instincts give rise to "unnecessary" behaviors"". How is it to a species advantage to be so aggressive with one another? It might work to an individuals advantage within a group, but not to the group itself, especially when the reasons behind the aggressive behavior seem pointless.
It's ultimately a tension between individual and the collective - systems within larger systems, each with their own agenda. It plays out in every sphere of existence. At present human systems are outcompeting those of other large animals with inevitable results. This is breaking down balanced ecosystems that developed over millennia. If humanity does not want to operate like a virus or cancer then it won't only break down the larger systems but will replace them with different systems that are capable of their own sustainability.
IMO if we are to replace evolved systems with technological ones, and if we wish to claim that our system represents an advance on "brute nature", then we will aim to minimise animal suffering along the way.
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: How humans relate to other species
-
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
Human beings are able to observe, change or modify according to what they deem fair, although what they deem fair may be relative to the individuals involved or could be completely irrational. All in all, we are always victims to the assurance of death and aggression is one of nature's mechanisms for both protection and the possibility of death. Human consciousness may try to guard it off or postpone it as a result of its knowledge (faulty or good) and that may be part of its role. That is, if it wants to.
It is probably our slightly developed consciousness as individuals in a group that has allowed for more group cooperation or better cooperation. Aggression may be used both as a strategy for survival and death. That may account for instances of suicide, although the suicidal are not always aggressive against self. I mean other emotions may be involved.
Of course, I'm just speculating...
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
-
- Posts: 1624
- Joined: August 21st, 2012, 7:26 pm
Re: How humans relate to other species
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: How humans relate to other species
Currently aggressive behavior is learned de novo based on current responses to aggression, which of course varies dramatically from society to society. Thus the violence differential between neighborhoods and countries.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023