Eh, didn't know about this thread!

Well imho we give ourselves TOO MUCH credit! I hate those people who justify cruelty to other animals with the pretended superiority of the human race...

Blah

Humans are much less intelligent than we think we are and physically much more able than we think we are. The reason many animals are better than us in one or a few areas physically, is because they are physically specialized to do really well in just those areas.

Can a Cheetah or Chimpanzee beat a Human in anything that happens under water (speed, max dive depth)? No.

Can a Duck beat us in a fight? No.

Could a Bear beat us at a log throwing match to the death, even if he had our brain? No. (Think hands versus paws).

Could a Wolf beat us in a wrestling match? No. (Wolves are just a bite on four legs; you can't bite in wrestling).

Could a Tuna beat us in a 100m land race? No.

That's why comparing ourselves to other animals known for doing somethings really well, in only the areas that they do really well, so that we may have the pleasure of calling ourselves physically weak is pointless.

I am no where near as badass as I would be if I had:

Horns
A tough leathery skin with hard scales and plates where most useful
Solid hooves
The use of muscle mass as energy storage
Eyes that can see infra-red light
Limbs that can regenerate (think salamanders)
Peristaltic blood vessels instead of a centralised heart
Decentralised cerebellum
A selective connection to a hivemind
etc, etc...

I guess I'm just never satisfied. Now, where's that smug contented bast.. err... I mean "community member" gotten to, I've got some trolling to do.

Flying Steel, to summarize, we are just an animal species among others...

We just happened to invent a large variety of tools, and there we are... But IMHO there's no point in emphasizing our "superiority", it's completely useless, as our survival still depends on the well-being of other species.

ai wrote:Instead of really good sense of smell, good hearing, the ability to fly or good eyesight, what we have is intelligence, which in this case turned out to be a very valuable.

I think we probably did have a good sense of smell and eyesight at one point, but that probably went away because were so good at protecting ourselves from nature, ourselves, and other animals, that natural selection was unable to kill off those with inferior traits.

Those with bad eyesight/hearing/sense of smell had children with those who had superior eyesight/hearing/sense of smell, and now human senses are partially ruined for eternity.

Just a thought.

Of course we beat nature! We have guns and fire.

Mr. Bougo wrote:Flying Steel, to summarize, we are just an animal species among others...

We just happened to invent a large variety of tools, and there we are... But IMHO there's no point in emphasizing our "superiority", it's completely useless, as our survival still depends on the well-being of other species.

There simply is no superior. When you add one thing you have to take something away.

Methinks the real superiority complex is in those who feel intelligence is paramount to everything, which probably puts us at the top of everything, and breeds sentiments like 'we are on the path of progress', 'the world revolves around us' or 'the wild corners of the world are parks or undeveloped'.

And I for one only want to live in a world where we depend on other species, or else there's no limit to how dark things will get.

AnArKiSt wrote:I think we probably did have a good sense of smell and eyesight at one point, but that probably went away because were so good at protecting ourselves from nature, ourselves, and other animals, that natural selection was unable to kill off those with inferior traits.

Those with bad eyesight/hearing/sense of smell had children with those who had superior eyesight/hearing/sense of smell, and now human senses are partially ruined for eternity.

Just a thought.

Extremely unlikely, evolution usually allows better to beat out just good enough over time. Only very recently have our machines and society reached the point where we might be able to begin devolving.

What is alot more likely is that since brain tissue requires so much power in the form of blood flow (20% for our brains) that a choice had to be made between color vision and advanced image recognition, or the old wolf-like olfactory analyis. If you used both you'd have too little power for your other brain functions and muscles, for that particular dual-sensory emphasis. And you still wouldn't have something like more intelligent white noise reduction for wolf-like hearing.

Flying Steel wrote:

AnArKiSt wrote:I think we probably did have a good sense of smell and eyesight at one point, but that probably went away because were so good at protecting ourselves from nature, ourselves, and other animals, that natural selection was unable to kill off those with inferior traits.

Those with bad eyesight/hearing/sense of smell had children with those who had superior eyesight/hearing/sense of smell, and now human senses are partially ruined for eternity.

Just a thought.

Extremely unlikely, evolution usually allows better to beat out just good enough over time. Only very recently have our machines and society reached the point where we might be able to begin devolving.

Evolution does not know what is good or bad. I think you're talking about Evolution by Natural Selection, where the best treat usually survives better than bad treats in the long run.
But civilized humans does not evolve by natural selection anymore. There is no selection at all afaik (except maybe healthy/beautiful people have a higher change of getting children).
But I do think we will get smarter and live longer, not by evolution, but thanks to education, vaccines and good health care.

Humans are special though. We are the only species with foresight.
That does of course not gives the right to be cruel to other animals.

I'm just waiting for the day when we all lose our eye sight, which is inevitable if we continue on the same road as we do now.

Btw, did Vermin not survive his trip? He didn't respond in this thread. Nature beat him? That would be ironic.

Morfar is right, the biggest advantage we have is collective learning.
there's first the natural selection bit, which takes forever with countless of casualties.
then there is individual learning, its really expensive though since the brain uses much energy so for example, a seaslug, at some point that seaslug begins a journey looking for a good stone to sit on and just collect food that passes by for the rest of its life. So since the brain takes a lot of energy, it simply eats its own brain, problem solved, no more wasted energy there.

Then there is collective learning, which simply mean that since we can communicate and not only that we can communicate by symbols. Like: "oh my cousin was eaten by that leopard, down by our waterhole behind the high trees." Just try to tell your dog that: "no we are not going to have chicken today, but tomorrow." This gives us the ability that if one individual learns something that person can teach the surrounding community what was learnt. Like the history of the world, be able to construct computers, cultural references and so on.
This also enables us to have control over most of the energy on our planet, basicly all energy from the sun, could be stored energy, fossil fuel, or control of land, crops etc.

We also have sheep, who just stfu and do what they're told/led to do, with little questioning.

Examples of where this is IMHO a problem include:

1) Religious evangelism is a scam where practioners prey upon the docile, gullible, and weak minded to join their cults. Evangelists may also try to scam more intelligent people into beliving their lies and buying their "salvation", one Sunday at a time.

2) Hip-Hop culture is at this point a large problem (not nearly as large as the first, ofc) because of sheep-minded people as well. It was all over the place in the juvenille detention facillities I spent around 3 years of my childhood in. Those stupid kids were blasting bad rap music, talkin' like 'day so hood and ganksta, and wearing their pants around their waists, and getting into lots of fights with each other, sometimes placing me in situations where I had to physically defend myself. I was one of the few white kids there, so as soon as somebody called me "cracker", they all did. They were obviously using TV, music, and the "cool kids", as role models to their own detriment.

That should be enough for you to get my point, and even find more examples on your own.

morfar wrote:Evolution does not know what is good or bad. I think you're talking about Evolution by Natural Selection, where the best treat usually survives better than bad treats in the long run.

Not really, the term "Natural Selection" is too narrow, because now you have influences that most people would not term "Natural". When I say Evolution, I mostly mean Evolution via Evolutionary Forces in general.

But civilized humans does not evolve by natural selection anymore. There is no selection at all afaik (except maybe healthy/beautiful people have a higher change of getting children).

With birth control, it is now probably the other way around.

But I do think we will get smarter and live longer, not by evolution, but thanks to education, vaccines and good health care.

Knowledge maybe, thanks only to the internet, but we depend on vaccines at this point do to population density and health care is a band aid on the severed limb of our poisoned, nutrient poor and diminishing food supply.

Humans are special though. We are the only species with foresight.
That does of course not gives the right to be cruel to other animals.

I don't think there is much evidence that we are special in terms of foresight, versus other complex species.

AnArKiSt wrote:We also have sheep, who just stfu and do what they're told/led to do, with little questioning.

Examples of where this is IMHO a problem include:

1) Religious evangelism is a scam where practioners prey upon the docile, gullible, and weak minded to join their cults. Evangelists may also try to scam more intelligent people into beliving their lies and buying their "salvation", one Sunday at a time.

2) Hip-Hop culture is at this point a large problem (not nearly as large as the first, ofc) because of sheep-minded people as well. It was all over the place in the juvenille detention facillities I spent around 3 years of my childhood in. Those stupid kids were blasting bad rap music, talkin' like 'day so hood and ganksta, and wearing their pants around their waists, and getting into lots of fights with each other, sometimes placing me in situations where I had to physically defend myself. I was one of the few white kids there, so as soon as somebody called me "cracker", they all did. They were obviously using TV, music, and the "cool kids", as role models to their own detriment.

That should be enough for you to get my point, and even find more examples on your own.

I really don't think it is that simple.

With #1 you have people trying to fill up their empty lives with a story, entertainment and a supporting community. They pay for it, but while they might be as dumb as stumps, they know exactly what they are buying; they aren't victims.

With #2 you have probably a two sided culture. One's just an ultimately small sub-culture that isn't super friendly, that sounds like that was what you experienced.

The other is a massive marketing campaign with alot of money behind it from an array of consumer 'luxury' corporations, is what I'll call them. They just advertise and sell gangsta to dumb little shits in massive quantities. And this saturation marketing might make the above sub-culture feel a little more special and important, until the money moves on to the next generation's fad of choice.

But neither here are victims either. They know what they are buying and continue to do so because if fills in a gap, perhaps social for the former, perhaps internal for the later. Cephalopods and Vertebrates, including dumb people and smart people, all have the ability to learn from their past experiences. So if people try something, and then like it enough to keep trying it, they aren't fools for it or victims, they have just decided that that is what they want.

Flying Steel wrote:

morfar wrote:Evolution does not know what is good or bad. I think you're talking about Evolution by Natural Selection, where the best treat usually survives better than bad treats in the long run.

Not really, the term "Natural Selection" is too narrow, because now you have influences that most people would not term "Natural". When I say Evolution, I mostly mean Evolution via Evolutionary Forces in general.

Evolution does not not know what genes are good or bad. Evolution is a mutation that has passed on one generation.
Indirectly Natural Selection has selected genes in nature that are good. Mutations does not have a plan.

Flying Steel wrote:

morfar wrote:But civilized humans does not evolve by natural selection anymore. There is no selection at all afaik (except maybe healthy/beautiful people have a higher change of getting children).

With birth control, it is now probably the other way around.

Birth control is not contributing to evolution at all.

Flying Steel wrote:

morfar wrote:But I do think we will get smarter and live longer, not by evolution, but thanks to education, vaccines and good health care.

Knowledge maybe, thanks only to the internet, but we depend on vaccines at this point do to population density and health care is a band aid on the severed limb of our poisoned, nutrient poor and diminishing food supply.

That's the most pessimistic view I ever read I think. haha.

Flying Steel wrote:

morfar wrote:Humans are special though. We are the only species with foresight.
That does of course not gives the right to be cruel to other animals.

I don't think there is much evidence that we are special in terms of foresight, versus other complex species.

There no evidence other animals know they are going to die.
Everything points to the fact they only act on instinct and live in the presence. Any other claim needs extraordinary evidence.

morfar wrote:Evolution does not not know what genes are good or bad. Evolution is a mutation that has passed on one generation.

I thought that was "an evolution".

Birth control is not contributing to evolution at all.

It influences the direction of evolution. Those who produce fewer or no offspring in a world where all offspring have the same chance of survival, will become less and less prevalent. So from an evolutionary standpoint, all that matters in advanced societies is how many offspring you produce. Thus evolution continues.

That's the most pessimistic view I ever read I think. haha.

How long have you been using internet forums for now?

Anyways, what I meant was without vaccines we would truly have something to fear when it came to pathogens, no one would be getting crazy over pig flu and aids. Just think about how many unique people you come in contact with on a daily basis, versus how many you probably would have during the mesolithic. We depend on vaccines.

With the food supply, you have pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, being used on and genetically engineered into the food supply in many parts of the world. You have what is effectively subsoil being used to grow crops because of a temporary access to intense irrigation and "tripple 19" fertilizer that doesn't replenish anywhere near the variety of minor elements needed for real nutrition.

There no evidence other animals know they are going to die.
Everything points to the fact they only act on instinct and live in the presence. Any other claim needs extraordinary evidence.

Exactly. That is why it is such a good thing for us that we are animals, so that we never have to face our own death.

morfar wrote:Birth control is not contributing to evolution at all.

I believe he was talking about eugenism... That thing that will destroy humanity, if the climate doesn't kill us before. Heh, that's what you get for fighting against nature :p

Flying Steel wrote:Exactly. That is why it is such a good thing for us that we are animals, so that we never have to face our own death.

Um? You will face your own death when you die.
I also believe that animals know they can die as much as I believe there is life on other planets, which means 100%.
However, certain insects maybe doesn't know they can as they are of a different buildup than animals and function in a totally different way. But I'm not saying all insects are clueless.

This discussion is meaningless and only partially amusing. Everybody knows robots crush hu-mans!

And bombs crush them all.

ai wrote:

Flying Steel wrote:Exactly. That is why it is such a good thing for us that we are animals, so that we never have to face our own death.

Um? You will face your own death when you die.

Can you prove or provide evidence of that?

Because morfar implied that it would take incredible evidence to prove that any animals other than humans can ever "know they are going to die". Whatever exactly that means (what does it mean to know death?), he would need to show at least the same evidence that people have that capacity, otherwise ignorance of our own death applies to us as well.

I also believe that animals know they can die as much as I believe there is life on other planets, which means 100%.

But there seems to be alot of people who either won't believe that because that makes them feel differently about what they are. . .

Or much more likely, it is inconvenient when they pretend to be peace-loving, unbiasedly compassionate well educated individuals, who just happen to be meat-eating animal-testing-augmented-health-care supporting socialists.

In short (as possible), people's complicated modern ideological personal identities are two self-contradicting for them to be totally honest with themselves while remaining the way they are. So they aren't honest with themselves, because it's the path of least resistance.

Flying Steel wrote:Can you prove or provide evidence of that?

I can't prove anything, I don't even know exactly what you would want me to prove. But anyway, we know that we can die and that we are going to die. I believe animals knows this as well, why else would they want to protect themselves or their 'children' from other species? And don't just say 'instinct', cause we have that instinct too (even without our intelligence) and if that's the case, then it's this 'instinct' that is the proof.
I've had a female cat who had kitties, my parents killed them, she went for days and days looking for them, making noises (meow meow and some others) and generally going around mourning for not finding them. (PS on this note, dolphins do also know they can die and do mourn their own kind)

The next time she had two more kitties though, we kept them (thank goodness) and she didn't have to feel that pain again.

We can never get any proof that animals know they will die unless we actually ask them, and we can't do that as we don't understand them. But just because we cannot understand them we cannot _assume_ that they are stupid 'fers' who doesn't understand anything. Give them more credit for pete's sake. People should stop thinking we are so damn special, we really aren't.

ai wrote:I've had a female cat who had kitties, my parents killed them, she went for days and days looking for them, making noises (meow meow and some others) and generally going around mourning for not finding them. (PS on this note, dolphins do also know they can die and do mourn their own kind)

The next time she had two more kitties though, we kept them (thank goodness) and she didn't have to feel that pain again.

That's quite sad...

Yes, evidence show that other animals miss and mourn their dead family and friends.
Yes, evidence show that other animals protect them self and the others around them against dangers.
But there's an explanation to this. It's called Evolution by Natural Selection
While I am not a biologist. I have read and seen biologist talk about this.

But they claim there is no evidence they know the concept of death by age, for example. Animals know that fire and cliffs is dangerous, they are raised that way. And their ancestors had cute babies because they avoided these dangers.

morfar wrote:Animals know that fire and cliffs is dangerous, they are raised that way. And their ancestors had cute babies because they avoided these dangers.

Yes, they were raised like that, but that's not the only reason. Why avoid danger if you think you'll live forever? Why run if a predator tries to kill and eat you?
This is not only because of how they were raised, this is instinct as well. If you didn't know you can die you would just stand there like a morron when a cliff rock falls right on top of you. If one didn't know you can die why would you want to get out of quicksand or bodies of water from fear you'd die/drown?

Well, for me, there's enough evidence that the animals know about (their own) death. However, science might need really hard evidence before going the same route. Why do we even assume they don't know in the first place? As Flying Steel said, is it because we want to justify killing them? That we don't want to feel guilty? Are we so arrogant in thinking we're so damn special that we're the ONLY ones that know anything about life? Give me a break, as I said, give the animals (and insects) more credit than this.

I think that assuming animals don't know about their death is as stupid as assuming that if you buy a drink to a girl at a bar she will sleep with you.

Why do you try to avoid death, anyway? What makes you think it's bad? I don't believe other animals understand the concept of dying as in not existing anymore like we do. After all, it's one of our advantages that we are capable of grasping complicated and surreal concepts. Any phobics around? Fear isn't always reasonable or an indicator for outstanding intellect. Even _i_ am phobic! Not much, tho, because my fascination for spiders is a strong motivator to overcome my fear.

Oh, and what is intelligence? Is it building cars and streets? Does the usefulness justify the many that die in accidents? Or overweight? I was shocked recently when i discovered what was considered "far". And i'm at home most of my time! The number of transportation units should be limited.... ah, hear me rant.

4m wrote:Even _i_ am phobic! Not much, tho, because my fascination for spiders is a strong motivator to overcome my fear.

No matter how badass you think you are, there is always a spider to prove you wrong.

4m wrote:Why do you try to avoid death, anyway? What makes you think it's bad?

I personally am not afraid to die and I don't actually see it as a bad thing. I can't wait to die and see what happens (although I have a pretty good and accurate idea) -_^, just that I will not go down without a fight.
But the concept 'fear of death' is more along the lines 'preserving the species'. Oh and also, fear of pain, not the actual death part. Death is nice compared to the pain before it, unless you're lucky and go down really fast.

morfar wrote:Yes, evidence show that other animals miss and mourn their dead family and friends.
Yes, evidence show that other animals protect them self and the others around them against dangers.
But there's an explanation to this. It's called Evolution by Natural Selection
While I am not a biologist. I have read and seen biologist talk about this.

Right, and that all applies to us as well.

But they claim there is no evidence they know the concept of death by age, for example.

You don't think they've seen members of their pack succumb to old age? To die without a dramatic and obvious cause?

Animals know that fire and cliffs is dangerous, they are raised that way. And their ancestors had cute babies because they avoided these dangers.

And once again, this applies to us human animals as well.

Flying Steel wrote:And once again, this applies to us human animals as well.

Yes, we all have the same origin. But we share most history with chimpanzee of course.

Taiyo.uk wrote:Decentralised cerebellum

Imagine if you took the diffrent parts of a CPU and placed them, rather than micrometers away from each other, feet away from eachother. That CPU would be slow. You do not want a decentralised cerebellum, unless you want to slowwwww in thought.