Man, The Measure Of All Things

[Sitting Buddha]

Sorry to go a bit off topic but http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...h&plindex=2

[Guest Rex Mundi]

Altruism and Empathy are two of the human traits that seem to set us aside, but how do we know we are the only ones that feel these things?

Altruism and empathy are not unique to humans, I've read of studies that demonstrate the same traits in chimps.

[solarchild]

the human race makes me sick. they/we dont give a fuck about the planet or anything on it. dont know if this is what im meant to be talking about but look at this global warming for instance, the polar ice caps are melting due to too much burning of fossil fuels, which are said to be running out. so what do we do? say never mind theres loads more under the ice thats melting that we can burn and melt more then there will be more under wots melting.

probly off topic but oh well, at least theres more oil ay

quite true that as a species we dont give a fuck, but would any other species? bacteria in a dish will reproduce untill there is nothing left to sustain them. elephants destroy all about them. the only difference between ourselves and any other species is that we have more of an oppurtunity for both good and bad. no other species has the ability to destroy the world as we do, but then again you dont see many animals involved in conservation of lesser species. (then again there are some pretty amazing symbiotic relationships in nature).

shit. is this the beginning of empathy for other species? an ant farms aphids for its honey dew, defending them from predators, is that the very begining of attachment? is our interspecies empathy and or altrusim a product of our domestication of other animals?

when we tend something rather than killing it then do we give its life a value? because of our huge ability to change for the better or worse things for ourselves, other animals and the enviroment then surely we have come to value these things more than other species. we are special therefore, but because have the opportunity to be so.

[Chris P]

Empathy - hmm - it is a tricky one to gauge in other species, it is pretty hard to detect in humans! Altruism is an interesting one, as it could be seen to be a hive mind type function - putting others before yourself would seem to be counter intuitive as far as evolution is concerned but perhaps it benefits the species as a whole to put oneself after others.

I watched a bit of a documentary on 'altruism in Nature', I got pissed off with it going on about God all the time but it had some cool things in it. It showed young birds which would land on rocks and the adult birds would throw themselves to the fox so the young chick had a chance to escape. There were other examples like this.

Love in nature? I try to think about it in terms of neurotransmitters like Serotonin

I think nature (evolution) has provided us with the big brains necessary to analyse morality and raise it to a new level by recognising the difference between good & evil, wrong & right.

The truth is humans are pretty selfish, we mostly think about ourselves and not holistically as a species. I think this is where drugs like Cannabis can help provide some insight and awareness of the madness in the world. There seems to be greed in human nature, always wanting something and showing a lack of contentment and comparing oneself to other people. There are a lot of wannabe alpha males around that need a good kicking.

[Boojum]

I think if one were to examine things from a purely reductionist, Richard Dawkins-esque standpoint then one could easily argue that morality and altruism are merely survival traits that have evolved over time because we are social animals. If one is altruistic one will be perceived in a better light by ones social group, morality is merely a way of coexisting with others in a comfortable way. If one believes in something 'more' than us (not necessarily 'God'), then morality and altruism become something more.

I think the idea that we can understand the, for want of a better term, thought processes, views or feelings of animals is indeed either hubris or (again for want of a better term) wooly thinking. A lot of people (I'd say the majority of people) are guilty of anthopomorphising animals, especially pets. Their dog or cat isn't an animal, it's their baby. And look at how many people are uncomfortable with the idea of their little fluffy kitty going out and killing things, even though cats are predators, they are designed to hunt, and hunting isn't even second nature to them, it's their entire nature. But while we cannot pretend to understand an animals motives & thought processes, I think if we put aside our emotional responses and rely on rational observation we can study their behaviour to give us some insight into the species - not empathy or understanding, but insight.

[Guest dr rockster]

Any view that is not deeply anthropocentric is hypocritical (for humans)

All attempts to represent the "views" or "feelings" of other kingdoms, e.g. plant, animal, mineral, are hubris and sham, and cheap attempts at distraction to hide the truth.

Discuss...

I dunno about people trying to represent the views or feeling of animals but there are folk who try to protect their rights arent there?

Like the RSPCA,a caring organisation or the PETA nutters,who give animals precedence over humans it would seem.

And what do you mean by "cheap attempts at distraction to hide the truth"?

I don't get you Gert.You obviously mean a fundamental truth but I don't get how you've phrased the question.

[Guest Rex Mundi]

quite true that as a species we dont give a fuck, but would any other species? bacteria in a dish will reproduce untill there is nothing left to sustain them. elephants destroy all about them.

not disagreeing as such, but David Attenborough has pointed out that the elephants are actually managing their environment when they do this destruction, they get rid of the acacia stands, which allows the grass to return, which feeds all the animals on migration. Meanwhile the acacia are taking hold elsewhere, perhaps the elephants know that you have to leave it fallow for a few seasons, but eventually they will destroy that stand and allow the grass to return, so it's a continuously moving patchwork.

As for who is controlling who, we think that we are using certain wheat strains to our advantage, but look how much we devote to caring for them, it seems to me that wheat have got us helping them to dominate entire landscapes and protect them from all competition, we are servants to wheat...

[Guest Gert Lush]

Thanks to everyone who's posted.

Hi Chrystal Farmer!

I think nature (evolution) has provided us with the big brains necessary to analyse morality and raise it to a new level by recognising the difference between good & evil, wrong & right.

Are you saying that there might be some absolute notion of right and wrong, and that we are evolving to a point where we can actually make trhis out?

The truth is humans are pretty selfish, we mostly think about ourselves and not holistically as a species.

Is there something wrong with that?

@ dr_rockster

I don't have any problem with people protecting animals, mate, I think it's quite cool.

But I am saying that we can only genuinely do this from an anthropocentric POV, a "stewardship" if you like.

I am wondering whether people who propose other motives, "fighting for me bruvvers the badgers" or whatever are actually to be taken seriously. That whole "Deep Hole Ecology" or whatever it's called. Basically anything that tries to deny that it's all a HUMAN decision, at the end of the day...

[Guest Gert Lush]

Boojum, agree almost 100%, that was pretty much my take and motivation for starting this thread.

[Guest dr rockster]

Yeah man,(adjusts beret and mirror shades,raises leather clad fist)me bruvvers the badgers!

But seriously Gert,how can we adopt anything other than a stewardship type position?

Is anybody proposing anything else?

Apart from PETA's total liberation concept,the nutters.

[solarchild]

we are the only species able to influnce the ecology of the whole world (for good or bad) i think peta and the like would like to put the genie back in the bottle and have us regress in order to liberate evrything else(6 bllion tarzans). this aint gonna happen and this leaves two alternatives for the improvemnet of life and conditions on this planet- the extintion of homo sapiens or, as you say Gert, a stewardship on our part. i think to be honest though theres gonna be a lot of casualties before we are all singing from the same hymm sheet.

[solarchild]

Do you think a hive mind could be the next evolutionary paradigm shift for the human race? I have had a novel forming in the back of my mind for a while about this for a few years...

Missed that one Utokia, think its as likely as anything else! You heard of proff kevin warrick? didnt he link himself up to his wife with implants so that he could feel what she felt? in his arm i think?

I think like all things, if it becomes militarily benificial to link people then the hive mind is off and running (if it ant already)borg here we come.

ETA. nah on second thoughts i think we have a little too much ego fro any sort of hive mind.

Edited September 2, 2007 by solarchild

[Chris P]

Hi Chrystal Farmer!

Hi mate, hope everything is going well for you.

Sorry, I missed your post earlier.

Nice to see the high level of intellectual philosophy for this weeks discussion.

I didn't even know what anthropocentrism was properly, until after I had made my post.

These sort of discussions are very interesting, and difficult to get a true understanding of, like evolution. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm even contradicting my own answers.

I'll try to answer the points you make as best I can.

Are you saying that there might be some absolute notion of right and wrong, and that we are evolving to a point where we can actually make trhis out?

I don't think there is an absolute notion of right & wrong, it is mainly down to interpretation.

For example, to play a trick on somebody, could be very wrong & hurtful, yet at the same time funny to those not being ridiculed.

Rights & wrongs can be debated by philosphers, that is what we as humans are good for, analysis & evaluation, but this normally takes place afterwards and is a learned process.

It is a very interesting question you pose, and for me it starts to border on religion and the origins of morality.

Take for example, some of the commandments:

Though shall not steal (what even if you're starving to death?)

Though shall not kill (even if somebody has killed your closest loved one)

These types of things are subjective, they can be argued, therefore morality in this respect is a grey area down to individual interpretation which comes about from upbringing & environment.

I like the way you say "Evolving to a point". I was thinking about this very same thing the other day, when does the evolution of a species end?

Is human intelligence evolving, it has been for millions of years, and it seems to be progressing, although if you look at the uneducated chavs it can be difficult to spot.

Is there something wrong with that?

I don't know whether there is anything wrong with that, but it is selfish.

To me it comes down to the level of intelligence and development of the CNS.

Dolphins & Whales are highly intelligent, tuna are not, I'm not judging which deserve to live but being as I have a big brain (compared to other species) I can only support so many other species, I'm voting for those which are intelligent, and possibly even cute.

Would I feel guilty if I saw a Tuna being killed? No

What about a dolphin, yes it is cruel, as I might well be re-incarnated as a dolphin and then think why didn't I fuck them up when I had arms.

It does seem somewhat wierd, dogs yes, dolphins yet, whales yes, pandas yes, sharks no way & tuna fuck off.

It is like everything has been given the 'free for all' - 'survival of the fittest' run and now it's everyman for themselves.

[ghost539]

I feel that there are different definitions of altruism especially in regard to society, some people do good deeds so they can feel good about themselves or they are concerned about how people perceive them. R.D.Laing did a study on this(i think) and found that nearly all good deeds come from a single point of self interest. I may be wrong but i feel the majority of altruism on display from day to day is not altruism in its true sense at all. Our society may have progressed to a point where we don't instantly kill one another on site but mentally and emotionally it is all about oneupmanship and dog eat dog.Take intelligence for instance,how can a person comment on altruism one minute and then make a judgement call of worthiness based upon someones IQ.I remember when i was homeless watching all creeds, religions ,class and colours walk on by and thinking about this and how some of these people probably worked in a caring profession or felt themselves holly. I don't really see how religion can enhance altruism or empathy in any other way than a self serving superficial sense.Kindness for kindness sake is just that but if your talking about most religions then you must beg the question why they are doing these deeds in the first place. With hell a stick and eternal life the carrot these deeds whilst on the surface seemingly kind and good emanate in my opinion from a very different place. Clocking up a total of good deeds on your scorecard may be well and good but its not kindness for kindness sake, its kindness for a reward.

[Chris P]

I don't know whether there is anything wrong with that, but it is selfish.

To me it comes down to the level of intelligence and development of the CNS.

Dolphins & Whales are highly intelligent, tuna are not, I'm not judging which deserve to live but being as I have a big brain (compared to other species) I can only support so many other species, I'm voting for those which are intelligent, and possibly even cute.

Take intelligence for instance,how can a person comment on altruism one minute and then make a judgement call of worthiness based upon someones IQ.

if you meant me then I'll explain further my reason of thought:

I am sympathetic to the plight of other humans, and even other animals but when it comes down to Tuna I have to draw the line somewhere. I've only got so much empathy, I'm not gonna be going on a 'save the amoeba campaign'. Fish are clever enough to survive in their environment, I haven't seen a 'Save the Fish' welfare charity anywhere. Personally I wouldn't fish because I think it is cruel and unnecessary, my brother told me he hooked a fish through the eye before and that put me of going although I do recognise that people need hunt for food, and life is full of 'kill or be killed' for everybody (except vegetarians). I would probably be vegetarian except I would end up starving to death.

I suppose it comes down to how easy it is to associate with the plight of other creatures, dolphins are very intelligent creatures, I'd like to stroke one, but I'm not interested in meeting a Tuna.

I'm not making judgement based on 'somebodies' IQ, I am referring to the brain capacity of different species and those with a central nervous system.

Human Intelligence is a learned process, if you practice doing something you get better at it, even how to learn more efficiently. I pursue knowledge, because it is interesting and I enjoy the challenge of learning new things like my handstands or programming. If I was to look at the 'low IQ' teenagers that have left school with no qualifications and hang about in the street all day writing graffiti on the pavements and smoking soapbar because they don't want to or can't get a job, it isn't really down to a lack of intelligence, more a lack of effort & poor upbringing. I'm not judging them, they're judging themselves.

Here is something (a bit off topic) for thought:

Edited September 4, 2007 by ChrystalFarmer