The need for reverse anthropomorphism

simu

So, I note that humans have a tendency to attribute characteristics and emotions similar to those of their own to animals and that there is also a growing trend in favour of giving increased protection and rights to certain sorts of animal. Leaving the rights and wrongs of treating animals like this aside, is it perhaps time that we also started to "reverse anthropomorphise" too? That is, that we should keep our tendency of seeing humans as being above and beyond all other animals in check. In some ways, traits of humans seem to make more sense if you see humans as another animal species rather than some sort of pinnacle of evolution. Thoughts?

FlutterinBantam

The day my cat comes in the door ,grabs the zapper from me ,sits down on the best seat and hits "Animal Planet" and then gives me " the look" is the day Il'l believe all that guff.


Until then.... I'm in charge.........(He can watch Sky One like me)

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Humans are animals and despite what some may think our animal charicteristics are just as prevalent as any other animal
Greed-our primary motivator
Self preservation etc.

Sand

Humans are animals and despite what some may think our animal charicteristics are just as prevalent as any other animal
Greed-our primary motivator
Self preservation etc.

Animals dont question their instincts and curb them if they feel they are morally wrong. Humans, for the most part, do. That would be a defining characteristic that seperates humans from animals, along perhaps with tools. Humans of course have instincts. Human dominance is extremely new in the scheme of things and our genes still carry traits that are vital when youre at the bottom of the foodchain, but not so much so when you get to the top and are in a civillisation. I dont think however having instincts implies you are ruled by them, as animals are.

As an example, studies on chimpanzees - who are closely matched to humans genetically - in the wild have revealed that groups of them will attack other groups, murder all the males and young and keep the females alive for breeding. Do chimpanzees and by extension humans have genocide programmed into their genes as some Darwinian way of ensuring only their descendants inherit the earth? Maybe, but most humans would still consider genocide wrong and oppose it.

sean_keevey

sean_keevey wrote:

Humans are animals and despite what some may think our animal charicteristics are just as prevalent as any other animal
Greed-our primary motivator
Self preservation etc.

Humans like other animals have to adapt to their environment to survive.

Compared to other animals, humans have a large capacity to change and regulate that environment.

DadaKopf

Hmm, humanism is the notion that man is commander of the world, superior to all other biological entities. 'Anti-humanism' may by a catchier title!

Animals dont question their instincts and curb them if they feel they are morally wrong. Humans, for the most part, do. That would be a defining characteristic that seperates humans from animals, along perhaps with tools.

Not so much a decisive break as a question of degree. Don't 'lesser' animals modify their behaviour when things don't work? And many use rudimentary tools to optimise tasks? Even parasytal bacteria 'use' other bodies for survival. Sand, you'd be the last one I'd expect to say that morality is something separate from opportunity and cost.

Sand

Not so much a decisive break as a question of degree. Don't 'lesser' animals modify their behaviour when things don't work? And many use rudimentary tools to optimise tasks?

Im not talking about people debating the effectiveness of instinctive actions, Im referring to people debating whether it is right or wrong to engage in those instinctive actions, regardless of their effectiveness. Genocide makes perfect sense from a pure efficiency point of view - enemies are not merely defeated, they are erradicated, with no comeback. Your people alone inherit the land and its resources. No ethnic or religious strife to speak of. The Israeli-Palestinian question would be solved very quickly if one side or the other was wiped out or driven back into the sea. And yet, it is not done and is considered a truly despicable act by the vast majority of people. Theres more to it than genocide being considered ineffective.

As for use of tools, only if you extend it to its boadest possible definition would animals use of say, rocks to open shells in the case of birds, seem applicable. And again, it seems instintive. Birds have yet to refine or figure out a better way to open shells other than drop them from a great height. Not do they consider whether its unduly stressful and cruel to snails to kill them in such a fashion. Humans do.

Even parasytal bacteria 'use' other bodies for survival.

Again a question of instinct, habitat and life cycle which they are ruled by. Not a question of choice.

Sand, you'd be the last one I'd expect to say that morality is something separate from opportunity and cost.

Morality often calls for action that flies in the face of opportunity & cost. Which would probably explain why morality is discredited.

TBH, I wouldnt attempt to stress the human=smart animal theory. If you tell people theyre no better than animals in the street, then why should they act any better than animals in the street? Whilst the late 19th century fascination with building "gentlemen" is sneered at, its worth considering the case of the Titanic. In first class, all the children and all but 5 women of 144 survived, 3 of whom chose to die with their husbands. 70% of the men in first class died, including some of the richest capitalists around. Rich, upper class snobs volunteering to remain behind rather than piling onto the boats - which won out there? Self preservation instinct or the artificial self constructed image of what is expected of a gentleman? Smart animals would have thrown out the weaker women and children and survived. Humans chose not to.

dalk

Sand wrote:

Do chimpanzees and by extension humans have genocide programmed into their genes as some Darwinian way of ensuring only their descendants inherit the earth? Maybe, but most humans would still consider genocide wrong and oppose it.

Genocide (or at least attempted genocide) is such a regular occurrence in human history that i would have to say that it is a shameful part of what we are. In fact a lot of the most recent wars seem to be genocidal in nature - Darfur, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda, Cambodia (Pol-Pot).

But you are right in saying that for the most part humans resist the urge to destroy and kill. Which, as you have pointed out is where we depart from the animals. Chimps will not have dissenters talking about the morality of killing their neighbours. Humans will. This may for the most part stop humans from carrying out these atrocities. But equally, it happens enough for me to not consider genocide an aberration. Race, colour, creed dosent seem to matter.

In first class, all the children and all but 5 women of 144 survived, 3 of whom chose to die with their husbands. 70% of the men in first class died, including some of the richest capitalists around. Rich, upper class snobs volunteering to remain behind rather than piling onto the boats - which won out there? Self preservation instinct or the artificial self constructed image of what is expected of a gentleman? Smart animals would have thrown out the weaker women and children and survived. Humans chose not to.

You could argue that the 'survival instinct' of the women and children won, at the expense of the men.

But i get your point. Personally, i believe for the most part, we are informed by our instincts but not ruled by them.

However, i have no problem with thinking of myself as being "animal" (as opposed to behaving like an "animal"). And i dont feel any less human for it.

Tar.Aldarion

simu wrote:

So, I note that humans have a tendency to attribute characteristics and emotions similar to those of their own to animals and that there is also a growing trend in favour of giving increased protection and rights to certain sorts of animal. Leaving the rights and wrongs of treating animals like this aside, is it perhaps time that we also started to "reverse anthropomorphise" too? That is, that we should keep our tendency of seeing humans as being above and beyond all other animals in check. In some ways, traits of humans seem to make more sense if you see humans as another animal species rather than some sort of pinnacle of evolution. Thoughts?

Well yes, I think everybody should do that. As seen on 'loose' by tommy tiernan, stories from our past like that of the minotaur served the purpose of seperating humans from the rest of the animals while that is all that we are. Baboons and Chimps dig for clean water when the surface water is polluted. Chimps even use sticks for digging tools.
Ravens can learn to open a box to get a treat, and then teach others to do the same.
Fish eaves drop on other fish, even nuclear power was used two billion years before humans existed by other organisms. We may think we know what goes on in an animals head but verily, we do not. Dolphins have been known to rescue humans, bring them to shore or back to their boat. You can not say this is them acting on instinct. Seems like a choice to me. Each brain is different and so is each type of animal. Some are smarter than others. As we are smarter than them. It does not make us better or seperate them. Human is just our species of animal. So down with this sort of thing.

Sleepy

Sand wrote:

Whilst the late 19th century fascination with building "gentlemen" is sneered at, its worth considering the case of the Titanic. In first class, all the children and all but 5 women of 144 survived, 3 of whom chose to die with their husbands. 70% of the men in first class died, including some of the richest capitalists around. Rich, upper class snobs volunteering to remain behind rather than piling onto the boats - which won out there? Self preservation instinct or the artificial self constructed image of what is expected of a gentleman? Smart animals would have thrown out the weaker women and children and survived. Humans chose not to.

Interesting point of reference, what percentage of the second, third and steerage class female and child passengers survived?

rsynnott

Sand wrote:

Animals dont question their instincts and curb them if they feel they are morally wrong. Humans, for the most part, do. That would be a defining characteristic that seperates humans from animals, along perhaps with tools. Humans of course have instincts. Human dominance is extremely new in the scheme of things and our genes still carry traits that are vital when youre at the bottom of the foodchain, but not so much so when you get to the top and are in a civillisation. I dont think however having instincts implies you are ruled by them, as animals are.

Some other animals also use tools to an extent. Consciousness is probably a better gauge; it is suspected by many that some other animals (dolphins, in particular) are self-aware, but there's little hard evidence.

Sand wrote:

As an example, studies on chimpanzees - who are closely matched to humans genetically - in the wild have revealed that groups of them will attack other groups, murder all the males and young and keep the females alive for breeding. Do chimpanzees and by extension humans have genocide programmed into their genes as some Darwinian way of ensuring only their descendants inherit the earth? Maybe, but most humans would still consider genocide wrong and oppose it.

It was rather common at one time not too long ago to wipe out the population of a captured city, or to kill all the able-bodied males or similar. And, indeed, to take women as prizes of war.

rsynnott

Sleepy wrote:

Interesting point of reference, what percentage of the second, third and steerage class female and child passengers survived?

Very few males of any class survived, certainly.