The human animal

steddyeddy

A book that made a impact on me in my younger years was called the naked ape by Desmond Morris. The book was significant because Morris described man just how he would describe any other animal. He described our evolution, mating strategies, bonding strategies and the rest. Basically in zoological terms he described us in terms of fighting, feeding and f*cking if you'll excuse the phrase.

Many people were outraged that Morris suggested we could be described in zoological terms and not primarily because of relgious beleif. Many people view man as seperate from the animals because of our intelligence.

I personally dont as we quite readily can be slotted into a taxanomic group, clade or grade. Whats everyone else think are we animal or something else?

Mickeroo

I would be of the opinion we are most definitely animals. There's very few traits if any that are seen in humans that can't somehow be shown in the animal world to some extent.

Obviously we're far more evolved in terms of intelligence and ingenuity (possibly emotionally too) but I don't think that separates us from them too much.

We are the only animal that actively tries to conserve and protect other animals though as far as I can see, even if there is no direct benefit in doing so. I guess that is a by product of our heightened awareness and intelligence, we are more equiped to see how we effect the world around us than other animals and we extend our morality beyond our own species because of this I think.

I guess our obsession with the past could also be described as something unique to us, no other animal I'm aware of records their history or goes digging up ruins etc.

Overall I think we're still animals whether we like it or not, without the intention of sounding nihilistic, in the grand scheme of things outside of our own species a human death is no more tragic than a bug on a windshield,

Or something

Sid_Justice

Mickeroo wrote: »

Obviously we're far more evolved in terms of intelligence and ingenuity (possibly emotionally too) but I don't think that separates us from them too much.

I wouldn't say humans are 'more evolved', that implies that evolution is a method of progress from simple to complex, which it actually isn't really.

We are the only animal that actively tries to conserve and protect other animals though as far as I can see, even if there is no direct benefit in doing so.

Interspecies altruism is rare I agree. Wasn't there a video recently of a orang helping a duckling, aren't there cases of female mammals adopting orphans from different species (e.g. dog looking after tiger cubs)?

You could also make the point there are few species, other than humans, who actively try to exterminate other species. While prey-predator relationships exist they are mostly exist in equilibrium. Invasive species, while they put huge pressure on native species, I don't think they're actively trying to drive their rivals into extinction.

I guess that is a by product of our heightened awareness and intelligence, we are more equiped to see how we effect the world around us than other animals and we extend our morality beyond our own species because of this I think.

The evidence would also suggest we completely lack awareness or insight into nature as we cause wars, famine, genocides, pollution, deforestation, nuclear waste, fossil fuel emission etc. the list goes on. Humans have caused this planet much more hardship than good. Much more.

I guess our obsession with the past could also be described as something unique to us, no other animal I'm aware of records their history or goes digging up ruins etc.

Elephants communicate migration patterns that apparently go back multgenerations they also have death rituals but ism not too certain what's fact and what's fiction concerning both.

Overall I think we're still animals whether we like it or not, without the intention of sounding nihilistic, in the grand scheme of things outside of our own species a human death is no more tragic than a bug on a windshield,

I wouldn't agree with his. I think you can argue for the significance of individuals within species based on their biology (ignoring philosophy). A bee hive is formed of a sexually productive queen, some some sexually productive males and 100s of worker females that do not produce. The ecological and evolutionary impact of killing a worker bee is negligible. That bee may be returning to the hive to indicate a particularly rich source of pollen but other than that, it's not really a big deal. The bees death will not have any genetic impact (all the other clones contain the same genetic material) or information loss (probably doesn't know anything any other bee doesn't know) or ecological consequence. There has not been a huge amount of energy expended in producing the bee nor would be much involved in replacing the bee (new workers are made all the time).

Next, consider a giant redwood tree. There has been massive energy contributed to its growth, it would be an awful shame for one to be cut down, killing something that has lived for 1000s of years over the course of a few hours. The energy required to reproduce this would be massive. Loss of this tree would have a massive genetic effect - this tree is unique. There would be a massive ecological effect - the tree is probably the centre piece of a complex micro-ecosystem.

So no, I don't agree with the principle that killing a fly is the same as killing a giant tortoise. One has insignificant ecological, evolutionary, energy consequences and the other has massive.

Mickeroo

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I wouldn't say humans are 'more evolved', that implies that evolution is a method of progress from simple to complex, which it actually isn't really.

You're quite right, I should have said we evolved to a more complex state with regards those traits?

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Interspecies altruism is rare I agree. Wasn't there a video recently of a orang helping a duckling, aren't there cases of female mammals adopting orphans from different species (e.g. dog looking after tiger cubs)?

You could also make the point there are few species, other than humans, who actively try to exterminate other species. While prey-predator relationships exist they are mostly exist in equilibrium. Invasive species, while they put huge pressure on native species, I don't think they're actively trying to drive their rivals into extinction.

I get what you're saying but I think on only very few occasions(if any) is the goal to actually force another animal into extinction, it's usually a by product of our need for a resource that the animal either possesses or gets in the way of or is just unlucky enough to live by. In some ways I don't see it any differently to elephants stripping an area of vegetation to the detriment of other life in the area. I think humans are more like invasive species than you suggest there in that we don't deliberately set out to wipe an animal off the face of the earth, it occurs as the result of what we do in order to survive or maintain our lifestyle.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

The evidence would also suggest we completely lack awareness or insight into nature as we cause wars, famine, genocides, pollution, deforestation, nuclear waste, fossil fuel emission etc. the list goes on. Humans have caused this planet much more hardship than good. Much more.

Is there not cases of chimpanzes commiting genocide? I'm sure I read that somewhere. I can't really argue with your point though, we do and have done a lot of harm to the planet, I think any animal that would colonise the planet to the extent we have would cause damage though. Anyways the planet will recover long after we're gone, as George Carlin once said "The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ****ed." :pac:

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Elephants communicate migration patterns that apparently go back multgenerations they also have death rituals but ism not too certain what's fact and what's fiction concerning both.

Thats fascinating stuff, I think I had heard about the death rituals before but not the migration patterns. I don't think it really equates to recording history and digging up information on the past though but it would definitley equate to having a culture imo.

Sid_Justice wrote: »

I wouldn't agree with his. I think you can argue for the significance of individuals within species based on their biology (ignoring philosophy). A bee hive is formed of a sexually productive queen, some some sexually productive males and 100s of worker females that do not produce. The ecological and evolutionary impact of killing a worker bee is negligible. That bee may be returning to the hive to indicate a particularly rich source of pollen but other than that, it's not really a big deal. The bees death will not have any genetic impact (all the other clones contain the same genetic material) or information loss (probably doesn't know anything any other bee doesn't know) or ecological consequence. There has not been a huge amount of energy expended in producing the bee nor would be much involved in replacing the bee (new workers are made all the time).

Next, consider a giant redwood tree. There has been massive energy contributed to its growth, it would be an awful shame for one to be cut down, killing something that has lived for 1000s of years over the course of a few hours. The energy required to reproduce this would be massive. Loss of this tree would have a massive genetic effect - this tree is unique. There would be a massive ecological effect - the tree is probably the centre piece of a complex micro-ecosystem.

So no, I don't agree with the principle that killing a fly is the same as killing a giant tortoise. One has insignificant ecological, evolutionary, energy consequences and the other has massive.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you there, ecosystems are always forming and collapsing over periods of time, rather like what you said on the extinction thread regards extinction being nothing new or grim. Plants and animals have been evolving and going extinct long before humans showed up and the same fate more than likely awaits humans at some point, the amount of energy needed to create or destroy is irrelevent, its all just part of the ongoing process of life on earth. Humans cut down a redwood to make furniture or whatever, a beaver cuts down a few trees to build a dam or a human is killed in stampede versus a gull being sucked up into an airplane engine; when looked at objectively (leaving aside the fact we should know better than to cut down a redwood of course) I don't feel they are really much different, an animal or plant dies life goes on.

Galvasean

Anyone who thinks humans are not animals or that we are somehow 'beyond' the animal kingdom is simply suffering from blinkered arrogance.

Sid_Justice

Mickeroo wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you there, ecosystems are always forming and collapsing over periods of time, rather like what you said on the extinction thread regards extinction being nothing new or grim. Plants and animals have been evolving and going extinct long before humans showed up and the same fate more than likely awaits humans at some point, the amount of energy needed to create or destroy is irrelevent, its all just part of the ongoing process of life on earth. Humans cut down a redwood to make furniture or whatever, a beaver cuts down a few trees to build a dam or a human is killed in stampede versus a gull being sucked up into an airplane engine; when looked at objectively (leaving aside the fact we should know better than to cut down a redwood of course) I don't feel they are really much different, an animal or plant dies life goes on.

I think I was trying to make the point that killing a fly has no evolutionary consequence because there are millions of flies and within one human life time billions and billions of flies will come and go. Killing a red wood is more significant evolutionary act because there are only hundreds of them and none will regrow within a human life time.

If your point is, killing an individual human has no evolutionary consequence, I do agree. With the exceptions of some geniuses or whatever, individually we are insignificant. In fact, as a planet we could probably do with losing a few billion humans.

I would consider people who don't understand humans position within the animal kingdom as ignorant rather than arrogant. I would doubt there are many people that know anything about biology who actually think humans are beyond it. The people that say nonsense like "how can humans be animals they make ipads" probably don't know anything rather than being arrogant in the face of that knowledge.

JuliusCaesar

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyone who thinks humans are not animals or that we are somehow 'beyond' the animal kingdom is simply suffering from blinkered arrogance.

How can anyone think that we aren't animals?

We eat, we sh*t, we reproduce.... A small knowledge of biology will show that our most innate habits, our structure and workings/physiology are the same or very similar to other animals.

The fact that our species has been able to change the world in many ways doesn't mean that we aren't animals.

I'm struggling with my innate and preferred carnivore, against the horrible way we treat animals nowadays. (My answer is to eat only organic meat. :rolleyes: which I don't really think bears any reflection overall.)

How is it that we feel able to factory farm animals, which has to be one of the cruellest ways of treating animals? Is cheap mince and cheap chicken really worth the cost?

But back on topic, we had The Ascent of Man and also that book by Elaine Morgan (?) which claimed that early humans spent time living in the shallows (hence lack of body hair and the development of breasts) at home when I was a child. I was fascinated, mainly by the arguments - the information wasn't presented as absolute fact.

steddyeddy

The ascent of man is a fascinating book I think the man theory in the book is called the aquatic ape theory! Desmond Morris who also wrote the book the naked ape explains it all here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFRYtPQfyCk

aidoh

As far as I know the aquatic ape hypothesis is a bit rubbish and nobody in anthropology takes it seriously.