nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The naked ape

A book came out years ago called the naked ape. It was written by a zoologist called Desmond Morris and he took a novel (for the time anyway) view of the human species. He looked at us as he would any other animal and described our mating, fighting, eating and child raising activities just as he would be describing a lion or a chimpanzee. The book generated a lot of criticism at the tme, particularly from right wing groups who objected to the human species being viewed as an animal.

Some people claimed that Disney was resposible for anthropomorpsising animals giving them human emotions. What's your view on this, is there a line between animal and humans or are we just another ape? Is Disney responsible for giving us a more "human" view of animals by conveying them with emotions and feelings?

My view is that there is no line between humans and animals and we are indeed the naked (hairless) ape. The discovery of nuerotransmitters that convey emotion in other animals shows us that we are not unique.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

From inside the human species we seem very different but taken as a whole we're just like every other animal on the planet. We don't really do anything that's totally unique we just do more advanced versions.

I think it's a big mistake to ignore the fact your an animal, I think to elevate yourself above your animal nature you need to be critically aware of the fact you are a simple animal prone to animal behaviour.

Pics or GTF.. wait, ape you said?

male or female?

.Henry Sellers.

I agree, sure just look at that documentary "Planet of the Apes".

We're just an animal, but we are different from other animals.

Do you think any other apes give a damn about us?

I thought (probably incorrectly) that the whole human / animal distinction is something certain religious institutions promoted (animals have no soul etc). Certain other religions see no "line" between animals and humans, and that of course is scientifically more accurate too - we are distinctly different to other species in the planet, but so is every living organism, big or small.

.Henry Sellers. wrote: »

I agree, sure just look at that documentary "Planet of the Apes".

Yeah, I found that documentary very good. Wait a minute. WAIT A MINUTE?? That was earth? You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!

Where To wrote: »

We're just an animal, but we are different from other animals.

No more different than a bird is from a mouse. If you stood a human beside a dog you could point out far more commonalities than you could differences.

steddyeddy wrote: »

A book came out years ago called the naked ape. It was written by a zoologist called Desmond Morris and he took a novel (for the time anyway) view of the human species. He looked at us as he would any other animal and described our mating, fighting, eating and child raising activities just as he would be describing a lion or a chimpanzee. The book generated a lot of criticism at the tme, particularly from right wing groups who objected to the human species being viewed as an animal.

Some people claimed that Disney was resposible for anthropomorpsising animals giving them human emotions. What's your view on this, is there a line between animal and humans or are we just another ape? Is Disney responsible for giving us a more "human" view of animals by conveying them with emotions and feelings?

My view is that there is no line between humans and animals and we are indeed the naked (hairless) ape. The discovery of nuerotransmitters that convey emotion in other animals shows us that we are not unique.

Of course we are animals. We are also the 'paragon of animals' as put by Shakespeare. If you think there is no line between humans and other animals then you have quite a warped mentality

dont mind me piddling in the corner

Im just marking my territory

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Of course we are animals. We are also the 'paragon of animals' as put by Shakespeare. If you think there is no line between humans and other animals then you have quite a warped mentality

What's the line?

ScumLord wrote: »

No more different than a bird is from a mouse. If you stood a human beside a dog you could point out far more commonalities than you could differences.

The same could be said between a human and a piece of coral. Or a rock and and a tree.

It's the differences that define the existence of anything, not the commonalities.

On a genetic level we're animals, but we're capable of abstract thought and self-reflection, and even if other species have neurotransmitters to convey emotion they don't have a cerebral cortex capable of higher thought. Yes we have animalistic impulses, drives, instincts, desires, etc. but we're so far beyond merely being animals that it's a bit simplistic to just base it on a genetic/neuroscientific level, especially since we can pretty much choose (or train ourselves) to ignore the animal side of ourselves if we really want to. Animals might be able to feel emotion, but we can build spaceships.

ScumLord wrote: »

From inside the human species we seem very different but taken as a whole we're just like every other animal on the planet. We don't really do anything that's totally unique we just do more advanced versions.
.

Well i've yet to see a monkey point it's arse to monkey mecca and thank some holy ape spirit for it's existence! So there is that:D

Of course we're animals, the only real difference between us and other primates in particular is our intelligence. We just happen to be whole lot smarter than any other animal. We have learned to change our environment to better suit us, somewhat freeing us from the torturously slow speed limit set by evolution evolution. We don't need to wait 1000 generations to grow fur to gradually settle colder northern areas for example, we were smart enough to make clothes, harness fire and so on, right up to now with all our technology and all the natural limitations it allows us to ignore.
But poke us with a sharp stick and we bleed like any other monkey!

steddyeddy wrote: »

My view is that there is no line between humans and animals and we are indeed the naked (hairless) ape. The discovery of nuerotransmitters that convey emotion in other animals shows us that we are not unique.

Creationist outrage in 5...4...3...2...

Yes, of course we're related to apes, but we truly are special and evolution has bestowed upon us capabilities far, far beyond our nearest cousins in the animal kingdom.

I don't know why this is so controversial or needs so much defense. In the words of V.S. Ramachandran the whole idea than we're merely just another ape, with nothing special to us, is just the secular version of original sin.

Where To wrote: »

We're just an animal, but we are different from other animals.

Do you think any other apes give a damn about us?

Yes humans who have worked with apes will say that apes like gorillas and chimpanzees can develop a bond with them.

This is a video of a boy who fell into a gorilla enclosure. A female gorilla lifted up the boy and carried him towards a place where he could be helped by zookeepers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mcv2e9qvO9M

Adhamh wrote: »

Yes, of course we're related to apes, but we truly are special and evolution has bestowed upon us capabilities far, far beyond our nearest cousins in the animal kingdom.

I don't know why this is so controversial or needs so much defense. In the words of V.S. Ramachandran the whole idea than we're merely just another ape, with nothing special to us, is just the secular version of original sin.

I would completely disagree that we have abilities far far beyond the other apes. We are special but so is every other animal on the planet.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Of course we are animals. We are also the 'paragon of animals' as put by Shakespeare. If you think there is no line between humans and other animals then you have quite a warped mentality

Or a scientific mentality. An objective mentality.

orestes wrote: »

On a genetic level we're animals, but we're capable of abstract thought and self-reflection, and even if other species have neurotransmitters to convey emotion they don't have a cerebral cortex capable of higher thought. Yes we have animalistic impulses, drives, instincts, desires, etc. but we're so far beyond merely being animals that it's a bit simplistic to just base it on a genetic/neuroscientific level, especially since we can pretty much choose (or train ourselves) to ignore the animal side of ourselves if we really want to. Animals might be able to feel emotion, but we can build spaceships.

You can train a dog too, animals have their on version of culture too, Dolphins have distinct behaviour and hunting techniques throughout the world. They had to teach themselves how to do different hunting techniques.

There's no doubt the human is the greatest animal that has ever lived but it's arrogance is unmatched. But we still act like the ape that we are, everything a person does can be predicted and is just a reaction to the environment the same as any other animal.

We are special and unique but those are just our particular adaptations. Birds flying adaptation is just as special and unique.

To answer your question, it is not Disneys fault for some people attributing human characteristics to non human animals, it's OUR fault, as in, it's just human nature.

We are set up to have an anthrocentric view of life and everything around us. It's basically why it took so long for the theory of natural selection to come along, it's an extremely counter intuitive idea.

steddyeddy wrote: »

I would completely disagree that we have abilities far far beyond the other apes. We are special but so is every other animal on the planet.

AFAIK no other species has our capacity for introspection and higher reasoning. It's fairly obvious to anyone with eyes that animals have emotions and personalities of their own, but they are very limited when compared to ours. Apes that have learned to sign for example don't have deep conversations with their handlers. It's more kind of "want food" type stuff. That would strongly suggest that there is something different about us.
Animals - but different animals.

ScumLord wrote: »

You can train a dog too, animals have their on version of culture too, Dolphins have distinct behaviour and hunting techniques throughout the world. They had to teach themselves how to do different hunting techniques.

There's no doubt the human is the greatest animal that has ever lived but it's arrogance is unmatched. But we still act like the ape that we are, everything a person does can be predicted and is just a reaction to the environment the same as any other animal.

We are special and unique but those are just our particular adaptations. Birds flying adaptation is just as special and unique.

The only other animal that has come anywhere near close to human development was the neandterthal, and they aren't around anymore. People are beyond just reacting to their environment, the fact that we're even having this discussion shows that, and that sets us apart from other animals unless Douglas Adams was right and the dolphins are really messing with us and the mice are experimenting on us or something like that. I didn't say that we're not animals, but we're far beyond being just animals. I'm not saying we're better or more important than other animals or that it gives us some kind of right of domination or anything like that, but we are different since we are capable of abstract thought and expression.

I've nothing to add to this discussion but read People Watching too and any/all of Paul Ekman's books.

People Watching covers the more of the same of the Naked Ape but more regarding social habits and patterns while Ekman covers the evolution and purpose of emotions in humans.

My missus says I act like an animal all the time. A jack-ass.

orestes wrote: »

I'm not saying we're better or more important than other animals or that it gives us some kind of right of domination or anything like that, but we are different since we are capable of abstract thought and expression.

I'm fairly convinced that the only difference between humans and other animals is language - our ability to communicate ideas concisely. Other animals are capable of abstract thought, of differentiating between past, present and future, as well as emotions, sympathy and empathy which for a long time we thought were exclusively human traits.

Many animals have shown learning behaviours by mimicking what their parents and peers do, this is communication at its base level and is the foundation on which intelligence is built - the ability to communication ideas and processes across generations.
Then you have vocalisations, another step up, which allow for emotion and intent to be conveyed.

Then you have more specific vocalisations, observed in apes, which communicate more specific ideas. This is likely the beginning evolution of language. The ability to communicate specific ideas or intentions would be a huge boost to any species' ability to survive and adapt. To think about how you communicate a simple idea with a simple vocalisation, just think of training a dog. One word commands, and the dog understand what you want to do.

There would be both a biological and memetic component to the evolution of language - changes in vocal chords allowing for more control over their voice, but also experimentation by individuals introducing new vocalisations into the "vocabulary" which survive if they work.

This eventually leads to spoken language which allows for ideas to be relayed and recalled very accurately. So rather than just watching what the guy next to you is doing and trying to copy him, he can actually tell you what he's doing, step by step and direct you in recreating it accurately.

The spoken word does have shortfalls in that ideas tend to lose accuracy as they are transmitted until after 20 generations the recalled idea only barely resembles the original. Written language then is the next evolution of language because it allows for ideas to be more accurately recorded. Errors and deviations are then only introduced during copying. The printer was a revolution in this regard as it improved accuracy immensely.

Why do I think the only difference between us and the apes is language?

Imagine that tomorrow, everyone woke up and found themselves unable to speak. We could make some vocalisations with our mouths, but no words. In fact, we couldn't even comprehend words - the written word was just shapes on paper and recordings nothing more than gibberish. Sign language, forgotten. You remember how to do things, but permanently lack the ability to communicate to anyone with any accuracy past pointing and making noises?

How long do you think it would be before we all ended up living in tiny communities, fending for ourselves and basically acting like apes? I'd give us a few months.

orestes wrote: »

The only other animal that has come anywhere near close to human development was the neandterthal, and they aren't around anymore.

Well, by many accounts Europeans are the bastard children of humans and Neanderthals. But even before the Neanderthal there were actually a whole lot of upright walking apes. It's sort of unusual we're the only ones left.

People are beyond just reacting to their environment, the fact that we're even having this discussion shows that, and that sets us apart from other animals

Everything is a reaction. Humans are getting good at predicting things now but throughout history we have always learned from mistakes. Every behaviour is essentially a reaction to something otherwise it's coming out of nowhere. Our ability to imagine and plan ahead is our unique ability but it's not totally unique. Other animals have shown more basic versions of it.

I didn't say that we're not animals, but we're far beyond being just animals.

This may be just one of those matter of opinions that we won't agree on. I think we are just animals, we're a fairly unique animal but still just fundamentally an animal and everything that applies to the rest of life on this planet applies to us too. Our technology gives us this perceived notion of grandiose but it wouldn't at all surprise me to find out every other living creature regards itself in the same high esteem. If any one of us was dumped in an unknown environment with no other people around we'd quickly learn that there's nothing at all special about us and we'll die just as easily as any other creature.

I'm not saying we're better or more important than other animals or that it gives us some kind of right of domination or anything like that, but we are different since we are capable of abstract thought and expression.

It's true but despite how amazing all our achievements are it's an evolutionary adaptation that's no more spectacular than birds developing flight and it's no guarantee we'll last any longer than any species that came before us. That is the ultimate test. If we're around as long as crocodiles we can start patting ourselves on the back.

ScumLord wrote: »

What's the line?

that would be the line in the Zoo

Interesting study here, out a few days ago, about how monkeys reject food from humans who are mean to other humans.

http://fragments-of-truth.blogspot.ie/2013/03/monkeys-reject-food-from-people-who-are.html

Ewan McGregor played him in that film I Love You Desmond Morris.

It didn't mention the ape thing though and Jim Carrey was riding him in it.

It was good enough.

I think we're pretty much the same as every other animal. But we do have an ability that no other animal can match.
The ability to destroy.