In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11157
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
ReciprocalSoul 08/19/2010 10:04 PM Report
Freddie: "Thanks for this important revelation of yourself. It puts into perspective for me the general sense of where you are coming from."
-----
You're welcome -- I felt I should explain that.
-----
"My whole thought on this began, in our conversation, with the observation of the chimps in Goodall's documentary, which in turn reminded me of the philosopher Vico's statement."
------
I wasn't familiar with Vico until you mentioned him, and now I'd like to read more about his philosophy. Thanks for explaining this in relation to Joseph Campbell.
------
"I do think in terms of a spiritual existence, not as something to comprehend, but as something to experience and participate in with a sense of awe. it is a state of being, but one that is not separate or distinct from oneself. It is, I think, very personal & intimate."
--------
I think two of my closest relatives would agree with you, since each has spoken of a personal spiritual experience. Still, I'm skeptical.
------
"My own personal feeling is that a "spiritual consciousness" (and "religion" as we now call it) in humans begins -- the "primal" experience -- as a state of awe (beauty, sublimeness) while experiencing the vastly greater powers of nature, as in the thunderstorm, the sun, volcanoes etc. etc. which in turn may become the basis for the formation of concepts (such as "God"), systems of values and structures of societies (rather than the other way around -- a concept in people's minds giving rise to experiences)."
------
Yes, although I see this as the psyche. And some of these experiences, a volcano for example, seem more likely inspire fear than a concept of beauty, unless seen from a safe distance.
------
"In sum we can say that your philosophy & temperament are the defining aspects of how you see, relate to and experience the world and everything in it (always and only through yourself)."
-----
Yes, which is true of all of us :)
ReciprocalSoul 08/19/2010 06:09 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroshow: "Thanks for the links and for your point of view. I've learned a lot from these discussions. Like so many issues we face there is a broad spectrum of points of view with people at the ends of the spectrum often holding those positions for philosophical reasons. One of the great things about the Charlie Rose Show is he promotes intelligent discussion which often leads to better understand of issues. That works best when people listen to what the other person is saying, asking questions to help understand why the person has that point of view. Often that demonstrates that both perspectives have value, but we have to make personal choices within our own comfort zone. One hopes respect and tolerance, rather than violence and intolerance, can come from these explorations."
-----
You're welcome, and thanks for sharing your view as well. I agree completely about the Charlie Rose Show. It indeed promotes intelligent discussion, and with that a better understanding of the issues.
freddie 08/18/2010 02:12 PM Report
ReciprocalSoul - (Addendum) Actually it was Joseph Campbell in a lecture on human development from apes and hominids who pointed out a connection between the aforementioned Goodall's documentary footage and the statement by Vico. This was not my idea or observation (credit due where deserved!). I had to mention this.
freddie 08/18/2010 08:22 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - "I don't think chimpanzees can imagine or comprehend a power that is greater than themselves and other living beings. I'm agnostic and usually don't think in terms of a spiritual existence -- but if it does exist, I'd guess it's a state of being, that doesn't depend on comprehension, or species."
Thanks for this important revelation of yourself. It puts into perspective for me the general sense of where you are coming from.
My whole thought on this began, in our conversation, with the observation of the chimps in Goodall's documentary, which in turn reminded me of the philosopher Vico's statement.
I am in agreement with you that it is doubtful that chimps can "imagine or comprehend a power greater than themselves." (By the way: I didn't use the word "comprehend.")
I do think in terms of a spiritual existence, not as something to comprehend, but as something to experience and participate in with a sense of awe. it is a state of being, but one that is not separate or distinct from oneself. It is, I think, very personal & intimate.
"Thinking out loud":
My own personal feeling is that a "spiritual consciousness" (and "religion" as we now call it) in humans begins -- the "primal" experience -- as a state of awe (beauty, sublimeness) while experiencing the vastly greater powers of nature, as in the thunderstorm, the sun, volcanoes etc. etc. which in turn may become the basis for the formation of concepts (such as "God"), systems of values and structures of societies (rather than the other way around -- a concept in people's minds giving rise to experiences). So what I mean by "spiritual existence" is a consciousness which has a sense of awe and even reverence for a mysterious and greater power (in my thinking, nature and nature's events). The point in fact for me is that we do not comprehend this vastly greater power -- and perhaps could never comprehend it. So like animals, we are all beings subject to the often unpredictable and powerful energies which are apparently "beyond" (yet "in") all of us.
My "suggestion" about the chimps in the Goodall documentary is to me only a possible "germ" or hint of something which would later develop in the consciousness of our own species. Since we (chimps & humans) are "cousins," one could draw this comparison, I think.
In sum we can say that your philosophy & temperament are the defining aspects of how you see, relate to and experience the world and everything in it (always and only through yourself). Animals experience the world in many ways just like us, on their own respective levels of cognition & intelligence. They don't have philosophies like us, but they do feel and think and experience in their own ways -- even plants (recent scientific evidence seems to confirm this)! We are all from the same place. I think it's beautiful.
ReciprocalSoul 08/17/2010 08:13 PM Report
Correction: I don't know if there's a difference in how they perceive hunger -- should be -- I don't know if there's a difference in how they perceive thunder.
I probably made the mistake because I happen to be hungry :)
ReciprocalSoul 08/17/2010 08:09 PM Report
Freddie: "That's interesting that some of your dogs barked louder at the thunder. I don't know if it's a "challenge" impulse -- it might be. But the point I take notice of is that some of these creatures are excited and invigorated by the thunder: the alpha chimps beating their chests and running about, jumping, swinging on vines, etc. Does "pure fear" invigorate like this?"
-------
I think these behaviors show dominant chimpanzees are confident enough to demonstrate their strength, or in other words, challenge something that sounds powerful. So in that sense I think the noise/the threat/or however they perceive thunder is invigorating, but not more powerful than they are.
Apparently, the other chimpanzees didn't feel they were strong enough to do that.
-----
"This behavior could be some kind of "power" experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a creature apprehends thunder as a "competitor" or rival power."
-----
Yes, I know my interpretation may be wrong.
-----
"It may just be a reaction that is stimulated or inspired by the powerful manifestation of nature, which in a certain way is "in" the creatures (and all of us), because they seem to be experiencing it in their own way. (I'm "thinking out loud" here!)"
-------
It may be in all of us, but I think it's an abstraction that chimpanzees can't understand. I can't understand it myself.
------
"the fact that some of the chimps and some of your dogs are apprehensive while some are displaying this other kind of remarkable invigorated behavior may suggest what I mentioned earlier: the notion of an apprehension of a power superior to any of our individual existences. And this could be interpreted as an incipient "spiritual" consciousness."
------
I don't think chimpanzees can imagine or comprehend a power that is greater than themselves and other living beings. I'm agnostic and usually don't think in terms of a spiritual existence -- but if it does exist, I'd guess it's a state of being, that doesn't depend on comprehension, or species.
----
"(Do dogs have the capacity to have a "spiritual" consciousness?! This seems kind of funny, doesn't it?!)"
-----
Yes it is kinda funny, but interesting nevertheless :) I think humans are unique in believing in a world beyond this one.
-----
"The idea of "what thunder is" to most humans today is a concept of "sound created by an electrical charge in the atmosphere." To more intelligent animals such as chimps, there isn't this concept, obviously. But there may be in them the apprehension of a power vastly greater than any single organism that inspires or invigorates them. The fact that they do not understand a scientific concept does not rule out the possibility of an instinctive apprehension of "power systems" relating to each other. There may also be critical differences between some of the chimps' displays and those of your dogs. Just more food for thought!"
-----
It's possible. The physiological difference between chimpanzees and dogs would also distinguishes their behavior, though I don't know if there's a difference in how they perceive hunger. In any case, it certainly is food for thought!
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/17/2010 06:22 PM Report
RecipracolSoul: Thanks for the links and for your point of view. I've learned a lot from these discussions. Like so many issues we face there is a broad spectrum of points of view with people at the ends of the spectrum often holding those positions for philosophical reasons. One of the great things about the Charlie Rose Show is he promotes intelligent discussion which often leads to better understand of issues. That works best when people listen to what the other person is saying, asking questions to help understand why the person has that point of view. Often that demonstrates that both perspectives have value, but we have to make personal choices within our own comfort zone. One hopes respect and tolerance, rather than violence and intolerance, can come from these explorations.
freddie 08/17/2010 08:49 AM Report
RecipracolSoul - (Addendum to previous message to you) "I think all my dogs and the chimpanzees regarded the the thunder as a thing that made noise. And similarly, humans who didn't understand what thunder is might consider a being."
The idea of "what thunder is" to most humans today is a concept of "sound created by an electrical charge in the atmosphere." To more intelligent animals such as chimps, there isn't this concept, obviously. But there may be in them the apprehension of a power vastly greater than any single organism that inspires or invigorates them. The fact that they do not understand a scientific concept does not rule out the possibility of an instinctive apprehension of "power systems" relating to each other. There may also be critical differences between some of the chimps' displays and those of your dogs.
Just more food for thought!
freddie 08/17/2010 07:43 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - "As I watched the video, I was reminded of my dogs, who had the same reaction as the chimpanzees. When you mentioned the incident, I expected they would only be frightened of thunder, as some of my dogs were. So I didn't explain that my other dogs barked loudly as if to challenge it.
I think all my dogs and the chimpanzees regarded the the thunder as a thing that made noise. And similarly, humans who didn't understand what thunder is might consider a being."
That's interesting that some of your dogs barked louder at the thunder. I don't know if it's a "challenge" impulse -- it might be. But the point I take notice of is that some of these creatures are excited and invigorated by the thunder: the alpha chimps beating their chests and running about, jumping, swinging on vines, etc. Does "pure fear" invigorate like this? My feeling has been that fear tends to invigorate only for an impulse to self-protection. Of course maybe their invigorated behavior is another form of self-protection, but it is one that is "courageous" and power-driven. Otherwise I think fear tends to "de-invigorate" or "mortify" or something like this. This behavior could be some kind of "power" experience, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a creature apprehends thunder as a "competitor" or rival power. It may just be a reaction that is stimulated or inspired by the powerful manifestation of nature, which in a certain way is "in" the creatures (and all of us), because they seem to be experiencing it in their own way. (I'm "thinking out loud" here!)
I think you're right that these creatures are regarding the thunder as a thing that made noise -- and noise (and sound) is a very powerful stimulus to all life forms that can hear or sense sound. But the fact that some of the chimps and some of your dogs are apprehensive while some are displaying this other kind of remarkable invigorated behavior may suggest what I mentioned earlier: the notion of an apprehension of a power superior to any of our individual existences. And this could be interpreted as an incipient "spiritual" consciousness (of course not in a Christian sense of a god distinct from and competing with humans, but in the sense of a creature having a capacity to relate and respond in a vital way to a power greater than it's own individual existence which may be different from a response to another creature, as in the struggle to survive and compete for food, etc.). But all this is, like I said earlier, just a conjecture. Maybe it's a bit of a stretch. (Do dogs have the capacity to have a "spiritual" consciousness?! This seems kind of funny, doesn't it?!)
But -- do you see what I'm saying?
ReciprocalSoul 08/17/2010 04:25 AM Report
In Bourdain's video about foie gras, the veterinarian says force feeding a long pipe down a bird's throat is "natural for ducks". Is that not absurd?
-------
Donlikesthecharlierosesnow: "What do you know about how birds feed?"
-------
I know they eat when they want to eat, and they don't push tubes down their throats. There's nothing natural about force feeding, and for the veterianarian to say that it was is actually dishonest..... I wonder who's paying his salary?
ReciprocalSoul 08/17/2010 04:17 AM Report
Freddie: "There's a YouTube video of the film footage from the Goodall documentary in which you may see this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M "
------
Thank you for the link. As I watched the video, I was reminded of my dogs, who had the same reaction as the chimpanzees. When you mentioned the incident, I expected they would only be frightened of thunder, as some of my dogs were. So I didn't explain that my other dogs barked loudly as if to challenge it.
I think all my dogs and the chimpanzees regarded the the thunder as a thing that made noise. And similarly, humans who didn't understand what thunder is might consider a being.
As it happens, I first watched the video with sound. I'm not sure what the narrator was suggesting, but I think he might have been using the incident as an example of how early humans formed a concept of God.
Then I watched it without sound, and it seems as that some chimpanzees were apprehensive to say the least, but it wasn't clear that their leader was challenging the thunder. So I have to wonder if the narrator's interpretation was correct.
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/16/2010 04:49 PM Report
In Bourdain's video about foie gras, the veterinarian says force feeding a long pipe down a bird's throat is "natural for ducks". Is that not absurd?
What do you know about how birds feed? They swallow snakes and all kinds of prey and it goes directly down to their gizzard where is ground up with hard materials they take in as well. They wouldn't be able to do this if they gagged on their food. So the veterinarian might actually know what he's talking about. If one approaches these issues by saying I wouldn't like that, so the bird must not like it either, that doesn't get one very close to understanding the issue. When television programs show operations on animals people complain, even though these are the same procedures used on humans.
TobyNSaunders 08/16/2010 09:48 AM Report
That claim that chimps 'might not speak some English but just seem to speak it' is ridiculous: of course they can speak a little bit... they're as conscious as human teenagers... they speak to one another anyway.
In the rainforest, there are multi-species languages which warn of particular types of hunters to avoid.
TobyNSaunders 08/16/2010 09:46 AM Report
Correction: pigs are more conscious than dogs, -they're 'on a par' with three year old humans.
freddie 08/16/2010 08:20 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - "I'm not familiar with Goodall's study. Was their reaction not one of fear? I ask because some of my dogs were very frightened of thunder."
Well, it may be difficult to really know whether the response of the chimps is one of fear or something more. But at this point we have only to go by an "impression" based on what we see.
There's a YouTube video of the film footage from the Goodall documentary in which you may see this incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMjTSJR3M6M
I don't advocate the ideas expressed by the narrator of this video, which seems to be trying to promote Christianity (it might be better to watch this video with the sound off, or to ignore the voice of the narrator, as the narration is to me a bit annoying. The footage is what's important).
As I watch this incident with the chimps, I am tempted to think that there is fear in their behavior, but that there may be more to it. The narrator suggests that it's a kind of emulation of power, as if to say, "I'm big and strong too! You can't scare me!" I disagree with this interpretation (this may be a Christian bias and/or projection). To me it seems that the chimps are "electrified" by the power of the lightning and the sound of the thunder. This is to say, they are invigorated and spurred on to run around and feel "more alive" or active. If they were simply reacting in a state of fear, I would think they would look afraid and maybe even immediately seek shelter or run to a more protected place. They don't do this.
My pointing out this incident is only a suggestion. It's not "proof" and perhaps we'll never really know. But you can be your own judge. At the very least, it is very interesting.
ReciprocalSoul 08/16/2010 03:15 AM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "F. Barbara Orlans, who passed away in June, was founder of The Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW) and has written extensively on the use of animals in medicine and education. She understood the complexity of these issues and tried to develop rules for humane practices. She felt there were times when animals could be ethically used in medicine and education.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8 "
-----
I don't agree -- there are alternatives to animal research which can and should be further developed.
The meaning of "humane" is "characterized by sympathy with or consideration, compassion and benevolence for others":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane But as applied by F. Barbara Orlans and "animal welfare" in general, it really means less cruel.
----
"When Rick Steves and Anthony Bourdain go to foie gras farms to see if the feeding process is cruel can we believe them when they say no. I know you'll say we have no right to kill the birds in the first place, but I'm just raising the question "who's telling the truth".
-----
Yes, I think ducks shouldn't be exploited, and farming is inherently cruel. About the video, I have to consider its source. Anthony Bourdain works with the National Animal Interst Alliance which is a front group for animal enterprise:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Animal_Interest_Alliance
In Bourdain's video about foie gras, the veterinarian says force feeding a long pipe down a bird's throat is "natural for ducks". Is that not absurd?
In another video Bourdain says he hates vegetarians. I guess he's entertaining the NAIA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P2g7smQME&NR=1
ReciprocalSoul 08/16/2010 01:46 AM Report
Freddie: " So by the word "ignorance" I am suggesting the existence of unconsciousness which could be made conscious -- what we could come to know or be in the contexts of our various human cultures and environments."
---
Thanks for clarifying that. Since we're speaking about the differences and similarities of humans and other animals, one thing we have in common with some nonhumans is the ability to dream. I don't think they have complex dreams as we do, but it shows that some nonhumans have a subconscious - or at least I think that's what Freud would say.
But we differ in that we can talk about the dreams we remember, and possibly work on understanding them. I doubt nonhumans recall dreams, and even if they did, they can't talk about them.
----
"One other interesting distinction between humans and animals that fascinates me is the art-making impulse (I am an artist, incidentally). I've seen the many now-famous examples of apes and even elephants creating pictures with brushes and paints, and this is just totally amazing. But these creatures seem to be prompted by an artificial situation -- are given the tools & materials and encouraged. In their natural situations we don't see them impelled to do it, but this may be due to a state of their respective "cultural" developments or some other physical, physiological limitation. I'd be interested to hear from you on this, what you know about it, and what your thoughts are regarding animal potential for creative art expression."
----
I don't know the specifics on nonhumans who paint, but I suspect they were encouraged/taught to immitate a human painter. I think that shows they can learn, but I doubt they actually have a need to express themselves in visual art. On the other hand, although it's not considered art, some birds create music, and imo, they do have a need to express themselves in that way.
----
"I can imagine that our human impulse to express ourselves in images (abstract or naturalistic) has its roots in animals (just as everything else does). But I've never been clear as to how really strong the impulse in certain animals to paint pictures is."
------------
I think you have identified something which is uniquely human -- our interest in creating visual images/art.
----
"The earliest examples of human art making are thought to go back as far as the development of homo sapiens, which is 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. So the conventional wisdom is that art-making -- creative expression in images and forms, is a uniquely human impulse and endeavor. It is also tied in with a universal development of human culture, in the rise of humanity's consciousness of mortality and the difficulties of relating to a life of killing and eating, etc."
----
Thank you for explaining that. I'm artistic too, but I didn't know that until now.
-----
"It is a spiritual (or "religious") manifestation, and this too has precedents in animals, as for instance the chimps in Jane Goodall's studies who display an amazing emotional response to thunder claps. (The philosopher Vico said that the first "notion of divinity" or experience of the divine is in the violent and sublime energy of the thunder clap!)"
-----
I'm not familiar with Goodall's study. Was their reaction not one of fear? I ask because some of my dogs were very frightened of thunder.
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/15/2010 06:21 PM Report
ReciprocalSoul: F. Barbara Orlans, who passed away in June, was founder of The Scientists Center for Animal Welfare (SCAW) and has written extensively on the use of animals in medicine and education. She understood the complexity of these issues and tried to develop rules for humane practices. She felt there were times when animals could be ethically used in medicine and education.
When Rick Steves and Anthony Bourdain go to foie gras farms to see if the feeding process is cruel can we believe them when they say no. I know you'll say we have no right to kill the birds in the first place, but I'm just raising the question "who's telling the truth".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8
freddie 08/15/2010 07:49 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - Thanks for your feedback and links. This is very interesting, and I can see from your knowledge that this is an issue of great complexity.
I do feel personally that animals are a part of our spiritual world, which is probably why we so often bond with them and display such a great fascination in going to zoos, natural history museums, watching nature documentaries and so on. Your stated interest in the human origins of morality, behavior and psyche in animals is an interest of mine too, and I think that this could explain our deep curiosity about them.
My statement regarding some humans being "ignorant" and animals being "innocent" (generally) is based on the earlier stated notion of "potential," which you questioned as well. By potential I mean those aspects of an individual creature (human or other animal) which are "naturally possible" but remain undeveloped, unrealized or unlived, as for example an ability, talent or attribute which an individual may be impelled to develop given the right conditions and environment. It is said that humans typically use some small percentage of their brains, and I sometimes wonder (but am not sure) if this may be an indicator that they are not all that they could be. I think one can really see this in how opportunities and environmental influences shape individuals (and cultures), fostering development of certain faculties (or muscles) while leaving others undeveloped or unknown. There is also the idea of an unconscious psyche (which may apply to both humans and other animals -- maybe you have some research info on this too), which suggests that "undercurrents" of psychological life may be going on with little or no awareness on the surface. But these emotions, thoughts and so on can be made conscious. I've experienced and witnessed many examples where people are not in touch with deeper feelings in themselves, but then given the right circumstances and the right individual temperament they can become conscious of those deeper layers. So by the word "ignorance" I am suggesting the existence of unconsciousness which could be made conscious -- what we could come to know or be in the contexts of our various human cultures and environments.
One other interesting distinction between humans and animals that fascinates me is the art-making impulse (I am an artist, incidentally). I've seen the many now-famous examples of apes and even elephants creating pictures with brushes and paints, and this is just totally amazing. But these creatures seem to be prompted by an artificial situation -- are given the tools & materials and encouraged. In their natural situations we don't see them impelled to do it, but this may be due to a state of their respective "cultural" developments or some other physical, physiological limitation. I'd be interested to hear from you on this, what you know about it, and what your thoughts are regarding animal potential for creative art expression.
I can imagine that our human impulse to express ourselves in images (abstract or naturalistic) has its roots in animals (just as everything else does). But I've never been clear as to how really strong the impulse in certain animals to paint pictures is.
The earliest examples of human art making are thought to go back as far as the development of homo sapiens, which is 100,000 - 200,000 years ago. So the conventional wisdom is that art-making -- creative expression in images and forms, is a uniquely human impulse and endeavor. It is also tied in with a universal development of human culture, in the rise of humanity's consciousness of mortality and the difficulties of relating to a life of killing and eating, etc. It is a spiritual (or "religious") manifestation, and this too has precedents in animals, as for instance the chimps in Jane Goodall's studies who display an amazing emotional response to thunder claps. (The philosopher Vico said that the first "notion of divinity" or experience of the divine is in the violent and sublime energy of the thunder clap!)
Anyway, I would be glad to hear about any info you have on animals and art-making.
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 11:19 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "If one eats chicken once a week or feeds their dog that much meat, that 52 animals a year, 2500 animals in 50 years. Using a few humanely treated animals to understand biology pales in comparison..."
-------------
Yes, billions of farm animals are killed for human consumption, but that doesn't justify harming others to "teach" biology.
Pet food doesn't contain whole chickens. I understand you oppose animal rights, but you can't change the fact that farm animals are not killed to feed other animals.
------------
"but education is an easy victim of animal rights efforts because people do not understand its value. People flock to Body Worlds because they want to see what they look like inside. Many of those preparations have been used in biology teaching for years. People don't realize their muscles really look more like what they see in the supermarket. Most people are turned of by blood and guts. It takes some experience before one realizes they're looking at some of the most sophisticated phenomena in nature. The result should be a more sensitive understanding and respect for life."
---------
I think respecting life begins with supporting the right of humans and other animals to live on their own terms
-- exploiting them has no place in that.
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 10:51 PM Report
Freddie, here's a link to several videos of nonhuman animals adopting other species:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mkz93xIlZM
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 10:45 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "Anyone with experience with living materials knows this kind of understanding can't be simulated. How well would you understand and appreciate flowers if you only looked at them on you computer? The same is true for the rest of biology."
------------
Looking at nonhuman animals is not the problem, but I think your intentions would be more than that. The best way for humans to learn about other animals is to observe them in their natural habitat. There's no justification for harming them to "teach" students. Medical schools are finally realizing this. Shouldn't other schools too?
-------------
"You can learn much more about real biology in the supermarket than you can in most classrooms because of restrictions on school use."
----------
From slabs of flesh and organs? There was a time when I bought and cooked them, and I didn't learn anything.
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 08:01 PM Report
Freddie: "Now I ask you: Is there any example of non-human animals in which an individual gives her life for another whom she doesn't know? We have examples of non-human animals, for instance, mothers giving their lives -- literally, for their kin; exhibiting characteristics of morality and empathy; non-selfish behavior; and even -- amazingly, animals of one species showing compassion for a member of a completely different species. But I have never heard of or seen any evidence of animals having deeply felt emotions for other creatures they are not related to, to the extent that they would spontaneously put their own life on the line to save the other."
------------
There are many examples of free-living and domesticated animals who've adopted the young of other species, without knowing them prior before that. If adults adopt orphans as their own, then it seems likely they would defend them from danger, possibly even risking their lives.
In 2002,a lioness in Kenya adopted her third baby oryx. Previously, one infant oryx was eaten by other lions while she was sleeping. Another showed signs of malnution, and was taken from her. It's not clear if the lioness rescued the infants or stole them, but she was fiercely protective. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1905363.stm
Also, dogs have risked their lives to save humans, not always those they know.
------------
"Humans who reject the notion of the unity of all life can be said to be "ignorant." But this doesn't mean that they don't experience it! By contrast, animals are not "ignorant" because they cannot know this -- they are "innocent." And this is one notion of what it means to be human -- which nobody seems to be talking about because we are always so focused on either physical anatomy or behavioralist conceptions."
-----------
I'm not sure I understand you here.
-----------
"I don't argue with your points about animals. The research is clear. If you are not convinced by my argument that there is a uniquely human consciousness that all (99.9%) humans have, please present your argument.
My argument may not be scientifically measurable. But it can be known by experience. And I feel that in discussing this topic it is important to try to look beneath the surface veneer of prejudices and other forms of cultural conditioning, to what humans manifestly experience on a deeper level. I might be wrong simply on the premise that animals may have such experiences but are unable to communicate them to us."
------------
Since comprehension in humans may vary, perhaps what most distinguishes humans from other animals is our ability to symbolize. We can also invision a spiritual world -- but if such a thing exists, how do we know nonhuman beings are not part of it? I think I've explained my argument in an earlier post, that although average humans have a wider range of comprehension, nonhuman beings can indeed think, feel, and experience emotions.
Some have a language of their own. And I forgot to mention personality and culture. If anyone is interested, there's an article in the New Scientist: "Six 'uniquely' human traits now found in animals" by Kate Douglas, at http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13860-six-uniquely-human-traits-now-found-in-animals-.html
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 07:00 PM Report
Freddie: "What is less common but widely known is the scenario in which a human being gives his or her life for another (human being or other creature) whom he or she does not know. I live in New York, and couple of years ago there was an extraordinary incident in which a person fell onto the subway tracks at a station just before the arrival of an oncoming train. Another man on the platform spontaneously threw himself onto the tracks to shield and protect the other person by pressing his body down, so that the train would pass over the two of them unscathed. This man did not know the other person. And this man was by every account, an "average" human being. His action was not deliberative or preconceived, but spontaneous."
What is more common, I sense, is the collective emotion of the other humans as such an event transpires. There is a deeply felt response by a vast majority of people who see or hear about such a scenario. Why are we so deeply moved by such a tragedy, and by the selfless action of a person who didn't know the other person?"
------------
Well, *maybe it's because many (or hopefully most) humans, and other social animals, are inherently empathetic, which was/is fundamental to the altruism that helped social groups survive. We feel empathy for the man who fell onto the tracks (after all, that could happen to us or a family member too), and so we rejoice in the altruism and courage of the man who risked his own life to rescue the fallen stranger. *Maybe some people will also want to emulate this hero. At the same time, I think it's worth noting that both the stranger and the hero are the same species.
I too live in New York, and remember this incident :)
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 06:20 PM Report
Freddie: The "spark" I speak of is present in all life forms: It is the vital aspect. But the experience of being "fully human" is distinguished by consciousness and "comprehensivity" of thinking, feeling etc. It is not, I think, strictly a question of morals & empathy.
----------
Thanks for your engagement, as well. I'm not sure what you mean by 'comprehensivity'. I think average human adult comprehension is usually more involved than that of a nonhuman adult -- but some human adults have less comprehension than nonhumans, and I think you'll agree they are not less human than the average. Also, many nonhuman beings can indeed think, feel, and experience emotions -- and there's no reason to think they perceive physical and emotional experience less than we do, unless we subscribe to speciesism.
------------
"Now I'm going to say that in another manner of speaking a human being does not have to be a "genius" or "enlightened Buddha" to have "metaphysical insights" -- and I'll explain what I mean by this phrase. Metaphysical insights (or experiences) are apprehensions and identifications of a greater or transcending (the ego) life-being, as in the realization, "the one life in many." Nearly all humans (99.9%) can and do spontaneously experience this (apparently, evidently), in some cases not uncommonly."
--------------
What distinguishes us from nonhumans who live in and identify with their social groups?
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/14/2010 03:00 PM Report
ReciprocalSoul: Anyone with experience with living materials knows this kind of understanding can't be simulated. How well would you understand and appreciate flowers if you only looked at them on you computer? The same is true for the rest of biology. You can learn much more about real biology in the supermarket than you can in most classrooms because of restrictions on school use. The focus now is more on molecules and ecology, making it more difficult for living experience to show up in the classroom. With budget cuts it will be even harder. My 5th grade teacher asked me to bring in a fresh heart from the meat market. We learned a lot. Then, amazingly, if my memory is correct, my mother cooked it for dinner. If one eats chicken once a week or feeds their dog that much meat, that 52 animals a year, 2500 animals in 50 years. Using a few humanely treated animals to understand biology pales in comparison, but education is an easy victim of animal rights efforts because people do not understand its value. People flock to Body Worlds because they want to see what they look like inside. Many of those preparations have been used in biology teaching for years. People don't realize their muscles really look more like what they see in the supermarket. Most people are turned of by blood and guts. It takes some experience before one realizes they're looking at some of the most sophisticated phenomena in nature. The result should be a more sensitive understanding and respect for life.
ReciprocalSoul 08/14/2010 12:55 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "Reciprocal Soul: Where does the meat you feed your pets come from? By education I mean biology labs in high schools, colleges and med schools plus now home schooling."
The meat I've fed my dogs comes from farm animals who are bred and killed for human consumption, which couldn't be sold to humans. If farm animals were deliberately killed for dogs, I would feed them vegan dog food.
There are a number of theories on the domestication of wolves. I think their continual association with humans was likely based on a shortage of their own food source -- allowing themselves to be domesticated was their best chance of obtaining food. If indeed their alternative was starvation, they didn't have a viable choice, but in any case, I don't agree with those who romanticize that wolves and humans fell in love with each other.
Surely, wolves couldn't understand that it was not in their longterm interest to be commodified into lifelong dependents, inbred to the extent they have over 300 genetic abnormalities, exploited and killed at the behest of bi-pedal primates who've designated their status as property.
I agree completely with missinglink. Because dogs and other animals are property, they can be used against their interests by their owners, by pharmaceutical companies, in medical research, school labs, and home schooling. Thankfully, several medical universities have stopped using the animal model. John Hopkins and others are developing alternatives. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has much more information, including the inaccuracy of animal research.
When I was in high school, my biology teacher attached a wired to the heart of a live frog to demonstrate circulation. I learned nothing more than I could have learned from a simulation. I wish my teacher had known that.
freddie 08/14/2010 11:57 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - (You may read the comment below this one first, as this is a relatively brief addendum to that earlier one) After writing the message to you below, the fact of human brutality occurred to me as a psychological complication of the topic I am discussing. I feel I have to address this in light of the fact that for every instance of human goodness, there is equivalent evil.
This problem does not seem to have an adequate scientific explanation. But I think it does have a psychological and spiritual implication as well as saying something remarkable about human beings: They are capable of the most compassionate and creative acts, but also equally capable of the most horrifyingly destructive and hateful acts as well.
This is a problem, I think, having its source in the psychology of individuals immersed in group or "mass" psychologies. It is a fact that human beings can be highly susceptible to suggestion and brainwashing by belief systems and ideologies. I don't have to tell you that history provides bountiful examples of "human beings" massacring others without (apparently) any of that "deep feeling" of which I referred in my past message to you.
I am mentioning this because I don't think it changes the deeper aspect of what I've been discussing -- that there is a uniquely human consciousness that is possessed by most. Of course the only way to imagine evidence for this is to think about what a person who is not "insane" but who has committed brutal & hateful acts (such as mass murder in a time of war) would be like in a different environment. Environment shapes so much of the way human beings think and feel. In a different environment and with the right conditions, for instance, I might be capable of doing terrible things that I would never think about or want to do in the one in which I now live. (Yes, theoretically I could be brainwashed in ways difficult to conceive in my present state of mind. But underneath that brainwashed mind is a human being, and I am woefully ignorant in my inability to experience that deeply rich & satisfying identitiy.)
I hope this addendum gives a little more surface and depth to what I've been discussing with you. Thanks for your engagement.
freddie 08/14/2010 09:33 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - I'm going to take another tack on this question of what distinguishes humans from other animals by giving you a couple of examples. But please bear in mind here: I am interested in learning -- so if you can convince me that my argument is insufficient or invalid, you will have taught me some good things. I nevertheless feel that there is a uniquely human aspect -- so I am going to try to give you a description of my thoughts on this topic.
The question here is what does it mean to be human. The "spark" I speak of is present in all life forms: It is the vital aspect. But the experience of being "fully human" is distinguished by consciousness and "comprehensivity" of thinking, feeling etc. It is not, I think, strictly a question of morals & empathy.
Now I'm going to say that in another manner of speaking a human being does not have to be a "genius" or "enlightened Buddha" to have "metaphysical insights" -- and I'll explain what I mean by this phrase. Metaphysical insights (or experiences) are apprehensions and identifications of a greater or transcending (the ego) life-being, as in the realization, "the one life in many." Nearly all humans (99.9%) can and do spontaneously experience this (apparently, evidently), in some cases not uncommonly.
What is less common but widely known is the scenario in which a human being gives his or her life for another (human being or other creature) whom he or she does not know. I live in New York, and couple of years ago there was an extraordinary incident in which a person fell onto the subway tracks at a station just before the arrival of an oncoming train. Another man on the platform spontaneously threw himself onto the tracks to shield and protect the other person by pressing his body down, so that the train would pass over the two of them unscathed. This man did not know the other person. And this man was by every account, an "average" human being. His action was not deliberative or preconceived, but spontaneous.
What is more common, I sense, is the collective emotion of the other humans as such an event transpires. There is a deeply felt response by a vast majority of people who see or hear about such a scenario. Why are we so deeply moved by such a tragedy, and by the selfless action of a person who didn't know the other person?
Now I ask you: Is there any example of non-human animals in which an individual gives her life for another whom she doesn't know? We have examples of non-human animals, for instance, mothers giving their lives -- literally, for their kin; exhibiting characteristics of morality and empathy; non-selfish behavior; and even -- amazingly, animals of one species showing compassion for a member of a completely different species. But I have never heard of or seen any evidence of animals having deeply felt emotions for other creatures they are not related to, to the extent that they would spontaneously put their own life on the line to save the other.
Humans who reject the notion of the unity of all life can be said to be "ignorant." But this doesn't mean that they don't experience it! By contrast, animals are not "ignorant" because they cannot know this -- they are "innocent." And this is one notion of what it means to be human -- which nobody seems to be talking about because we are always so focused on either physical anatomy or behavioralist conceptions.
I don't argue with your points about animals. The research is clear. If you are not convinced by my argument that there is a uniquely human consciousness that all (99.9%) humans have, please present your argument. My argument may not be scientifically measurable. But it can be known by experience. And I feel that in discussing this topic it is important to try to look beneath the surface veneer of prejudices and other forms of cultural conditioning, to what humans manifestly experience on a deeper level.
I might be wrong simply on the premise that animals may have such experiences but are unable to communicate them to us. But then, how can we know anything at all? I also feel that it is important for human beings to acknowledge their deeper feeling aspects as real indicators of who & what they uniquely may be.
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/13/2010 10:54 PM Report
Reciprocal Soul: Where does the meat you feed your pets come from? By education I mean biology labs in high schools, colleges and med schools plus now home schooling.
ReciprocalSoul 08/13/2010 07:36 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "Seems like we're back to square one. You're feeding your pets meat, which means you're supporting the raising and killing of the animals the meat comes from. Your saying that's okay because you care about your pets, even if you care less about the animals the meat comes from. And you're say it's okay for me to do this, but others should not use animals for teaching, medical research, and other things that help man understand and improve the quality of life for himself and animals."
-------------
Nope - the conditions are not comparable. First, I'm talking about feeding carnivores, and second, farm animals are not raised and killed for pets. As I said, if every pet were vegan, the same number of farm animals would still be killed. The only way to reduce these deaths is by reducing human consumption.
I'm not sure what you have in mind by teaching (?), but there are alternatives to animal research now, which can be further developed. And unlike pet food, lab animals are deliberately bred for research.
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/13/2010 05:37 PM Report
Reciprocal Soul: The website you sent me showed chickens as the most used animal for food. Oprah asked that question on her Food, Inc show and said worldwide, more goats are consumed. The website must just have U.S. numbers.
Seems like we're back to square one. You're feeding your pets meat, which means you're supporting the raising and killing of the animals the meat comes from. Your saying that's okay because you care about your pets, even if you care less about the animals the meat comes from. And you're say it's okay for me to do this, but others should not use animals for teaching, medical research, and other things that help man understand and improve the quality of life for himself and animals.
ReciprocalSoul 08/13/2010 05:09 PM Report
Freddie: "What I am saying is that I agree with you that my description would not apply to some humans. But those humans it does not apply to may be ignorant of their full natural gifts. Unrecognized or unrealized, those humans are not essentially different; they are manifestly different. They are not living a potential of their nature. Different individuals have different potentials. But nature does not withhold her "spark" from any human being."
-----------
What are these potentials and "spark" of human nature?
Earlier you said: "Human beings are singularly capable of taming their own "animal" (i.e. selfish and/or aggressively self-interested) characteristics."
I don't agree. Nonhuman animals are capable of empathy and selflessness, and they limit aggression within their groups.
I think the roots of human morality are found in nonhuman animals. That's not to say they are always empathetic and selfless, but I don't think our species distinguishes us in this area.
Jeffrey Masson has written several books on the emotional lives of nonhuman animals: http://www.jeffreymasson.com/library.html
I'm interested in the moral consideration of humans and other animals which, I think, should based on the inherent value they have in themselves.
ReciprocalSoul 08/13/2010 04:30 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "Thanks for the links Peaceable Kingdom. I found a couple of websites about pet food, one which strongly support your position.... What do you feed your pets? "
--------------
Thanks for your links, too :) I'm vegan, but I've fed my dogs high quality pet food with meat, and also meat from what some members of my family cook for themselves -- then adding freshly cooked vegetables to either.
freddie 08/13/2010 08:21 AM Report
ReciprocalSoul - One has to make a very important distinction here between what is possible in any given state of "cultural conditions" and what may be potential in a more basic and primary sense. Since humans are, like animals, creatures of nature it is nature that must be grasped. But culture is often so dominant and complex that nature can be forgotten or depreciated. It seems that it is easier to understand what animals are capable of because their "cultures" are so relatively simple, and nature so predominates in their individual and societal forms (if they live the wild -- domesticated creatures represent a whole different situation, I think). Humans are endowed with natural propensities and potentials which may remain unrealized when culture puts its stamp upon the individual. It may then be up to the individual human to peel away some of the cultural imprinting in order to see into the well of nature's endowments.
What I am saying is that I agree with you that my description would not apply to some humans. But those humans it does not apply to may be ignorant of their full natural gifts. Unrecognized or unrealized, those humans are not essentially different; they are manifestly different. They are not living a potential of their nature. Different individuals have different potentials. But nature does not withhold her "spark" from any human being.
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/12/2010 10:40 PM Report
ToReciprocalSoul: Thanks for the links Peaceable Kingdom. I found a couple of websites about pet food, one which strongly support your position.
http://www.bornfreeusa.org/facts.php?more=1&p=359
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food
What do you feed your pets?
ReciprocalSoul 08/12/2010 10:10 PM Report
freddie: "Humans are capable of "metaphysical insights" (as R. Buckminster Fuller might say) that can render an experience of life that is not confined to a single physical body. This statement is not intended to demean or disparage animals -- not at all. But there is no evidence that animals can have these sorts of insights and understandings that humans can have. I do not see this as "behavior modification," but certainly it does have implications for how an individual may behave towards other human beings, as well as animals, plants and all things on the planet. If a human being identifies herself with all-life, she will probably behave differently than she would if she only had a strictly separate physical conception of herself. Is this too way-out for you?!"
----------
No, not at all :) although I think your description would not apply to some humans.
ReciprocalSoul 08/12/2010 10:02 PM Report
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: "My biggest concern about this issue is the black and white way it is treated. PETA puts out lots of misinformation. To suggest that if an animal moves after it has been bled that it can still feel pain is clearly not true. I'm not advocating animal abuse. The animal rights people are concerned about rights, humane treatment is not enough. The person that understands these issues better than anyone is Temple Grandin. Check out her website: http://www.grandin.com/"
Sorry, I can't agree with you here. Temple Grandin claims to have empathy for farm animals, but she completely ignores the fact that, like other living beings who have self awareness, farm animals want to live. Ironically, PeTA - which really isn't an animal rights organization - gave Temple Grandin an award.
I think farming is inherently cruel. There's no way to make it humane. Tribe of Heart has two award winning documentaries: "The Witness" http://www.tribeofheart.org/sr/sr_witscreeningroom_english.htm
And "Peaceable Kingdom, the journey home": http://www.peaceablekingdomfilm.org/
ReciprocalSoul 08/12/2010 09:38 PM Report
ToReciprocalSoul: "Ingrid Newkirk of PETA does not feed her pets meat and has tried to convince others to do the same. Neal Bernard, who advocates a vegan diet on PBS, would probably agree. He says a million chickens are killed every hour. The labels on pet foods and ads on television would suggest they contain more than meat by-products humans wouldn't eat. Many pet owners feed their animals meats from meat department in the food store."
--------------
To Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: Yes, some people choose to feed their pets vegan pet food, and they can be healthy if the food contains the nutrients they would acquire from meat.
Besides being carnivores, I wouldn't compromise dogs and cats anymore than they already have been by domestication. So that's another reason why I don't feed them vegan food. But no matter what they eat, farm animals are bred and killed for human consumption.
I'm not a fan of PeTA, but I agree with Neal Bernard that millions of chickens are killed across the globe. Here's the statistics: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/2007-glipha-stats.pdf
There's more information on http://www.abolitionistapproach.com
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/11/2010 04:01 PM Report
ToReciprocalSoul: Ingrid Newkirk of PETA does not feed her pets meat and has tried to convince others to do the same. Neal Bernard, who advocates a vegan diet on PBS, would probably agree. He says a million chickens are killed every hour. The labels on pet foods and ads on television would suggest they contain more than meat by-products humans wouldn't eat. Many pet owners feed their animals meats from meat department in the food store.
My biggest concern about this issue is the black and white way it is treated. PETA puts out lots of misinformation. To suggest that if an animal moves after it has been bled that it can still feel pain is clearly not true. I'm not advocating animal abuse. The animal rights people are concerned about rights, humane treatment is not enough. The person that understands these issues better than anyone is Temple Grandin. Check out her website: http://www.grandin.com/
freddie 08/11/2010 03:25 PM Report
ReciprocalSoul - I have to agree with you that humans are not the only creatures that can modify their behavior.
But unfortunately my words on this point were not clear enough. What I mean is that humans can consciously realize, i.e. understand, through mental processes a more expansive and comprehensive identity with all-life. Humans are capable of "metaphysical insights" (as R. Buckminster Fuller might say) that can render an experience of life that is not confined to a single physical body. This statement is not intended to demean or disparage animals -- not at all. But there is no evidence that animals can have these sorts of insights and understandings that humans can have. I do not see this as "behavior modification," but certainly it does have implications for how an individual may behave towards other human beings, as well as animals, plants and all things on the planet. If a human being identifies herself with all-life, she will probably behave differently than she would if she only had a strictly separate physical conception of herself.
Is this too way-out for you?!
freddie 08/11/2010 03:07 PM Report
robdverity - The Goodall claim can be found in many places. She famously observed a bloody conflict between 2 groups of rival chimp societies: One group invaded and attacked the other, killing every member and then eating their remains. I suggest you read some of her published accounts which are readily available for public consumption. This is well-known.
By the way, I never condemn humans, as you probably have misunderstood my meaning. I am saying that humans may realize as individuals their deeper & inherent interconnectedness with each other and all life. I have an enormous respect for animals (and plants too!) and believe that they deserve appropriate reverence and love, even if & when we may eat them. I know this may sound bizarre, but it is the way many ancient & primary societies of humans have lived and experienced their world. But I may not have been clear on this point.
mmissinglink 08/11/2010 05:04 AM Report
Regularly and increasingly, through observation and testing, humans are learning that non human animals are much more than what we had previously and very inaccurately perceived them as. The way we perceive other individuals is how we value them. When our perception is inaccurate and self-limiting, as is still with regards to most non humans, out lack of value of them reflects this. We ought to keep in mind that more importantly than how we value their lives, is the fact that they value their life and it would serve humanity's integrity as a moral creature to treat non humans not as property, but appropriately as individuals or groups of individuals who value their own life.
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." -
Alice Walker
ReciprocalSoul 08/11/2010 12:37 AM Report
To freddie: Humans aren't the only animals who are capable of modifying their behavior to control selfishness and aggression.
ReciprocalSoul 08/11/2010 12:28 AM Report
My thoughts on the Transcript: "... We’re not going to stop using animals to develop the polio vaccine, say, or we’re not going to stop experimenting."
We can certainly advocate to replace lab animals with other methods of research. The research industry has relied on the animal model, but there are alternatives now and more can be developed. I think we have a moral obligation to replace the animal model.
----------
"But we certainly can treat animals well before we turn them from creature to dinner."
I really don't think that's possible. No matter how much space farm animals are allowed to occupy, they will be subjected to debeaking, dehorning, tale docking, castration (all without anesthesia), artificial insemination, and ongoing separation of mothers and offspring -- to say nothing of killing individuals who have self awareness and a personal interest in their own well being. For more information, please see: http://www.humanemyth.org.
------------
"We certainly can eat less meat. We certainly can try to opt for foods that don't have consciousness."
I agree. Thank you for discussing nonhuman animals.
ReciprocalSoul 08/10/2010 11:32 PM Report
To Donlikesthecharlieroseshow: Unlike humans, dogs and cats are carnivores. Farm animals aren't killed for pets -- pet food is almost always made from meat by-products that humans wouldn't eat. If every dog and cat were vegan, the same number of farm animals would be killed to supply human meat-eaters.
robdverity 08/10/2010 11:21 PM Report
freddie - Can you document the Goodall claim? Preciate it.
Your counter re humans paradoxically condemns them even further by their own actions vs the capabilities you cite.
Donlikesthecharlieroseshow 08/09/2010 05:48 PM Report
When Peter Singer and other animal rights people suggest we should not eat meat, but it's okay to feed it to their dogs and cats. No doubt dogs are mans best friend as Ben Stein continually points out. But when people keep these animals for their own pleasure, while killing millions of animals to feed them, aren't they being hypocritical by tell others not to use animals for equally good or better purposes.
REMant 08/09/2010 02:10 PM Report
Time.com does not let ppl read the whole article, but it is not new of course. I recall seeing a NOVA or Frontline program on this particular topic not long ago. Yerkes raised a chimp in his home in the 20's and I'm sure he was not the first. There have been several well known such experiments since, e.g., Toto, Lucy, Nim, Boris, Samba, Viki, Koko.
It would be surprising if we did not see similarities of humans and apes or other animals, because we evolved from the same roots. Ethologists have seen lots of antecedents, while teachers and parents know full well that children act like them. The problem is not that we do not see how similar they are to us, but how similar we are to them, and not to the angels we think we are. Freud called it the family romance. And yet we consider many humans subhuman as well. This kind of reasoning is typically liberal and entirely patronizing. The Greeks considered pride to be the sin, and I think it will prove our undoing.
Undoubtedly we'd be better off not eating meat, but it can be considered that it was the first means of storing and multiplying food. We'd hardly have got to the point we are without it, and certainly we are not the only species to do it. Some solace can be taken in the fact that we eat far less of it than did our progenitors.
Learning-wise complying with verbal instructions is not so different from a shepherd using different whistles to control his dog. The difference would be if the components of the sentence can be understood. Ppl have historically thought that what makes humans different is their greater ability to manipulate consciousness through language, and I tend to agree, altho I would point to the ability to see analogies and abstract concepts, which results in tool-making, etc, as well. Animals communicate dangers, etc thru signs learned over generations of gene evolution, and some learn by imitation, but we can communicate new discoveries through language, and someone understanding the terms can understand the discovery pretty well without seeing it, or learning the hard way.
freddie 08/09/2010 02:03 PM Report
You might want to listen to Jane Goodall on this point: Yes, animals have great nobility, but they too are capable to tremendous cruelty.
Human beings are singularly capable of taming their own "animal" (i.e. selfish and/or aggressively self-interested) characteristics.