Cats: torture their prey to death as a form of play.
“Play” isn’t just an idle pursuit. It’s also a form of safe practice of one’s life pursuit. In the case of cats, they evolved to be almost 100% carnivores, so it’s natural for them to live, breath, and yes practice / play at honing their pursuit and kill skills. It is literally their fundamental job that separates them from dying off.
Dolphins: you dont want to know.
Let’s not forget two things here: 1) much of the rapey stuff (as with ducks) also serves the fundamental life model of reproduction being one of the highest natural priorities, however its accomplished; 2) dolphins are hella smart, just like us, and if anything, it goes to show that smart species with idle time can devise some pretty wild pastimes.
If a person did half the stuff animals do, no one could look at them the same again.
To compare the lifestyles of a single animal species (humans) with all the others is a fool’s mission. In fact, most animals live fairly predictable, innocuous lives. They have their classic interactions with the world and don’t tend to bother other species-- mainly because it’s not worth their time.
People do some awful things but we are also probably the only species that has members that sympathise with other species above ourselves.
Nonsense. Pretty much all higher social / tribal animals can pretty easily sympathise / empathise with other species, such as our fellow apes, dogs, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, parrots, and even domestic cats.
People are not automatons that are obligated to no longer think a behavior is fucked up just because that behavior benefited these animals in terms of increasing the liklihood of them passing down their genes.
As for one species empathising with another, that is a far cry from empathising more with another species than your own or being willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of another species. I WAS NOT saying that no species empathises with another.
People are not automatons that are obligated to no longer think a behavior is fucked up just because that behavior benefited these animals in terms of increasing the liklihood of them passing down their genes.
Sure, that’s fine. Label and condemn as you like.
My point is, that’s not a relevant rebuttal to Adams’ quote, as most sexually dimorphic animals do not behave that way. I.e., females generally select their partners, and are not commonly raped. Indeed, that’s part of the whole long-term survival point-- that ‘courtship’ species have better chances for genetic diversity & fitness for their environs.
As for one species empathising with another, that is a far cry from empathising more with another species than your own or being willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of another species. I WAS NOT saying that no species empathises with another.
*shrug*
Okay, if you say so. It sure sounded like it, but maybe I misread.
It’s also a form of safe practice of one’s life pursuit. In the case of cats,
much of the rapey stuff (as with ducks) also serves the fundamental life model of reproduction
That doesn’t refute the poster above. Humans have evolutionary imperatives too.
They have their classic interactions with the world and don’t tend to bother other species-- mainly because it’s not worth their time.
That’s not nobility as the original Watership quote implies but a simple lack of capacity to conceive and implement evil. The original quote could equally wax poetic about how rocks don’t try to spoil other creatures lives.
I agree that animals can also sympathize with other species. Intelligence is a spectrum.
That doesn’t refute the poster above. Humans have evolutionary imperatives too.
It does when you put it in context, tho, that being that the poster above did not refute Adams’ point in any meaningful way. Specifically-- rape isn’t ordinary in terms of two-sex species, and is likely a poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.
That’s not nobility as the original Watership quote implies but a simple lack of capacity to conceive and implement evil. The original quote could equally wax poetic about how rocks don’t try to spoil other creatures lives.
That’s not correct. Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks, and have (as you say) a spectrum of capacity for self-awareness, for reflection, and for modifying one’s behavior.
The real point is this-- unlike all known animals, we collectively have the information available to us of how terribly our existence and practices are fueling one of the greatest extinction events in Earth history… on track with causing civilisation to collapse, likely causing most of humanity to soon die out, if not go entirely extinct. We have not just that info based on the science, facts & reality, but the average mental capacity to understood and take necessary action to prevent all this. Or at least, we “had.” Instead we’ve collectively chosen to pursue our individual lives and let things sort themselves out. Well, good luck with that.
poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks
I was relating the spectrum of intelligence. That is human is to animal as animal is to rock. I didn’t claim that animals have no awareness but that they are less than humans. So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
There’s certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point which Adams’ made, and I defended. It’s like you’re freely swinging from ‘matters of proportion’ to binary values in order to fit your argument.
So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that’s a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by “nobility.”
Like, seriously…?
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you’re exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.
Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you’re actually trying to say. (or think)
Good luck, you.
but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point
A poster pointed out that animals aren’t better than humans and will do anything they can get away with just like humans. You attempted to appeal to evolution which I refuted. The refutation means Adams is wrong. Animals are like humans because humans are animals too.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument
So much of that is dead wrong:
“Play” isn’t just an idle pursuit. It’s also a form of safe practice of one’s life pursuit. In the case of cats, they evolved to be almost 100% carnivores, so it’s natural for them to live, breath, and yes practice / play at honing their pursuit and kill skills. It is literally their fundamental job that separates them from dying off.
Let’s not forget two things here: 1) much of the rapey stuff (as with ducks) also serves the fundamental life model of reproduction being one of the highest natural priorities, however its accomplished; 2) dolphins are hella smart, just like us, and if anything, it goes to show that smart species with idle time can devise some pretty wild pastimes.
To compare the lifestyles of a single animal species (humans) with all the others is a fool’s mission. In fact, most animals live fairly predictable, innocuous lives. They have their classic interactions with the world and don’t tend to bother other species-- mainly because it’s not worth their time.
Nonsense. Pretty much all higher social / tribal animals can pretty easily sympathise / empathise with other species, such as our fellow apes, dogs, cetaceans, corvids, elephants, parrots, and even domestic cats.
@fsxylo@sh.itjust.works
People are not automatons that are obligated to no longer think a behavior is fucked up just because that behavior benefited these animals in terms of increasing the liklihood of them passing down their genes.
As for one species empathising with another, that is a far cry from empathising more with another species than your own or being willing to sacrifice yourself for the benefit of another species. I WAS NOT saying that no species empathises with another.
Sure, that’s fine. Label and condemn as you like.
My point is, that’s not a relevant rebuttal to Adams’ quote, as most sexually dimorphic animals do not behave that way. I.e., females generally select their partners, and are not commonly raped. Indeed, that’s part of the whole long-term survival point-- that ‘courtship’ species have better chances for genetic diversity & fitness for their environs.
*shrug*
Okay, if you say so. It sure sounded like it, but maybe I misread.
That doesn’t refute the poster above. Humans have evolutionary imperatives too.
That’s not nobility as the original Watership quote implies but a simple lack of capacity to conceive and implement evil. The original quote could equally wax poetic about how rocks don’t try to spoil other creatures lives.
I agree that animals can also sympathize with other species. Intelligence is a spectrum.
It does when you put it in context, tho, that being that the poster above did not refute Adams’ point in any meaningful way. Specifically-- rape isn’t ordinary in terms of two-sex species, and is likely a poorer long-term survival mechanism compared to courtship species.
That’s not correct. Higher animals certainly possess more self-awareness than rocks, and have (as you say) a spectrum of capacity for self-awareness, for reflection, and for modifying one’s behavior.
The real point is this-- unlike all known animals, we collectively have the information available to us of how terribly our existence and practices are fueling one of the greatest extinction events in Earth history… on track with causing civilisation to collapse, likely causing most of humanity to soon die out, if not go entirely extinct. We have not just that info based on the science, facts & reality, but the average mental capacity to understood and take necessary action to prevent all this. Or at least, we “had.” Instead we’ve collectively chosen to pursue our individual lives and let things sort themselves out. Well, good luck with that.
Adams’ quote was perfectly fair IMO.
Evolution doesn’t care about ideal mechanics- only good enough. Rape was common in the ancient world. Rape happens today despite the long term survival favoring long term pairs.
I was relating the spectrum of intelligence. That is human is to animal as animal is to rock. I didn’t claim that animals have no awareness but that they are less than humans. So attributing nobility to what is really a lack of ability is like attributing nobility to a rock.
A rooster would plot and murder its neighbors if it had the intelligence and opposable thumbs to make weapons.
There’s certainly some facts & reality there, professor, but that still doesn’t change the fundamental point which Adams’ made, and I defended. It’s like you’re freely swinging from ‘matters of proportion’ to binary values in order to fit your argument.
Which was a poor analogy from day one, considering the many permutations.
Also-- that’s a pretty weird, tight-ass understanding of what Adams meant by “nobility.”
Like, seriously…?
Okay, you win on that one-- I fear you’re exactly right there; ala chickens being such unnecessary assholes towards each other and other creatures.
Tell you what, though-- feel free to have the last reply.
It’s like you dance around a smidgen of a circuitous argument, but can never actually figure out what you’re actually trying to say. (or think) Good luck, you.
A poster pointed out that animals aren’t better than humans and will do anything they can get away with just like humans. You attempted to appeal to evolution which I refuted. The refutation means Adams is wrong. Animals are like humans because humans are animals too.
You insult when you’ve been proven wrong. Nice.
OH!
My poor little one… :-(
😒
Ohh, you’re so clever…
You got me, pard!
<falls over dead>