3 ms·

Saying N% of species engaged in a behavior would be a meaningless statement. There are probably a few billion (real, not discovered) insect species. We will pro

by tedks 11y ago

Saying N% of species engaged in a behavior would be a meaningless statement. There are probably a few billion (real, not discovered) insect species. We will probably never discover and catalog them all genetically unless we invent nanotech before the big extinction. Insects are not relevant to this discussion; neither are mollusks, or really dumb fish, or worms, etc.. So scoping this to "a plurality of species that have some intelligence" is somewhat appropriate. That said, this whole thread is nothing but people trying to anthropomorphize nature, so that they can pretend it's more cuddly than it actually is. There is no chemical for morality secreted by all species. There is no evolution for empathy. These are things humans create through their own intelligence, and no amount of anthropomorophized behavior will make that not the case.

acqq 11y ago
> So scoping this to "a plurality of species that have some intelligence" is somewhat appropriate. And then we come to our nearest relatives (bonobos, chimps) being both promiscuous and ready to jump on the same sex and to use that behavior as a bonding ritual. > people trying to anthropomorphize nature, so that they can pretend it's more cuddly than it actually is Exactly, Disney would certainly not approve Fark squirrel: https://img.fark.net/images/mw/X.jpg https://img.fark.net/images/mw/X.jpg
- tedks 11y ago
  >And then we come to our nearest relatives (bonobos, chimps) being both promiscuous and ready to jump on the same sex and to use that behavior as a bonding ritual. They also commit cannibalism, rape, murder, bullying. You can't get any morality or moral arguments out of nature.
  - acqq 11y ago
    > You can't get any morality or moral arguments out of nature. Specifically, you can't use pure existence of some acts in the nature as an excuse or confirmation for validity of any human acts. Still studying the nature and the dynamics of living beings can actually help us humans more understanding our own actions, it gives us a good context as we're also animals, even if that thought isn't pleasing to everybody.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Not to derail, but... You’re presupposing a specific morality, and then rejecting other forms of morality on that basis. Alternatives are going to by definition be different. So, you need another way to judge them.

by tedks 11y ago

acqq 11y ago

> So scoping this to "a plurality of species that have some intelligence" is somewhat appropriate. And then we come to our nearest relatives (bonobos, chimps) being both promiscuous and ready to jump on the same sex and to use that behavior as a bonding ritual. > people trying to anthropomorphize nature, so that they can pretend it's more cuddly than it actually is Exactly, Disney would certainly not approve Fark squirrel: https://img.fark.net/images/mw/X.jpg https://img.fark.net/images/mw/X.jpg

tedks 11y ago
>And then we come to our nearest relatives (bonobos, chimps) being both promiscuous and ready to jump on the same sex and to use that behavior as a bonding ritual. They also commit cannibalism, rape, murder, bullying. You can't get any morality or moral arguments out of nature.
- acqq 11y ago
  > You can't get any morality or moral arguments out of nature. Specifically, you can't use pure existence of some acts in the nature as an excuse or confirmation for validity of any human acts. Still studying the nature and the dynamics of living beings can actually help us humans more understanding our own actions, it gives us a good context as we're also animals, even if that thought isn't pleasing to everybody.
- Retric 11y ago
  Not to derail, but... You’re presupposing a specific morality, and then rejecting other forms of morality on that basis. Alternatives are going to by definition be different. So, you need another way to judge them.