6 ms·

Really interesting article. It's seeming like the more we learn about other life, the more we realize not much separates humans but a couple of thumbs and some

by fiblye 8y ago

Really interesting article. It's seeming like the more we learn about other life, the more we realize not much separates humans but a couple of thumbs and some decent dexterity. I wonder if someday we'll reach a point where we recognize consciousness in most animals and think it was ridiculous that earlier people didn't see such an obvious fact. Just like how "common knowledge" just a few decades/years ago was that babies and crustaceans couldn't feel pain, but it'd be bizarre for anyone to claim that today.

jjtheblunt 8y ago
It's not that they don't recognize it, it's that the knowingly don't want to believe it, authorized by religions to kill animals for food and mistreat them in general.
- LitFan 8y ago
  It's a stretch to say that religion 'authorizes' us to mistreat/eat animals. Animals eat other animals. We're animals, so we do that, too. If anything, religions largely promote treating animals properly, because they're some form of gods' creatures.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    > It's a stretch to say that religion 'authorizes' us to mistreat/eat animals. "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth." Of course people would do it anyway, especially when they had no other choice (nowadays we could live without exploiting animals, it would even be cheaper and more ecologic - but before we knew chemistry and biology we had at least some excuses). But at least Bible-based religions clearly legitimize abuse of animals, and treating animals as mindless things that don't have feelings nor rights. Even now in my country ecologists/vegans are one of the groups considered enemies of "natural order" by influential religious media (Rydzyk media-empire in Poland for one example). It's not an accident that animals don't have souls according to Catholicism.
    - LitFan 8y ago
      Unfortunately, those groups, like many others who intend to control people with religion, cherry picked an example that fits their rhetoric. The bible is often contradictory, and in it you can also find these: > 'He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man' (Isaiah 66.3) > 'For meat destroy not the work of God' (Romans 14.19-21) > 'A righteous man regardeth the life of the beast' (Proverbs 12.10) Christianity doesn't represent the majority of religions (~31.5%). Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all advocate for animal rights (~45.3%).
      - ajuc 8y ago
        Islam is Bible-based as well (to some point). And their halal butchering practices aren't particularly humane by modern standards, even if at some point in the past they were.
nine_k 8y ago
The key thing humans got is replacing the genetic evolution by memetic evolution, aka culture, powered by structured communication aka speech. This allowed for organizations above the Dunbar number, and very quick evolution of behaviors without constantly killing and re-spawning physical bodies. Some advanced animals, like wolves, have something resembling a passing of cultural knowledge: they teach their young how to hunt particular prey, and this may differs seriously between packs and types of prey. But they lack speech, so they can't pass more complex ideas. Cetaceans are said to have consciousness not unlike humans'; maybe they have speech and an advanced culture; we don't know. But they lack means of manipulation and live mostly floating above abyss, so they don't have a material culture and technology. Quite possibly it's not an exceptional intellectual capability that singled out humans among comparably intelligent animals, but the (proto-)speech ability. The advances in intelligence then followed, being evolutionary beneficial.
- maxwell 8y ago
  > Cetaceans are said to have consciousness not unlike humans'; maybe they have speech and an advanced culture; we don't know. But they lack means of manipulation and live mostly floating above abyss, so they don't have a material culture and technology. You refuted your own argument. Sounds like it's more about the "material culture and technology", which started with control of fire. No living species other than Homo sapiens harnesses fire.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Yes, fire was a key thing in the development of technology, and then (a few hundred thousand years later) domination of the biosphere. What I mean that animals which did not develop technology may have other kinds of advanced culture, such as that we would recognize as culture, e.g. in social organization and explanation of the world ("philosophy"), and/or art — it they have a capability for structured communication and thus capable to pass more and more complex knowledge across generations.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    Australian raptors do - http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.700 http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.700
maxwell 8y ago
Lots of animals have opposable thumbs: https://animalsake.com/list-of-animals-with-opposable-thumbs https://animalsake.com/list-of-animals-with-opposable-thumbs The only thing that makes the Homo genus unique is control of fire.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  And our genetic code. And schools and fire departments and lasers.
  - eplanit 8y ago
    Exactly. And libraries, moon/Mars/deep space exploration.... It amuses me when there's an article that recognizes a similarity between humans and other species, many jump onto the "see, they're _just_ like us" meme. What I'd be intrigued by is if there is any other species (is there _any_?) that has, century over century, via pure self- and collective-determination, advanced their state of being, achieved new capabilities, live in ways completely different than their ancestors, etc. I'm not including genetic adaptation or evolution to suit an environment -- I mean self-driven advancement. Seems we're quite unique, in that regard.
    - sdegutis 8y ago
      Right, that's called rationality. All other creatures are irrational, they act only on pure instinct, even if that instinct is sophisticated, such as the primates seen sharpening sticks for hunting, or the birds that drop hard shells into traffic so that cars crack it open and they get to eat what's inside, or the ways bees self-organize. Sophisticated, but still just instinct. We're the only rational creatures.
      - theli0nheart 8y ago
        You’re joking, right?
        8y ago
richsinn 8y ago
Furthermore, this kind of stuff always makes me wonder if/when other genus will eventually evolve into "intelligent" beings (with "intelligent" being loosely defined). The Homo genus evolved around ~2-3 million years ago; homo sapiens came about ~250K years ago. What's not to say that 2 to 3 million years from now, there'll be some other intelligent species from other genus branches? It always tickles my brain to think about this. Also relevant: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5780020/if-humanity-went-extinct-what-species-would-replace-us https://io9.gizmodo.com/5780020/if-humanity-went-extinct-wha...
- nickspacek 8y ago
  I've had the same thought. Unfortunately at the rate we wipe out other species I don't know that they'll get the chance! But when debating conservation efforts for various species it does seem like there is the possibility that on one hand we could be allowing the extinction of a species on the cusp of "intelligence".

by fiblye 8y ago

jjtheblunt 8y ago

It's not that they don't recognize it, it's that the knowingly don't want to believe it, authorized by religions to kill animals for food and mistreat them in general.

LitFan 8y ago
It's a stretch to say that religion 'authorizes' us to mistreat/eat animals. Animals eat other animals. We're animals, so we do that, too. If anything, religions largely promote treating animals properly, because they're some form of gods' creatures.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > It's a stretch to say that religion 'authorizes' us to mistreat/eat animals. "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every creature that crawls upon the earth." Of course people would do it anyway, especially when they had no other choice (nowadays we could live without exploiting animals, it would even be cheaper and more ecologic - but before we knew chemistry and biology we had at least some excuses). But at least Bible-based religions clearly legitimize abuse of animals, and treating animals as mindless things that don't have feelings nor rights. Even now in my country ecologists/vegans are one of the groups considered enemies of "natural order" by influential religious media (Rydzyk media-empire in Poland for one example). It's not an accident that animals don't have souls according to Catholicism.
  - LitFan 8y ago
    Unfortunately, those groups, like many others who intend to control people with religion, cherry picked an example that fits their rhetoric. The bible is often contradictory, and in it you can also find these: > 'He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man' (Isaiah 66.3) > 'For meat destroy not the work of God' (Romans 14.19-21) > 'A righteous man regardeth the life of the beast' (Proverbs 12.10) Christianity doesn't represent the majority of religions (~31.5%). Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism all advocate for animal rights (~45.3%).
    - ajuc 8y ago
      Islam is Bible-based as well (to some point). And their halal butchering practices aren't particularly humane by modern standards, even if at some point in the past they were.

nine_k 8y ago

The key thing humans got is replacing the genetic evolution by memetic evolution, aka culture, powered by structured communication aka speech. This allowed for organizations above the Dunbar number, and very quick evolution of behaviors without constantly killing and re-spawning physical bodies. Some advanced animals, like wolves, have something resembling a passing of cultural knowledge: they teach their young how to hunt particular prey, and this may differs seriously between packs and types of prey. But they lack speech, so they can't pass more complex ideas. Cetaceans are said to have consciousness not unlike humans'; maybe they have speech and an advanced culture; we don't know. But they lack means of manipulation and live mostly floating above abyss, so they don't have a material culture and technology. Quite possibly it's not an exceptional intellectual capability that singled out humans among comparably intelligent animals, but the (proto-)speech ability. The advances in intelligence then followed, being evolutionary beneficial.

maxwell 8y ago
> Cetaceans are said to have consciousness not unlike humans'; maybe they have speech and an advanced culture; we don't know. But they lack means of manipulation and live mostly floating above abyss, so they don't have a material culture and technology. You refuted your own argument. Sounds like it's more about the "material culture and technology", which started with control of fire. No living species other than Homo sapiens harnesses fire.
- nine_k 8y ago
  Yes, fire was a key thing in the development of technology, and then (a few hundred thousand years later) domination of the biosphere. What I mean that animals which did not develop technology may have other kinds of advanced culture, such as that we would recognize as culture, e.g. in social organization and explanation of the world ("philosophy"), and/or art — it they have a capability for structured communication and thus capable to pass more and more complex knowledge across generations.
- starbeast 8y ago
  Australian raptors do - http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.700 http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.2993/0278-0771-37.4.700

maxwell 8y ago

Lots of animals have opposable thumbs: https://animalsake.com/list-of-animals-with-opposable-thumbs https://animalsake.com/list-of-animals-with-opposable-thumbs The only thing that makes the Homo genus unique is control of fire.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago
And our genetic code. And schools and fire departments and lasers.
- eplanit 8y ago
  Exactly. And libraries, moon/Mars/deep space exploration.... It amuses me when there's an article that recognizes a similarity between humans and other species, many jump onto the "see, they're _just_ like us" meme. What I'd be intrigued by is if there is any other species (is there _any_?) that has, century over century, via pure self- and collective-determination, advanced their state of being, achieved new capabilities, live in ways completely different than their ancestors, etc. I'm not including genetic adaptation or evolution to suit an environment -- I mean self-driven advancement. Seems we're quite unique, in that regard.
  - sdegutis 8y ago
    Right, that's called rationality. All other creatures are irrational, they act only on pure instinct, even if that instinct is sophisticated, such as the primates seen sharpening sticks for hunting, or the birds that drop hard shells into traffic so that cars crack it open and they get to eat what's inside, or the ways bees self-organize. Sophisticated, but still just instinct. We're the only rational creatures.
    - theli0nheart 8y ago
      You’re joking, right?
      - 8y ago

richsinn 8y ago

Furthermore, this kind of stuff always makes me wonder if/when other genus will eventually evolve into "intelligent" beings (with "intelligent" being loosely defined). The Homo genus evolved around ~2-3 million years ago; homo sapiens came about ~250K years ago. What's not to say that 2 to 3 million years from now, there'll be some other intelligent species from other genus branches? It always tickles my brain to think about this. Also relevant: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5780020/if-humanity-went-extinct-what-species-would-replace-us https://io9.gizmodo.com/5780020/if-humanity-went-extinct-wha...

nickspacek 8y ago
I've had the same thought. Unfortunately at the rate we wipe out other species I don't know that they'll get the chance! But when debating conservation efforts for various species it does seem like there is the possibility that on one hand we could be allowing the extinction of a species on the cusp of "intelligence".