Animals and Humans

[Tabby]

*My understanding on evolution is a bit uninformed, ergo possibly flawed, and if you notice anything wrong with it, *please* feel free to correct my mistake.*

I realize that humans are animals, too, but we have this uncanny defining characteristic, that extreamly complex biomachanical device between our ears, our brain. (When I say "animals", I mean the ones NOT in the category as "homo sapiens", okay?) We can speak many different languages (are there any other animal species that can do this? Dolphins, perhaps?), we use our sense of reason to build and use tools, calculate when that tiger across the river might get tired and strike at the right moment, etc...

Anyways, what I wanted to say, was that maybe our ancient ancestors--ancient, ancient, ANCIENT ones (i.e., the ones that came out of the sea to being amphibians on land,)--had relied on their basic intincts, and didn't have the capacity to use logic or reasoning, and just didn't stand there and contemplate, "Where did those sparkling things in the sky at night come from?" but just LIVED, and did what was necessary. Isn't it interesting, to say the least, that animals--then and today--rely on their base instincts and seem to live more than we do? Or do they not have the capacity to emotionally enjoy things that a homo sapiens would, such as sex, eating, and the like?

So, to sum it all up, here are my questions:
Do non-human animals have the emotional capacity to REALLY enjoy sex and food?
Do you think that by humans' ability to think, to reason, we have taken away from what it is like to actually live a little? (example: with our ability to think SO HARD we just sit around all day, rather than actually going out and LIVING.)
Do some animals use their brains like we do, but maybe in a less complex way?

Oh yeah--I heard some creationist say, "atheists are racist because they say that white people are "more evolved" than black people!" o_o by more evolved, do you mean more complex? Is complexity equal to better? and how are they more complex anyways? And who the hell ever said that white people are "more evolved" than black people? We're still human, right? We're still apart of the same species, so I don't see much of a differnece, other than the color of our skin, hair, and eyes.

[Rockthatpiano06]

I'm pretty sure whales actually have language (dolphins would be included in this). I've also heard that dolphins have sex for enjoyment but as for the rest of your questions I don't have an answer, lol.

[LonePiper]

*My understanding on evolution is a bit uninformed, ergo possibly flawed, and if you notice anything wrong with it, *please* feel free to correct my mistake.*

I realize that humans are animals, too, but we have this uncanny defining characteristic, that extreamly complex biomachanical device between our ears, our brain. (When I say "animals", I mean the ones NOT in the category as "homo sapiens", okay?) We can speak many different languages (are there any other animal species that can do this? Dolphins, perhaps?), we use our sense of reason to build and use tools, calculate when that tiger across the river might get tired and strike at the right moment, etc...

I get the feeling you may be getting off on the wrong foot here. We do have a larger (by percentage of body size) brain than any other animal, but that doesn't make us special in an evolutionary sense. Quezaqotalus, a pteradon from the cretaceous, had the widest wingspan (as far as we know) of any animal ever. Sharks have amazing perception of electromagnitivity (I may have made up a word there. I dunno) in water, being sable to sense other animals by the electromagnetic charge their muscles give off. Bats have incredibly sophisticated sonar receptors and transmittors. So much so that when the technology was developed by humans they refused to admit that mere animals had the same ability. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if you are proposing that humans are somehow "special" in an evolutionary sense, you are unfortunately mistaken, except only in fields that we humans hold important because they are the ones we happen to be advanced in.

Anyways, what I wanted to say, was that maybe our ancient ancestors--ancient, ancient, ANCIENT ones (i.e., the ones that came out of the sea to being amphibians on land,)--had relied on their basic intincts, and didn't have the capacity to use logic or reasoning, and just didn't stand there and contemplate, "Where did those sparkling things in the sky at night come from?" but just LIVED, and did what was necessary. Isn't it interesting, to say the least, that animals--then and today--rely on their base instincts and seem to live more than we do? Or do they not have the capacity to emotionally enjoy things that a homo sapiens would, such as sex, eating, and the like?

I like the point you raise here, and you are probably right. And it doesn't just apply to our ancestors. I don't know if it's ever going to be possible to examine the subjective reality of another mind, but I think it would be realistic to guess that apart from homo sapiens and some of our extinct ancestors and close relations (and perhaps slightly more distant relations, such as chimps and bonobos), animals don't have the capacity to ponder, philosophise, hypothesise etc.
Psychology is a complicated field when approached from an evolutionary perspective, particularly if we're talking about the more abstract parts of the mind.

So, to sum it all up, here are my questions:
Do non-human animals have the emotional capacity to REALLY enjoy sex and food?

Hard to say, and I doubt there is an objective way to anwer this question. I think that most animals probably lack a sense of self-awareness and many of the other more subtle and complicated features that make up the human mind. But when we are talking about something as primal and basic as food or sex, do you really think that these "higher" parts of the mind are in any way involved?

Do you think that by humans' ability to think, to reason, we have taken away from what it is like to actually live a little? (example: with our ability to think SO HARD we just sit around all day, rather than actually going out and LIVING.)

The basic question is intriguing, and I have to admit I don't know the answer. However I don't see that this question properly applies to humans. As a matter of fact, I think that an affirmative to this question would be contradictory to an affirmative to the last one. What I mean to say is that in essence we are still animals like any other animal. We still retain the parts of the brain that control instinctive and basal behaviour, feelings and emotions. When we are philosophising we shut down (or don't pay attention to) these parts of the brain. When eating or having sex (or whatever) we may do the same for our more cognitive part of the brain. The more "animal" parts of our brain haven't dystrophied or died off - they are still there, just more guided or controlled by the more developed "cognitive" part of our minds.

Do some animals use their brains like we do, but maybe in a less complex way?

I would say so. I have mentioned chimps and bonobos, and these would be certain contenders. But again I dout there is any objective way to tell. However if we look at physical brain properties, many many animals - particularly in the vertebrates - have the same basic design of brains. We have no formation or area in our brains (to the best of my knowledge) that no other animal has. Certain parts of our brain just happen to be bigger or more complex than others.

Oh yeah--I heard some creationist say, "atheists are racist because they say that white people are "more evolved" than black people!" o_o by more evolved, do you mean more complex? Is complexity equal to better? and how are they more complex anyways? And who the hell ever said that white people are "more evolved" than black people? We're still human, right? We're still apart of the same species, so I don't see much of a differnece, other than the color of our skin, hair, and eyes.

I doubt whether creationists ever gave any real thought to this claim. They just saw that we propose humans radiated from Africa and somehow deduce that that means Africans stopped evolving. "More Evolved" is a meaningless term. "More complex" is something evolutionists may take seriously, but not in this occasion. (And even then "more complex" does not mean "better"). Maybe (and this is a pure hypothetical) the humans that stayed in Africa had slightly less pressure to evolve than those that moved elsewhere. But the environment in Africa has changed so drastically (as far as humans should be concerned) over the thousands of years since we radiated that there is no reason to believe that Africans today would make a good representative of humans of 30,000 years ago. And even if it were the case it would mean nothing. Humans radiating in other parts of thw world would have had no more reason to become smarter than those staying in Africa. Intelligence in humans is mainly a social development. The only differential evolution different lines of humans would have undergone would have been physical, due to differnt physical environments. Wherever humans went after the earliest ancestor left Africa, they would have always stayed in social groups. If there was any evolutionary pressure to become more intelligent, each human line would have been subject to the same. Even if they had been different, it's still only a matter of a few thousand years - that's almost worth no talk in evolutionary terms.
(It may also me worth noting that, due to a supposed bottleneck in human evolution in the distant past, there is actually very little genetic variation in humans compared to other species. Take a chihuhua and an Irish Wolfhound, for example. They are still the same species, yet vastly different breeds. Compare the differences between those two animals to those found in humans and you'll see our genetic variation is positively insignificant)

[fr0d0]

I see parallels with the Garden of Eden story. Eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the point where the human animal ceases to just live and thinks as well. Thinking is synonymous with taking a step back from fully experiencing. Hence the human condition, hence the need for religion.

[Tabby]

I see parallels with the Garden of Eden story. Eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the point where the human animal ceases to just live and thinks as well. Thinking is synonymous with taking a step back from fully experiencing. Hence the human condition, hence the need for religion.

A need for religion?? You honestly believe that a woman ate a friut from a magical tree and BAM she suddenly has all this knowlege, this cognitive ability to understand things previously not understood? How is that logical?
And why would you want to take a step back from fully experiencing? Isn't that what life is all about? Experience?

[fr0d0]

I see parallels with the Garden of Eden story. Eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the point where the human animal ceases to just live and thinks as well. Thinking is synonymous with taking a step back from fully experiencing. Hence the human condition, hence the need for religion.

A need for religion?? You honestly believe that a woman ate a friut from a magical tree and BAM she suddenly has all this knowlege, this cognitive ability to understand things previously not understood? How is that logical?

It's an allegorical story Tabby explaining the problem you're considering.

And why would you want to take a step back from fully experiencing? Isn't that what life is all about? Experience?

Do you think that by humans' ability to think, to reason, we have taken away from what it is like to actually live a little? (example: with our ability to think SO HARD we just sit around all day, rather than actually going out and LIVING.)

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

(When I say "animals", I mean the ones NOT in the category as "homo sapiens", okay?)

NO it's not OK

Humans are ONLY animals in the broadest sense of the word. We are not special in any way,except to ourselves.

Neither our sentience nor [self defined] intelligence so far seems to have any long term survival advantage when compared with animals which are really quite stupid and unaware.EG crocodiles and sharks which are among the oldest and most successful species on the planet.


Hopefully, humans will be extinct withing a few centuries. This will be a good thing for the remaining species.Life,which is independent of sentience and intelligence will survive.

From what I can see,we don't seem to have done any permanent damage [so far] to the planet.

[Pippy]

From what I can see,we don't seem to have done any permanent damage [so far] to the planet.

The great pacific garbage patch, Chernobyl, Depleted Uranium Munitions, The dead zone off of San Diego, metropolises (what is the plural of metropolis?), PCB's in the mid Atlantic rift, Heavy metals and radioactive material dug up and just left lying around, The extinction of more species that I can count, What could end up being the loss of the entire oceanic habitat... Just off the top of my head, without opening another window... Look harder. Thanks Padraic.
-Pip

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Look harder. Thanks Padraic.

By "permanent" I meant in terms of "before the death of our sun" (for such as radio active poison). The planet most likely to eventually recover.

As for the other things.The extinction of species doesn't harm the planet,and new species emerge given a long enough time scale.

According to a recent documentary called "Life After People", it would take only about 10 thousand years for almost all trace of humans to disappear.

Put another way the damage we've done is serious but temporary.



From Wiki:

Prediction timetable

The special assumes that humanity disappears suddenly and immediately, but does not speculate what would cause such an event.
Time Period Predictions
1 day Fossil fuel fired power plants, which are largely automated, would remain running for a few hours until their fuel supplies are depleted. Within hours, lights would begin going out all over the world as electrical systems start failing. Almost all fossil fuel plants would shut down within a couple of days.
2 days After 48 hours, nuclear power plants will automatically enter safe mode due to reduced power consumption, thereby averting meltdowns. Wind turbines will eventually cease to operate when their lubrication fails. Eventually, only areas powered by hydroelectric dams and solar panels will have electricity.
3 days Subway systems like the New York City Subway require pumps to keep out the groundwater. Without humans to maintain the system, many parts of the subway will be flooded within 36 hours.
10 days Food would begin to rot in grocery stores and in refrigerators. While melted water from freezers or food on countertops could provide temporary sustenance, pets would soon need to leave their owners' houses to avoid death from starvation. Those which managed to leave homes would have to compete for food. Dogs and cats that were bred by humans for appearance would have no niche in this new competitive environment and will be among the first to die. For example, the short legs and small mouths of bulldogs or terriers will be handicaps for them. Zoo animals who haven't gotten out of the pens that held them would die of thirst and hunger. Large animals like elephants and lions would get out of their pens.
6 months Smaller forms of wildlife not normally seen in civilization, like coyotes and bobcats, would begin to inhabit suburban areas. Deer would also begin grazing in neighborhoods as well. Rats and mice will have by now consumed our edible supplies and are leaving urban areas to return into the wild.
1 year Plants would begin to sprout within the cracks in streets, highways, sidewalks, and buildings. The Hoover Dam would stop generating power as mussels clog coolant pipes. Therefore, one of the last areas with some artificial illumination, in Las Vegas, Nevada, would finally plunge into darkness.

As flow of water through the dam stops, the Colorado River downstream from the dam would temporarily dry up until the level of Lake Mead reaches the spillways around the dam. Wildfires caused by lightning would rage uncontrolled in cities such as San Francisco, Chicago, and Rome. Animals would start to notice human absence and start to flourish in cities.

The final radio and television signals of Humanity, which have been traveling through outer space have now deteriorated into undetectable background radiation, according to scientists of the SETI project.[3][4]
5 years Plant life will have covered many surfaces in urban areas with vines, grasses, and tree saplings growing there. Roads will become overgrown with plant life, suffer from lack of maintenance, and disappear.
20 years The ruins of Prypiat, Ukraine, which were abandoned in 1986 due to the Chernobyl disaster, are used as an example for the level of decay which could happen after 20 years of humanity's disappearance. Despite high radiation levels, many animal populations have flourished significantly in areas where humans had left. Plants have grown in many structures that were once used by humans.
25 years Sea water floods into cities such as London and Amsterdam, which are currently kept dry by human-engineered projects. Windows in high rise buildings begin to crack and shatter due to the cycle of freezing and thawing and the decay of window sealants. Satellites, due to lack of recalibrations (or adjustments) would have fallen back to Earth.
40 years By this time, many wooden frame houses would have burnt down, rotted, or have been largely consumed by termites. Trees and vines grow into remaining brick and masonry elements, which would by now be weakened by salts. Compacted earth dams may begin to fail due to widening leaks.
50 years Steel structures, such as the Brooklyn Bridge, would start to show signs of strain from neglect. Paint that would normally protect these structures would peel off, exposing the steel to the elements and allowing corrosion to gradually weaken them.
75 years Many of the roughly 600 million automobiles on earth would be reduced to barely recognizable metal. Some automobiles in arid climates would not have suffered the effects of corrosion as severely and would still be recognizable. While the rubber tires of cars would have deflated years ago, they would not decompose for centuries.
100 years Large bridges such as the Golden Gate Bridge and the Brooklyn Bridge would collapse due to corrosion of support cables. Many human-built structures would fall during the 100- to 10,000-year period.
150 years Many streets with subways would start to collapse into flooded tunnels below. Many large buildings are completely colonized by plants and animals and resemble a wild landscape, creating somewhat of a "vertical ecosystem". Descendants of Domestic dogs that went wild had bred with wolves.
200 years Large structures such as the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, Space Needle, and Eiffel Tower would collapse due to corrosion, invasive plant life, and ground water destabilizing their foundations. Also all of mankind videos, and books fade away thanks to mold. The only exception is the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this is a rare exception.
500 years Items made with modern concrete would give way as the steel rebar reinforcing them rusts and expands to three times its normal size.
1000 years Most modern cities would be destroyed and/or covered in flora, with collapsed and fallen skyscrapers becoming new mounds and hills. Manhattan would appear much as it did before human settlement, with old streams and bodies of waters returning. There would be little evidence that a human civilization existed on earth. Certain structures made out of thick rock or concrete, like the Egyptian Pyramids or the Hoover Dam, might survive with minimal damage.
10,000 years The Hoover Dam, one of the last remnants of advanced civilization, would fail due to erosion of its concrete and the cumulative effect of seismic activity.

By this point, any substantial evidence of humanity's former domination over nature would be gone. Only a few things would survive, such as the solid granite and concrete pedestal of the Statue of Liberty. The Pyramids at Giza remain, but would be mostly buried by the Sahara Desert's sands. Portions of the Great Wall of China may also remain intact. The faces at Mount Rushmore might also survive and remain recognizable for hundreds of thousands of years. Our bones, rubber, plastic, and polystyrene (polystyrene is also called Styrofoam) might be the last remnants of humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People



The full article is fascinating,and worth reading,especially the predictions about animals. BUT I'm not claiming this what WILL happen,only what COULD happen.

[Pippy]

Hey,

I am also fascinated by anything post-apocolyptica. I read a book last year about the same topic. You are correct, that taken on a larger scale of permanence, my rambling list is not valid. I also agree with your assessment of the future of our race, and with it's impact on the rest of planetary life. In fact, I am not sure why I chose to disagree, maybe I like to argue only for its sake sometimes. Now where did I get that trait?

Thanks Padraic, I apologize for nitpicking.
-Pip