- tool-using animal
- fire-using animal
- language-using animal
- animal which domesticates other animals
- animal which builds complex structures
Aha! I know! We're the only animal which continually comes up with reasons why we're special.
I think among some people that are frustrated with the human world for whatever - either personal or abstract - reason, there's a feeling of misanthropy that colors their thinking, and so they try to belittle humanity.
To simply state that humans are best adapted at certain traits is true, but humans have tended to think of themselves as "special" in that "we're not even animals, but beings made in the image of God and given divine right to conquer Nature and do with it what we will." That anthropocentric bias has led to a multitude of evils and scientific falsehoods, and that's what needs to be corrected. It's got nothing to do with misanthropy.
I think we need to recognise that we are, at least, unique. And that we have a unique ability to affect the world, for good or ill, that sets us apart from other animals. That shouldn't be an excuse for hubris, but it should be reflected in how we view ourselves as a species.
We are animals, and everything we do is part of nature.
Nature isn't either inherently good or evil, and natural processes can be self-destructive.
And while we probably don't have qualitatively unique features we distinguish ourselves quantitatively on many axes, especially when it comes to storing and transmitting information and therefore influencing the rest of the world.
We may be more powerful than other species, but I'm afraid that on the knowledge/wisdom scale, we're only good enough to be dangerous. Seeing ourselves as a part of nature is necessary to limit the damage we do.
Agreed. Human animals will always find pseudo-rational reasons to do nefarious things.
How about we're the only species which we hold to a moral standard? Unless you're going to hold other species to that standard, you have to admit that we're special.
Evidence is increasingly showing us that the qualities we believed differentiated us from animals, that made our lives more worthy of respect, aren't actually unique to us.
If you're going to come back at that with "we're better at these things than they are", then that philosophy suggests again that there are lesser classes of human being as well, the ones that aren't as good as others at whatever metric you happen to be using.
It is natural that we seek to justify behavior on which our living standards are dependent, but that doesn't make our reasoning sound.
And you're right. If other animals were self aware enough to recognize their own exceptional qualities I'm sure they'd be proud of them. Humans have an awful sense of smell. Our vision is good, but animals have better vision. Same for hearing.
But we are extremely good at thinking and cooperating with other members of our species. We're special because we form a highly dynamic super-organism like an ant colony, which amplifies our individual exceptionalism.
In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process.
Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monkey? A cat? A rabbit? A cow? Where do you draw the line?
I once decided that the "mirror test"[1] was my litmus test for eating or not an animal. But then as I looked more into it I realised that that test isn't as straight forward as I thought, lots of false positive, methodology issues (eg: some animal start passing the test after being exposed to mirrors for a long time). And the final blow was that most humans under 6 months fail the test and I decided not to use this test rather than starting to eat human infants.
I'd say it's rather simple, the issue is most people are unwilling to make the sacrifices required to live morally.
Given their clear intelligence and ability to suffer the ease with which people deny that animals are moral beings is disgusting.
This is why I am saying that one needs to draw a line, and that it isn't necessarily easy. It sounds like you made your choice and that it was easy for you, but that isn't the case for everybody.
[1]: https://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/
Would you accept a plantation owner claiming slavery's immorality was not obvious because there were arguments to be had about the ethics of "wage slavery" etc?
>but that isn't the case for everybody.
This is a moral failing.
If this were not true why are we repulsed by the beating of an animal? Why do we invent such paradoxical concepts as the "humane" slaughterhouse?
Our moral intuition leads us to the answer but cultural norms and casuistry let us avoid it.
Attempting to quantify subjective matters is arguably one of the big reasons so many of the social sciences are facing replication crises. There are so many factors in play that the quantifications, or justifications, we provide to explain social phenomena like this are not very meaningful even if we think they are! The most important thing is to be aware of the facts, so much as possible, but beyond that simply to take your opinion as what it is - a subjective view based on a complex series of mental interactions that even you are not fully privy to.
What about another ape or an elephant?
Was it just a subjective discussion with no right or wrong answer?
The level of intelligence plays little role, as long as the animals don't use it to actively try to fight back or escape. E.g. pigs are no less smart than dogs.
And on your point about pig vs dogs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat
I just think thad dog meat can't be anything but an expensive delicacy, because to produce one unit of dog meat you already need many more units of other meat, to feed the dog.
This helps dogs and cats stay pets, largely protected from eating by human emotional attachment, while cows or pigs get pushed to the cattle sector, emotionally detached for food purposes.
Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.
no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid.
Either you are taking it on pure faith that certain species have consciousness and others do not, in which case there is little point in further discussion, or you are trying to claim that certain species are worth more than others because they seem to have a greater aptitude in certain categories. For some reason, this does not apply on an individual basis. How convenient for you, then, that these categories align perfectly with all the areas your species has great aptitude!
I invite you to consider this possibility: Your belief is not based on rational reasoning, you are just rationalizing your behavior.
You are not making rational logical arguments. You have started with your preferred conclusion and are employing rationalization to justify it. Every time I show you that your philosophy allows for things you find uncomfortable, you move the goalposts.
Case in point:
>Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals.
This is a copout that means "I am afraid of what my philosophy actually means, so let's just ignore it". You could easily acquire and consume an infant if you wanted. There'd be severe consequences for doing so, of course, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. People do do it. None of that is relevant to the question of whether or not it is morally permissible to do so, now is it?
But you, you're not interested in making sense. You're uncomfortable, so you rationalize. Oh, it's not ok to eat infants even though they're well below my IQ threshold, even though it's completely possible, because they aren't sold in the grocery store!
Please.
To combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception. Without it, you can only pick two.
For evolutionary reasons, it's obvious why eating meat is very beneficial. Today, it might not even be necessary for good health.
i'm at peace with killing animals for food. i know that they feel pain, but life is pain in general. maybe i'm a terrible person or something, but a good bbq is def worth more than the life of a pig or a cow.
Not necessarily. Many people who eat animals do so because they are not in a position where their nutritional needs can be met by a purely vegetarian diet (largely this is a problem of availability). When it comes to survival, I have a difficult time judging others from my comfortable position of not being in mortal danger.
If not for the development of animal husbandry, would pigs, chickens, and such be as successful (from a total population pov)? I think not. Many animals have the chance to be alive, only because they are supported by humans. This relationship is not only one-way: they are protected from predators, sheltered, and fed.
Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place.
By the way, even animal husbandry is not specific to humans. Ants for example, have "farmed" aphids for millions of years. They milk them for honeydew and eventually eat them.
It's highly arguable whether they are better off being "alive", when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life.
For example, if an alien species took over Earth's biosphere and treated humans like we treat cows, raising them in overcrowded pens, feeding them food that occasionally contains human meat, forcefully inseminating the females every year and separating them from their young 24 hours after birth, then killing the females when they reach their mid-twenties because their fertility drops, and basically using a tiny proportion of males to make sperm and slaughtering the rest at a young age... would you make the argument that there's a two-way relationship there? That humans are benefitting in some way?
Even if they took these domesticated humans and spread them to the stars, ensuring their survival for millions of years, and protection from other predator alien species, so long as these "humans" were treated in this way we would not consider this to be beneficial to our species in any way. At least I wouldn't: better extinction than such a "life".
Obviously we can't ask the cows what they would prefer (or perhaps we can, we just don't have much interest in figuring out how to do it). If we did ask them, though, I doubt they'd see this relationship as beneficial to them in any way.
> when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life.
I assume, just like humans, other animals can adapt and even enjoy a life partly controlled and radically different from natural conditions.
I think the basis should be: are they better off than in the wild? In terms of pain, comfort and stress. And I'd argue that we can give them a better life. But, especially with factory farming, we often don't.
In your specific example of aliens raising humans. If aliens let them live in decent conditions, with some added benefits: say diseases, illnesses and poverty completely eradicated, and wars forbidden. But with the caveat that aliens do decide when you die. (Somewhat similar to Logan's run...). I think many may see it as better than our current life.
Acknowledging both the blindingly obvious point that we are the apex species on this planet and that we do a lot of complicated, interesting things we have yet to observe in others does not mean observing similarities to other species somehow diminishes humanity. On the contrary, telling ourselves just-so stories that appeal to our arrogance and need to be special discourages research and progress. If I "know" that we're the only species that talks (because some other human convinced me that god, some super-researcher or whoever said so), I'm not very likely to go looking for counterexamples.
Drifting into aesthetic/religious/philosophical territory for a second, I personally feel that humans are deeply interesting because of what an odd mishmash of traits we have. If one is prone to anthropomorphizing evolution, one way to still appeal to human vanity is to view it as a pretty risky slow-burn strategy that, after succeeding, made us our own worst predator/environmental risk[1]. If we were just some toy made by $deity for whatever reason, it becomes a lot less interesting of a story.
[1] Of course, evolution doesn't work that way, but it makes a nice story.
A good read, especially on the last page the paragraph beginning with, “The history of science contains, one after another, a series of blows to mankind’s anthropocentric ego.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Maybe one day we will be able to give them robotic limbs controlled through brain function and see if they able able to that utility. My guess is that we would be impressed, especially if the experiment were done on a pack.
"Since side effects from prescription drugs kill an estimated 106,000 Americans a year, the sixth leading cause of death may actually be (gulp) doctors. And that’s just from adverse drug reactions. Add in medical mistakes (which the U.S. Institute of Medicine estimates kills at least 44,000) and that brings “healthcare” up to our country’s third leading cause of death. Throw in hospital-acquired infections, and we’re talking maybe 187,000 Americans dead every year (and millions injured) by medical care."
https://nutritionfacts.org/2013/07/16/dr-gregers-new-annual-...
Everyone is going to die of something. If our medicine is good enough that, barring errors, it solves all other sources of mortality, then medical care would be the first (and indeed only) cause of death.
That it's the third (and there are still others after it) is obviously not ideal, but it's not necessarily a bad sign, either.
Nor does it mean a large share of the problems we face are of our own science/medicine/engineering, it means a large share of the problems we face that aren't solved by our own science/medicine/engineering involve failure of that science/medicine/engineering when deployed against some problem (of whatever origin.)
With that out of the way...
Here's a thought experiment. Humans lived for a few million years before developing agriculture and villages starting about ten to fourteen thousand years ago. I'm not an anthropologist, but I think we would be safe to assume that the causes of death during the first period were "natural": disease, predators, fighting, famine... have I missed any?
We can then call the causes of death arising after the advent of agriculture "technological" and add up all the deaths so far from each category and see which number is bigger.
I would reckon the "natural" deaths would be outstripped by the "technological" deaths by a wide margin, with the tipping point sometime in the last few thousand years.
I'm counting wars on the technology side (pretty much since the invention of the atlatl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlatl )
But this feels like sophistry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...
So, heart disease, infectious and parasitic diseases, cancer, ... Er, um, I think I have to "roll back" my comment...
I was thinking of car accidents, pollution, and the general ecological problems that have developed as unintended consequences of our technology. (We're victims of our own success.)
(There is also the "medical care is the third leading cause of death in America" issue already mentioned by jmulho, which should be a much bigger deal than it is: side-effects and out-right errors kill over 100,000 people in the US a year!)
But really, it's the time-scale that matters: if the ecology tanks and takes us with it then our technology (in hindsight) really is (was) the existential threat, despite the good run we had.
- Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
-Starting fires
-Using fire to process food
-Using fire to process raw materials into something that can be used for tools, structures etc.
We talk about the use of tools because it's a very significant conceptual leap. Once you understand that you can manipulate your environment to accomplish your goals the abilities in your list are comparatively incremental.
Our use of tools isn't the only measure of specialness, but I'm not sure there are many cognitive leaps quite so significant... language would be one but seems trickier to pin down because there are degrees of sophistication.
Nope, that'd be cats.
There is some research with great apes that makes the rounds every now and then but the findings are dubious at best as there's a lot of conflict of interest, handwaving and wishful thinking (see Koko "mourning" when told that Robin Williams died because they met once at some point in the past).
EDIT: Also it's probably a good idea to limit the conversation to social animals. Solitary animals don't have much use for communication other than challenging the competition and impressing potential mates -- insert celebrity joke here.
I guess this is difficult to prove. I'm not sure if it matches with the definition of "abstract concepts" but I was reading earlier today that Bottlenose Dolphins "transmit cultural knowledge across generations".[0] So maybe yes?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottlenose_dolphin#Tool_use_an...
If I tell you that you can put a stick in a certain tree and get honey out, that's different from me bringing you to that tree, putting a stick in it and showing you the honey (while being swarmed by angry bees but I digress).
Signals of many kinds are however certainly integral to language. Why are Jose discounted in your point of view?
It's similar to being able to use tools (which we've seen in many species) versus being able to create tools (which we've seen e.g. in certain corvids). The former is a significant first step but the later is what proves a certain amount of abstract thinking beyond the immediate here and now that goes far beyond mere instinct.
I guess I was hoping that this section of the language wikipedia didn't exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language#Unique_status_of_huma....
You don't even need to actually give it this treat every time.
BTW many horses died for their countries.
Sure you can argue semantic about how animals don't have countries, but it's a fact that animals do fight and kill each other to protect their territory.
Many animals cache food for the winter.
Many animals will fight to the death to defend their territory, mates, or offspring.
Some animals cultivate crops, e.g, ants growing fungus.
Many animals actively forage to feed their offspring.
In fact they are limited to a specific behavior, like storing food, and not generalized across all things that could happen.
Fighting to defend territory or feeding offspring are strategies that prove successful for the survival of the species, not tied to consciousness of the future.
For example, zebras run away from lions, but only when lions chase them. They are perfectly fine with lions sitting around if all they do is sitting. They don’t think: “at some point that lion will stand up and chase me”
And what difference does 'knowing' make? Do they make the sacrifice or not? They clearly do.
And recall, 'understanding the concept of sacrifice' was the topic.
It can be slow and inefficient to make up for lack of equivalent materials and mechanisms. A simulated one will do.
Or just explain how it works. I've been looking forward to reading that book. You'd sell some copies.
Also, a nitpick: it's a few millennia of studies by now. For example you can read Aristotle on the topic from 1700+ years ago.
We're basically sorcerers, by animal standards.
Humanrace represent
If we are not special in our level of intelligence (dolphins maybe?), then this is likely not true either.
-art (cave paintings, etc)
-music
it's striking to see 6-12 month old infants bopping up and down to music. They're not taught to do this and I've never heard of animals responding to music...
And Whales have music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_vocalization#Song_of_the... -- their singing employs musical rhythm and phrasing, and is culturally transmitted rather than instinctual.
Scientists are generally quick to give such vocalisations -- along with bird song, etc. -- purely functional attributes, thereby dismissing any aesthetic or emotional meaning it might have for the animal. "It's a territorial signifier". "It's for mate selection." Etc. This is a mistake: Mozart used his music to get laid; what musician doesn't? We can't know what these sounds truly mean -- subjectively, not functionally -- to an animal, because we can't talk about it with them. But that doesn't mean that it is empty of meaning.
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
I wonder if there are animals that produce ElsaGate videos, or come up with rationalizations for them. I'm sure there's animals who eat their offspring in certain situations, but are there any that just bite them to death, to then proceed to run in hysterical circles, counting symbols and telling themselves "narratives"? Where can I find such a pathetic thing in the wild?
How do you know any given snarky comment on Hacker News isn't posted by a Harris hawk?
Can any nation or company? I know SpaceX aim to be able but I didn’t think anyone was capable at the moment.
Despite the fact that we still don’t understand the least about how consciousness arises in our brain, we are nonetheless the only animal that shows this.
Even in cases like monkeys recognizing themselves una mirror, no animal seem to go past that and be aware of the future like we do.
...
"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." [0]
We've found evidence in some animal or another for pretty much everything we've ever thought was unique about human cognitive abilities. So far, the only unique thing about humans is how broad and powerful our cognition is.
[0] http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious....
For instance, prairie dogs are shown to have a descriptive language: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/prairie-dogs-language-deco...
I highly recommend reading that one because it's funny and fascinating.
Expt:
Also remarkable was the amount of information crammed into a single chirp lasting a 10th of a second.
"In one 10th of a second, they say 'Tall thin human wearing blue shirt walking slowly across the colony.'"
--
Many Helens—err....—scientists agree: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5937356/prominent-scientists-sign-de...
And also demonstrably have a sense of morality: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/19/health/chimpanzee-fairness...
A skeptic might say that such behavior is simply part of any social animal's instinct, for various reasons, to which I ask: other than being able to rationalize our behavior, what makes human demonstrations of empathy different?
Chimps don’t have a complex set of morals about which they discuss and evolve with time. I didn’t say we know for sure what is good or what is not. But we can abstract the concepts and evolve our morals. Chimps will never get to debate about gay marriage or other “chimp” rights.
We can't speak to the depths of such a debate, because we can't participate in the debate. It's an (inter-)subjective matter for the animals involved; all we can do as external observes is be objective. But this then leads us into a categorical error: because we can describe a behaviour using objective language, we therefore decide that it in fact contains no subjectivity; eg., is not truly conscious.
We used to mis-apply this logic to so-called "inferior" human cultures, denying their humanity because we couldn't get inside their minds. This was wrong, and led to great evil. Until recently, we've applied the same thinking to animals -- but it's just as wrong. There are a shrinking number of Descartian holdouts, and I guess you're one of them. But all evidence and logic is against you.
Additionally, if these things can't be objectively measured, why are you so sure they are true?
Were earlier human ancestors able to " abstract the concepts and evolve our morals"?
Humans don't have such a capacity. The notions of 'good' and 'evil' have historically been in flux and went through many huge changes. Modern humans consider the typical behaviors of past humans as 'evil'.
Vikings - rape after conquering is good. People today: that's evil.
India until 2 generations ago - arranged marriage is good. Today that's evil.
Homosexuality - has oscillated many times between good and evil. In fact, different geographic regions will still have polar opposite views on this today.
Suggest you do some homework. Something like 80%-90% of marriages in India are still arranged. And most people are pretty happy with this situation, or at least no more miserable than "Love marriages" -- which remain highly controversial -- would make them.
Today, arranged marriage means that the woman's parents will present her with prospective marriage partners but leave the decision making to her, including veto or asking the parents to 'arrange' for a man that the woman fancies - kind of like Tinder but the matching algorithm is parents. That version of arranged marriage is straight up better than the (serious) dating scene in westernized countries.
The original version is definitely considered evil by today's morals.
Is there any other animal that does this?
Uh huh.
In the meantime I'll stick with the assumption that there is still some sort of difference.
Meanwhile, I found a great termite city where termites have put aside their differences and work towards common goals together. Also coral. Their city is a thousand kilometres long.
Whatever one makes of the mental capacity of these individual eusocial animals (they're not too bright; you can lure them into termite windmills), collectively they substantially alter their local environment to their benefit.
There are whole valleys full of mounds rising a couple of metres above ground level in places where they are endemic:
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/06/79/d5/55/...
https://www.experiencethewild.com.au/Images/CathMound-300-PM...
and here's a a whole mess of such mounds in a field:
https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos/87121/530935/f/5448597-...
That's a lot of biomass with a lot of total neurons, and even though aren't as tightly coupled as the ones in our skulls, they still manage to coordinate a lot of constructive activity. I think it's reasonable to wonder if culture and aesthetics emerge as termite numbers grow large.
Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we're having a conversion via electricity across the planet instead spending most our lives trying to roll a breadcrumb around never having a chance to know one another.
Something about this gig is different isn't it? Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold.
He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.
Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy:
> > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh.
Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.
Your opening statement
> We are the only mammal with consciousness
is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar.
So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.
I NEVER SAID THAT. Look at the user names ya plonk. I was calling YOU out for just responding "uh-huh" when you could have actually broken it down for the OP. But you didn't, you wanted to have fun so you did but with the wrong fucking person. Dick.