''Animals are slaves to their genes, whereas people — that is, highly intelligent, creative, and ambitious animals — have a different role, judging from our historical patterns.''
It doesn't look like that From what I've realized, most of the smarter ones are as dominated by their primary impulses as the less intelligent ones. The big difference is that they are better to rationalize their actions, including irrational ones.
But wouldn't self-control//rationality also be genetically determined?
The best way to find out is to ask them for self-criticism.
Sharply good people on criticize themselves with objectivity and precision seem to be much rarer.
''On an individual basis, then, we may sympathize with the plight of endangered species. When we see a starving and abused animal, we feel sad or ashamed. But even that sympathy is an anthropomorphism: we’re viewing animals not as the alien slaves to their genetic programming and training that they are, but as quasi-human, as potential friends or servants (pets). We’re comparing elephants, lions, chimpanzees, and all the rest to something like starving, homeless children.''
I still believe that you don't often live with non-human domesticated animals especially cats based on this part of the text.
I don't anthropomorphize my cat. I treat her like a fellow living being, as well as I treat other species, with the exception of mosquitoes.
I know my cat is not a human being, LOL But,i know that there are people who do this.
My Cat is not my servant. It's the opposite, haha.
I don't think psychology or sociology is reducible to biology, so our cultural roles derive from our autonomy, from our freedom from the animal functions. Behavioural modernity is the point when people emerge from animality, and what people do is pretty novel, although this is certainly foreshadowed by animal behaviour. For example, octopuses and chimps also use tools.
I've lived with dogs. You say you treat your cat like a member of the family, but that's my point: we readily anthropomorphize animals, our smart phones, and virtually everything else with which we regularly interact. Spiders spin webs, birds flap their wings, and people anthropomorphize. We humanize our environment to avoid confronting the alienness and amorality of godless nature.
That's an interesting discussion. Evolutionary psychologists might be inclined towards this kind of realism, although she says she's not misanthropic. In any case, the evidence for our systematic mistreatment of animals is overwhelming.
''As far as we know, organic life has no other objective purpose.''
ReplyDeleteOnly human beings know well that the biggest reason to live is... to live and not to procreate and pass the genes on.
Nonhuman living beings do not consciously know that what else they do is live.
Procreation is just part of the process but not the most important, from a hyperrealistic perspective.
The most important thing is to exist, to be part of this nonsense at the same time internally absolute and externally indifferent.
The key word there is "objective." Our objective functions are likely only biological.
Delete''Animals are slaves to their genes, whereas people — that is, highly intelligent, creative, and ambitious animals — have a different role, judging from our historical patterns.''
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't look like that
From what I've realized, most of the smarter ones are as dominated by their primary impulses as the less intelligent ones.
The big difference is that they are better to rationalize their actions, including irrational ones.
But wouldn't self-control//rationality also be genetically determined?
The best way to find out is to ask them for self-criticism.
Sharply good people on criticize themselves with objectivity and precision seem to be much rarer.
''On an individual basis, then, we may sympathize with the plight of endangered species. When we see a starving and abused animal, we feel sad or ashamed. But even that sympathy is an anthropomorphism: we’re viewing animals not as the alien slaves to their genetic programming and training that they are, but as quasi-human, as potential friends or servants (pets). We’re comparing elephants, lions, chimpanzees, and all the rest to something like starving, homeless children.''
I still believe that you don't often live with non-human domesticated animals especially cats based on this part of the text.
I don't anthropomorphize my cat. I treat her like a fellow living being, as well as I treat other species, with the exception of mosquitoes.
I know my cat is not a human being, LOL
But,i know that there are people who do this.
My Cat is not my servant.
It's the opposite, haha.
I don't think psychology or sociology is reducible to biology, so our cultural roles derive from our autonomy, from our freedom from the animal functions. Behavioural modernity is the point when people emerge from animality, and what people do is pretty novel, although this is certainly foreshadowed by animal behaviour. For example, octopuses and chimps also use tools.
DeleteI've lived with dogs. You say you treat your cat like a member of the family, but that's my point: we readily anthropomorphize animals, our smart phones, and virtually everything else with which we regularly interact. Spiders spin webs, birds flap their wings, and people anthropomorphize. We humanize our environment to avoid confronting the alienness and amorality of godless nature.
Did humans evolve to harm animals?
ReplyDeletehttps://animalpeopleforum.org/2021/04/29/have-humans-evolved-to-harm-animals-an-interview-with-dr-diana-fleischman/
That's an interesting discussion. Evolutionary psychologists might be inclined towards this kind of realism, although she says she's not misanthropic. In any case, the evidence for our systematic mistreatment of animals is overwhelming.
Delete