The human animal?

[Steel Tiger]

I think that it is something of a human conceit to think that we are not animals. To say this is to give us some sort of special place. A justification for using and abusing the rest of the planet.

It's interesting that the dictionary ignores what biologists have been saying for 100 years. Evolution doesn't produce highly evolved animals. Every single animal that exists right now has evolved exactly the same amount of time as any other animal. Further, every single animal has evolved a degree of specialization within the niche that they survive that is equal to every other animal. Our social behavior is just another trait.

The amount of time that various species have been evolving does vary, but not by a significant amount. What is really important is the number of generations within that time frame, and that will vary greatly from species to species. A human generation is considered about 30 years, but an elephant or a Galapagos tortoise will have a longer generation.

The most interesting thing about the human animal is our lack of environmental specialisation.

Humans are using the entire planet as a niche.... Or is the evolution of species that are capable of civilization and rational thought a rare thing?

I think this is actually a very accurate expression of the human situation.

I would like to think that the evolution of a species capable of civilisation and rational thought is not as rare as we might be led to believe. A planet may only be able to sustain one or two such species, but there are so many star systems and so many galaxies that the probabilities are pretty good that other species have developed to the same level.

If there are other planets that we could breathe on, and we could get to them, I think we COULD populate them. We are like weeds in that respect.

This is a very optimistic position with which I am in total agreement.

Would I say we're almost completely self destructive, yes.

Our self-destructive nature is very strange. While I am by no means sure, I think it might be a trait that makes us unique in the animal world. Where does it come from? Is it a product of our developed mind? Is it some outgrowth of our social constructs?

 

[Blindside]

I don't think that is a true statement. If we preyed upon members of our species, then that would emply cannibalism, which is a major no-no in most of the world. Would I say we're almost completely self destructive, yes.

Several people have referenced this, and I don't think we are any more self-destructive than the next animal. Could someone explain what this is referencing?

Thanks,

Lamont

 

[Makalakumu]

And what was the factor that made us so different from everything else on the planet?

Language. Without this development, our entire social structure would fall apart. Civilization wouldn't be possible. This makes me wonder, is language always a prerequisite for the development of civilization or can civilization develop in other ways? The science fiction writer in me is starting to rub his hands together in anticipation...

 

[Makalakumu]

Why have Apes, which share what , 98-99% of our DNA stalled out?

The answer is that they didn't "stall out" at all. An ape is supremely evolved to live in the niche that it lives. If humans were to attempt to live like an ape, we'd have a rough go at it. Just as rough as if an ape would attempt to live like a human.

We evolved in different ways because the conditions of the environment at some particular point forced us apart.

 

[michaeledward]

Language. Without this development, our entire social structure would fall apart. Civilization wouldn't be possible. This makes me wonder, is language always a prerequisite for the development of civilization or can civilization develop in other ways? The science fiction writer in me is starting to rub his hands together in anticipation...

Language is a component, but I don't believe it is the only, or even causal component. Other species have established communities. What specifically is the difference between those communities and 'civilization'?

Written language is probably also an important component. Certainly it helps in the preservation of knowledge and communicating across distance.

We don't really know when language arose in our species. Certianly, our communities had begun to organize by the time we figured out how to put our language into symbols. But, we may have been using language for tens of thousands of years before we learned to write it down.

 

[Makalakumu]

UpNorth - I apologize if this creates unwanted conflict...

I was just curious - does a creationist point of view alter people's perception as to whether or not humans are animals?

I realize that this is a very controversial question, but a cornerstone of my thinking and it seems some others, is that we are members of the evolutionary chain. Therefore, if we are the result of intelligent design, does that somehow set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom (aside from the obvious, self awareness, opposable thumbs, imagination, etc)?

As far as I know, many people who suscribe to "creationism" do not view the human as an animal at all. They see us as being specially created by a deity. "Intelligent Design" doesn't really postulate anything different then what would normally be called creationism. It's just differently packaged and a tad more circumspect.

 

[Steel Tiger]

Several people have referenced this, and I don't think we are any more self-destructive than the next animal. Could someone explain what this is referencing?

Thanks,

Lamont

How many animals can you think of that damage their environment so as to make it uninhabitable? I think that is self destructive. How many other species desperately seek to maintain populations at such high levels that all the resources are exhausted? There are probably others but I can't think of any at the moment.

Other species will breed and breed while there are resources to support the high population, but when those resources are reduced so is the population. A strange downside of our altruism is that we stubbornly do exactly the opposite. We prop up populations that are in marginal or non-viable environments. In the natural course of things these populations would die out and the regions would regenerate, but we, as a species, are so obsessed with population growth that we don't let the environment regenerate. I think that is self destructive.

In writing this post, I came to think of something else. In the natural world there are checks on species populations, usually in the form of another species. We have gotten to a point now where those check have been removed (except for climate) and we are breeding ourselves to death.

 

[Makalakumu]

Language is a component, but I don't believe it is the only, or even causal component. Other species have established communities. What specifically is the difference between those communities and 'civilization'?

Written language is probably also an important component. Certainly it helps in the preservation of knowledge and communicating across distance.

We don't really know when language arose in our species. Certianly, our communities had begun to organize by the time we figured out how to put our language into symbols. But, we may have been using language for tens of thousands of years before we learned to write it down.

Apes are social animals. They live in a world dominated by social preferences and rules. The development of language allows for this social world to expand to a far greater extent then any other ape because of the depth of the communicative potential. I've got a couple of sources that discuss the development of language in humans that I'm going to dig out. Try this book for starters, Eve Spoke.

 

[Steel Tiger]

The answer is that they didn't "stall out" at all. An ape is supremely evolved to live in the niche that it lives. If humans were to attempt to live like an ape, we'd have a rough go at it. Just as rough as if an ape would attempt to live like a human.

We evolved in different ways because the conditions of the environment at some particular point forced us apart.

We have seen this further a long in our familt tree. The Neanderthal was a homo species supremely adapted to the cold environs of the ice age. With the change of climate he was not able to adapt as was his cousin homo sapiens and therefore died out. Evolution does not always lead to the best creature. It usually leads to the best creature for that particular environmental niche.

 

[michaeledward]

Apes are social animals. They live in a world dominated by social preferences and rules. The development of language allows for this social world to expand to a far greater extent then any other ape because of the depth of the communicative potential. I've got a couple of sources that discuss the development of language in humans that I'm going to dig out. Try this book for starters, Eve Spoke.

But, what if homo sapien started using language, let's say, 50,000 years ago. Our species didn't really come to any prominence until about 10,000 years ago. How do we reconcile the timeline?

If we are going to examine the difference language creates for homo sapien, we really are lacking an understanding of languages used by other species for a proper comparison.

Whale song, bird song, and even kinestetic activity may all be types of language in the animal kingdom. But, we are hardly equipped to interpret it as such. Although study continues in this area.

But, I think Blotan Hunka's question is based on a false premise. It is working from the assumption that huma beings are very different from the other animals on the planet. I am not certain this is true. But, if we are going examine the truth of this statement, let's get some parameters around those differences?

 

[Kacey]

I'll go back to my original premise - that they [humans] act on the environment rather than reacting to the environment - and expand on what I meant. Humans adapt to their environment in ways that no other animal does - humans live in environments that require artificial aids that go beyond simple tools, such as otters using rocks to open oysters. Humans wear clothing and create complex shelters as protection against weather, treat otherwise inedible food to make it edible, protect offspring who would not otherwise be biologically viable from death, find ways to store food in altered forms so that it lasts longer than it would naturally (e.g. cheese, dried meat, bread, etc.), and so on. It is this alteration of the natural environment, allowing humans to live virtually anywhere on the planet, that separates humans from the rest of the animals, which live only where evolution has fitted them to survive.

 

[MBuzzy]

I don't think that there is any debate that ALL animals communicate in some way....the difference is that humans have the ability to preserve knowledge and pass complex information along. Humans can learn a thing, then write it down and pass it along. I think that this behavior is the basis to our intellectual evolution. Once humans began to pass along complex patterns, things that they had learned, the next generation no longer had to start over and learn these things for themselves. They could build on what others had learned and advance that knowledge.

No other animal does that.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

The answer is that they didn't "stall out" at all. An ape is supremely evolved to live in the niche that it lives. If humans were to attempt to live like an ape, we'd have a rough go at it. Just as rough as if an ape would attempt to live like a human.

We evolved in different ways because the conditions of the environment at some particular point forced us apart.

Eh? There are primitive peoples out there who have lived in similar environments and get by.

All this "humans suck" crap though. Who wants to volunteer to take their family into the ovens to make less of an impact on the world for the rest of us who make no apologies for living?

What is it with people that makes us self loathing? But in actuality that loathing probably extends out to "others" rather than it does to the speaker.

BTW. I do agree upnorth. I think language was probably the hinge pin. Other species can communicate (I think many animals can communicate basic concepts like DANGER..FOOD HERE...BOOTY CALL etc. and perhaps basic "emotions" like what we call happiness, fear, etc.) but not to the depth of understanding of humans. BUT I think that beyond simple communication, it was the ability to write and transmit that language that really launched human development.

 

[MBuzzy]

I'll go back to my original premise - that they [humans] act on the environment rather than reacting to the environment - and expand on what I meant. Humans adapt to their environment in ways that no other animal does - humans live in environments that require artificial aids that go beyond simple tools, such as otters using rocks to open oysters. Humans wear clothing and create complex shelters as protection against weather, treat otherwise inedible food to make it edible, protect offspring who would not otherwise be biologically viable from death, find ways to store food in altered forms so that it lasts longer than it would naturally (e.g. cheese, dried meat, bread, etc.), and so on. It is this alteration of the natural environment, allowing humans to live virtually anywhere on the planet, that separates humans from the rest of the animals, which live only where evolution has fitted them to survive.

Great point, agreed - if a human is in an unfamiliar situation or place, they will adapt and survive. If most animals are put in unfamiliar surroundings, they generally cannot adapt to survive. Our adaptability is another thing that DOES set us apart from most of the animal kingdom. It may take thousands of years for a sea dwelling creature to be able to survive on land....humans can simply create technology to allow them to survive underwater - and building on my last point, each generation of humans will build on the knowledge learned by other and advance that technology.

 

[Blindside]

How many animals can you think of that damage their environment so as to make it uninhabitable? I think that is self destructive. How many other species desperately seek to maintain populations at such high levels that all the resources are exhausted? There are probably others but I can't think of any at the moment.

Voles, lemmings, most R selected species have boom bust cycles related to maxing out habitats. Carrying capacity is usually the controlling factor in populations, not predators, the other control is other R selected critters like viruses or disease.

Other species will breed and breed while there are resources to support the high population, but when those resources are reduced so is the population. A strange downside of our altruism is that we stubbornly do exactly the opposite. We prop up populations that are in marginal or non-viable environments. In the natural course of things these populations would die out and the regions would regenerate, but we, as a species, are so obsessed with population growth that we don't let the environment regenerate. I think that is self destructive.

No, this just means we haven't maxed out our habitat yet. This doesn't mean we are self-destructive, it means we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, reproducing and passing our genes on. The great myth is that animals live in some sort of balance with "nature" and it just isn't true, every individual of every species is trying to max out their reproductive success, species survival isn't altruistic it is selfish. We aren't self-destructive, we are simply the most successful critter this world has ever seen, and it appears that fairly shortly we will max out our carrying capacity. So be it, but that isn't self-destructive behavior, that is the "goal" of every species.

In writing this post, I came to think of something else. In the natural world there are checks on species populations, usually in the form of another species. We have gotten to a point now where those check have been removed (except for climate) and we are breeding ourselves to death.

Nope breeding ourselves to capacity, and you are correct, we may damage the overall carrying capacity of the planet, but that isn't "to death," humans aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And we do have predators, ones that are slowly catching up to us, think of drug resistant TB, that old disease will make a resurgance in our lifetime.

Lamont

 

[Steel Tiger]

No, this just means we haven't maxed out our habitat yet. This doesn't mean we are self-destructive, it means we are doing what we are supposed to be doing, reproducing and passing our genes on. The great myth is that animals live in some sort of balance with "nature" and it just isn't true, every individual of every species is trying to max out their reproductive success, species survival isn't altruistic it is selfish. We aren't self-destructive, we are simply the most successful critter this world has ever seen, and it appears that fairly shortly we will max out our carrying capacity. So be it, but that isn't self-destructive behavior, that is the "goal" of every species.

Lamont

I really cannot disagree with what you say, but should probably try to clarify something I was trying to say myself with regard to resource depletion. A species will continue to breed until it reaches its carrying capacity and then it will continue to breed. But if the lack of resources mean that living members of the group are going to die the group usually doesn't try to save them. There are limited exceptions to this. It is selfish behaviour and it is a very strong survival trait.

Now look at humanity. We have developed a sense of altruism that runs counter to, and yet parallel with, our survival traits. Daily we are bombarded with images of human populations that are surviving in marginal regions only because someone else, from somewhere else, is giving them the means to live. In other species those populations would be left to die or they would move to another place. Now we have placed constraints on population movement so that migration on that scale is not really possible anymore, but we also refuse to surrender to what appears to be naturally obvious and suffer those populations to die.

Does that make us self-destructive? It looks like it, but maybe it doesn't. I mean, as a species we do not seek self-harm, that is something that occurs on an individual level. On the other hand, all too often we see people burning up resources seemingly without any thought for the future. We might be the only species on Earth that considers long term future and yet we still have this behaviour.

Personally, I think that humanity is a staggeringly successful member of the animal kingdom (I think that some insect species have got us beat though). We may not have reached our carrying capacity, but we seem to be doing our best to bring capacity and resource availability together as quickly as possible, from both ends.

 

[Marginal]

I'll go back to my original premise - that they [humans] act on the environment rather than reacting to the environment - and expand on what I meant. Humans adapt to their environment in ways that no other animal does - humans live in environments that require artificial aids that go beyond simple tools, such as otters using rocks to open oysters. Humans wear clothing and create complex shelters as protection against weather, treat otherwise inedible food to make it edible, protect offspring who would not otherwise be biologically viable from death, find ways to store food in altered forms so that it lasts longer than it would naturally (e.g. cheese, dried meat, bread, etc.), and so on. It is this alteration of the natural environment, allowing humans to live virtually anywhere on the planet, that separates humans from the rest of the animals, which live only where evolution has fitted them to survive.

I think the extent that humans manipulate their environment is greater, but other animals do this as well. (Beavers, termites etc) Humans haven't been able to ignore the environment so far. They can't control the weather, tidal forces, continental drift, gravity and so on, which means the environment is still dictating a fair amount of reactive behavior from humanity. Tool use mitigates this somewhat, but they're still reacting to the environment.

Animals are more than capable of moving into new environments. How well their traits match up to the new environment is question. They may simply fit into the system, or they may create a niche within the new system, or they may posses traits so strongly suited to the new (but different) system that they singlehandedly destroy the system entirely. They may prove unsuitable and die out in the new area, but that's not the only possible outcome.

 

[CuongNhuka]

You must have broke out the good stuff for a Sunday.

A thursday during Algebra 3-4. My teacher is an idiot... so I tend to write philosophy, socio-political or pseudo-theological... But it makes snese, right?

 

[CuongNhuka]

Our self-destructive nature is very strange. While I am by no means sure, I think it might be a trait that makes us unique in the animal world. Where does it come from? Is it a product of our developed mind? Is it some outgrowth of our social constructs?

That is a good question. whats the expression "the more things get better, the more they get -insert profanity here- up"?

Several people have referenced this, and I don't think we are any more self-destructive than the next animal. Could someone explain what this is referencing?

Not sure who said it, granted i just stole it, with out knowing it.
I think we are. the only time animals kill themselves is as a product of some thing like herd mentality or the like. humans kill themselves, each other (for no reason), destroy there own bodys (through drugs, steroids, tobbaco, and excesses of alcohol), destroy there enviroment for no reaosn, and are in general a little more messed up.

In writing this post, I came to think of something else. In the natural world there are checks on species populations, usually in the form of another species. We have gotten to a point now where those check have been removed (except for climate) and we are breeding ourselves to death.

See heres the thing, as we have gotten stronger, and stronger, and stronger, Nature has started to wipe us out. We develop something, and God (or Giai, or whoever) starts to smash the coast with a hurricane, or comes up with some new desease to wipe us out. You mentioned our idiotic breeding patterns, well, now we have AIDS... Almost looks like God doesn't like us.

 

[CuongNhuka]

I don't think that there is any debate that ALL animals communicate in some way....the difference is that humans have the ability to preserve knowledge and pass complex information along. Humans can learn a thing, then write it down and pass it along. I think that this behavior is the basis to our intellectual evolution. Once humans began to pass along complex patterns, things that they had learned, the next generation no longer had to start over and learn these things for themselves. They could build on what others had learned and advance that knowledge.

No other animal does that.

Every animal teaches. Wolves teach there puppys how to stalk, how to hunt, and how to kill. Bears teach there cubs much the same, deer do much the same, and so on. The only differnce is that we teach more info, that is arguably less useful.