From: Keith Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 15:48:28 MDT
Greg Jordan:
> It may be a muddle to you, but it's not a muddle to me :) I'm
> not talking about human instincts, about which we know very
> little. I also tend to be suspicious of the "just so" stories
> of evolutionary psychology/sociobiology.
I certainly hope you're equally suspicious of this baloney from your
.sig:
http://www.resourcesoftheworld.org/guardianformation.htm
> I'm talking about
> enjoyment you could
> (possibly) access in the present, yourself. Watch a few
> nature documentaries, interact with a friend's pet a bit. See
> if you don't get some pleasure from animals other than
> chowing down on their burnt muscles.
I really wouldn't want to frolic with a pig, nor would I want to eat my
neighbors dog.
>
> > themselves. Our far-from-ordinary brains do many
> intractable things,
> > and we sometimes invent words to facilitate discussion of
> them, such
> > as 'happiness', 'reason', or 'thought'. To say an animal is
> 'happy' or
> > 'sad' might help children and bad poets understand animal
> behavior a
> > little better. But it certainly doesn't help me, and it certainly
> > doesn't imply anything profound to me.
>
> Inferring animal emotion and rationality (ability to
> calculate with various algorithms) helps animal trainers,
> farmers, even hunters - everyone who really has to understand
> an animal in immediately practical terms.
This is just another way of saying 'in terms they can understand'. I
would bet half my life savings and investments that someone who
understands dogs is a better dog trainer than someone who understands
people. I would bet the other half of my life savings and investments
that someone who understands cows is a better dairy farmer than someone
who understands people. Animal emotion or rationality inferences are
*unjustifiable* by mere analogy to people.
> It may not be
> necessary for someone who has no interaction with live
> animals, or who has a vested interest in promoting human
> value superiority across every domain.
I appreciate your right to love animals for their whatever. As long as
you don't insist I should too, then we can co-exist.
>
> Humans aren't the only animals that are unique or that have
> special tricks of the trade of life. Bird brains can do
> things mine can't, and that I might wish it could. (We are
> just now developing the technology to allow us to imitate
> some of its features and adapt it for our use).
I have no doubt a bird brain is much better than mine at blindly getting
more bird genes into the next generation, but I can't think of much else
it would beat me at.
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 15:58:49 MDT