Is There A Worse Species Than Homo Sapiens?

[DistressedAmerican]

If animals had thumbs and could fire guns would they drive us to extinction? Would we deserve it?

Surrender NOW or be exterminated!

[TomClash]

1. I can name an uglier species

Ann Coulter

[DistressedAmerican]

2. I Believe That Is A SubSpecies.

Homo Sapiens Asshaticus

[0007]

92. Wrong! Ann's a viper. She's in the reptile category.

[bryant69]

3. I don't know. I mean we also came up with Shakespeare

And the Beatles.

And Van Gogh.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[DistressedAmerican]

4. Infinite Monkeys...Intinite Typewriters!

[bryant69]

5. OK.

But who's going to invent the typewriters without humans?

Carpenter Ants? Chaos Butterflys? Typewriter Beatles?

[renie408]

7. Eh.

Ultimately, what GOOD are those things? They please US, but are of no value to the earth as a whole.

To me, a better example of the value of humans would be Mother Teresa. Other species may not kill each other at the rate we do, but they also indulge in very little kindness or charity.

[bryant69]

15. So we we are to imagine our selves as, say, beavers?

And try to evaluate the world through that perspective?

[renie408]

20. You lost me with the beaver reference.

I am saying that if I were looking for a redeeming human charateristic, I would probably not consider any intellectual achievement. I would consider the human capacity for kindness and charity to be our saving grace. The ability to create beauty, either written or visual, is not independent of cruelty. Shakespeare could have been a real asshole, after all.

[bryant69]

23. I'm suggesting that you seem to postulate a judgement based on

what animals might appreciate. Animals can't appreciate Shakespeare, so Shakespeare doesn't count. The Animals could appreciate the kindness of Mother Therasa or Francis of Asissi, so they do count.

I don't know if I can agree with that standard. As long as humans are around to appreciate them, the beauty will still exist. And if humans dissappeared tomorrow, the animals (with the possible exception of Dogs) will have forgotten us, and our "kidness," by Monday.

[renie408]

26. Oh...well. I don't think animals would see the value of kindness, either.

So maybe neither standard is viable. Animals, while not necessarily cruel, are primarily interested in the survival of their own species. (Other than dogs, that is. And in the case of dogs, it could be argued that they have been domesticated for so long that humans have probably selected for traits such as loyalty and selflessness and therefore altered their initial personality.) The initial post was debating the apparent cruelty and exploitave nature of humans compared to other species. It seems to me that most other species of animals are more practical than humans. They neither go out of their way to be cruel, nor do they go out of their way to be kind.

To me, the ability to create beauty does not make someone outstanding. The ability to be kind does. I guess this is as subjective a measure as any other.

[RC]

19. You are correct about Mother Teresa as an example of the value

of human beings. She'd fit right in with our current administration.
We are a most arrogant species, having evolved enough intelligence to rationalize absolutely anything.

[renie408]

21. Lost again.

I can't tell whether you are agreeing with me or patronizing me.

Maybe that's why I am not drawn to intellectual measures for the worth of the human species.

[bryant69]

24. Mother Theresa can be a controversial figure

Apparently she supported the Vatican position on Birth Control, despite being in india and seeing problems of overpopulation. Also she took donations from some nasty people.

I don't think that overweighs the good she has done, but some do.

[renie408]

29. Check.

I am not a Mother Teresa afficionado, I mentioned her off the top of my head as an example of selflessness. I imagine, being Catholic and Christian, she was probably in an intellectual quandary over birth control. I don't agree with where she came out on the issue, but I can understand how she got there. And if you take money from shitty people and do good things with it...is that so bad?

[troubleinwinter]

132. I am mighty ambiguous about Mother Theresa.

She did NOT want to eradicate poverty !!!.

She saw poverty as a vehicle for her to serve God. A way for her to getHER OWN SELF through the pearly gates.

[renie408]

6. Animals don't think that way

Just human animals. Whatever allowed us to survive with so little physically going for us has made us too scrappy for our own good. Humans are NOT like other animals. Every other animal only fights as survival deems it necessary. Humans fight for fun. Nearly all other animals studiously avoid murder of their own kind. There are instances of male lions killing the cubs of other males and of chimpanzees killing the chimps from other groups who wander near their territory, but no other species kills their own at the rate we do and for no real good reason.

Animals are not like us. Sad for us.

[VLenin]

99. a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous

Chimpanzees do wage war against other bands deliberately, not just if some wander into their territory.

Ants have wars deliberately.

When a new male takes control over another's pride, they kill the cubs of the defeating male, as standard practice, not just as rare incidences as you suggest.

Killer whales will kill seals for the fun, throwing them about and playing with them.

Has anyone not seen a house cat kill something for fun?

And the items could go on and on.


The only difference between humans and other animals is political theory.

[renie408]

148. I agree

Ants wage war to insure the safety of the genetic code of their colony. Ants are haplodiploid reproducers and the members of a single colony carry 75% or more of the same genetics. When another ant colony tries to establish itself within their domain, two colonies will sometimes go to war. But it is to insure the furtherance of each colonies genetic code, not for shits and giggles. Not all ants do this, BTW. It is the same thing for the lions. A male lion who takes over a pride will kill the cubs of the previous male. First, it eliminates any genetic competition for his own get and second, the females will come into estrous, allowing him the opportunity to produce that get.

Damn. I am writing this in Word to insure that I don’t lose what will most likely turn out to be a long post if my stinky connection fails and now I cannot remember half of your examples. Ummm…the cat thing…cats are responding to an instinct to attack stuff that moves in a quick or erratic manner. They have no more intent to torture the mouse than they do to torture a feather tied to a string. They just know that if it moves, they have to grab it. If the mouse would just sit still, the cat most likely would not kill it. Sadly, you have a hard time explaining that to the mouse.

Are you sure the Orcas don’t eat the seals? That one I don’t know that much about, but I would be willing to bet that there is not the same intent from the whales as there was from the two boys who stoned that two year old kid to death a couple of years ago. Or the serial killer that gets off sexually from killing and torturing other humans. Oh, and according to Jane Goodall, most acts of chimpanzee aggression do not lead to wounding and those that do are usually directed towards individual members of other groups. I am assuming they have their reasons. She also states that most acts of violence are related to dominance or sex. (Gee, that is at least similar to humans)
Yes, there are instances of apparent random violence in the animal kingdom. But I think your argument is quite accurate. You appear to be saying that the members of the animal kingdom are as prone to random and pointless violence as humans and that is simply patently untrue.

[Robert Cooper]

8. Worse? Countless

Consider how good we are at polluting the planet, spreading nuclear waste and destroying the ozone. Not one species better than us at these tasks.

And while there are many species that prefer isolated lives, socializing only to mate, there are very few who hate their own species enough to deliberately slaughter thousands or millions. You'd have to get down to the ants to find a species with a blood-lust like ours.

And I don't know -any- species as parasitic of its own kind as we are. A few drones in the beehive is usually the limit to the amount of parasitism permitted a species, but we've pushed the envelope beyond all belief. We're better at it than any other species.

And none have developed a society that encourages such stupidity as ours. How many other species elect Republicans?

That was a trick question, wasn't it?

[renie408]

9. That Republican thing was great. n/t

[VLenin]

101. parasites

"And I don't know -any- species as parasitic of its own kind as we are. "

Hey, may I suggest parasites are parasitic?

Any number of insects destroy the very environment that sustains them.

Seek out a tree surgeon and let the learning begin.

[Robert Cooper]

131. I've confused you...

...parasites rarely if ever parasitize their own species. They usually parasitize another species.

As for insects destroying their environment, its a self-correcting problem. There are many animals whose populations follow cycles of feast and famine (rabbits, lemmings, squirrels).

[ComerPerro]

10. I believe that some cats would rise up and kill their owners

if they had the means.

Ever had a cat give you a dirty look?

LOL

[renie408]

12. Did you know...

that it is rather disgusting common knowledge amongst EMT's and the like that cats will eat their owners the minute they die? A dog will lie next to its dead owner until it nearly starves to death and not eat them. A cat will take a nibble the minute the owner dies.

Kind of makes you weird about falling asleep around your cat. What if they confuse you for dead??

[Robert Cooper]

14. I pity the feline...

...who makes -that- mistake with me ;-)

[ComerPerro]

22. Next time a cat licks you

push it off your lap and scream, "I'm not dead yet, you son of a bitch!"

[Robert Cooper]

28. lol

I think my 9 dogs might have something to say if Fluffy were to try and eat me.

With my luck, probably something like "move over, I want some" ;-)

[William Bloode]

57. Thanks for the laugh!

That line had me rolling lol!

[BuelahWitch]

60. Well then I guess I don't have to worry about kitty going hungry

in case I drop dead from a heart attack. ;)

[Robert Cooper]

13. Not until they've mastered...

...the can opener ;-)

[alarimer]

119. mine is plotting against me even as we speak

I know he just sits there and thinks of ways to annoy me!

But humans are defintely the most destructive animal on the planet. I often wonder what the world would be like without us. While I do not believe that evolution necessarily would always result in an intelligent, humanoid-type species (that would largely depend on the conditions that caused natural selection to occur in certain ways). it is possible that in the absence of humans, some other animal may have evolved to the level of intelligence that we have.

I also think that without the dinosaurs extinction, humans might not exist at all. I think life is essentially random. I do not think the existence of humans was predetermined at all. If conditions at the beginning had differred in some way who knows what might have happened?

[Mr.Green93]

11. White Homo Sapiens are the root cause

of most of the world's problems.

[renie408]

16. Racism is still racism...

no matter whom you single out.

Europeans were forced to depend on innovation (cold climate, shorter growing season, limited resources requiring the need for competition, blah blah blah) more than other races and therefore developed industrially more quickly than other races. Industrial development lead to military superiority earlier. Military superiority + human nature = Europeans dominating the world rather ickily for a long time.

If you crammed a bunch of Indians (sorry, Native Americans)into a cold climate and gave them limited resources, they would have most likely developed along the same lines as Europeans. Same thing with Africans, I imagine.

[EFerrari]

36. Alaska being a rather glaring counter example.

I think you lost me when you tossed out typewriters and Shakespeare.

[renie408]

38. Well, Hitler was an artist

But I would not use him as a poster boy for why homo sapiens are a great species.

And I beat you to the Inuits. Read further down.

[EFerrari]

44. Interesting. Hitler was a painter? You lose! lol

Shakespeare was not an asshole. Geezus.

The typewriter was a good tool.

We seem to have a raging case of Wild Speculation with some attendant Gross Generalizations this morning.

[renie408]

48. How do you know Shakepeare wasn't an asshole?

...since there are a lot of people who are not even completely sure who Shakespeare was, exactly. I didn't say the typewriter wasn't a good tool. What has that got to do with anything? And I thought Hitler both wrote and painted. Why is it more 'wildly speculative' for me to think that the worth of the human race lies in its ability to be kind than it is for you to presume that it lies in its ability to produce subjective works of 'art' or in its intellectual endeavors (oh, yeah, and in producing the typewriter)?

edited for typos

[Robert Cooper]

55. Hitler wrote and was an artist...

...tho' all accounts claim he wasn't very good at either.

As I recall from Will Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" Hitler sketched in Vienna, selling his pictures to support himself.

Later, in prison, he wrote "Mein Kampf".

He also fancied himself to be something of an architect.

[renie408]

79. Well, there you go...

And art IS in the eye of the beholder, after all....

[Robert Cooper]

84. True enough...

...enough people bought his pictures to keep him alive.

[EFerrari]

116. That Hitler was a hyphenate doesn't speak to the intrinsict worth

of art, Robert, which is the argument that renie was making, if you can call that an argument.

[renie408]

118. Say, does that patronizing sophistry work in person as poorly as it

does on the internet?

Do you really think that using snippets of condescending rhetoric actually diminishes anything I have said or supports....whatever the point is that you were trying to make?

Hey, instead of just pointing out that I am an idiot, how about explain HOW my initial argument was wrong.

Why is using intellectual achievement a more valid measurement of the worth of the human species than using our ability for charity and compassion?

Art is subjective. Hitler was capable of producing works of art pleasent enough for other people to purchase. That does NOT make him a good human being.


HINT: Try writing more than two sentences and make sure that what you write actually supports your original argument....now, SEE??? It isn't any fun to be patronized and treated like a moron, is it?? Didn't your mommy raise you better than that??

[EFerrari]

130. Sorry that you feel patronized. And there is no sophistry in what

I wrote.

lol.

I generally only use the number of words I need to express a thought.

Sorry you're upset, renie. That's really not my thing. Back to the roses.

[renie408]

134. I guess I misunderstood

You're continuously telling me to pick up a book and educate myself.

LOL.

How could anybody could misconstrue that for you being patronizing??

LOL.

You apparently don't understand the meaning of the word "sophistry".

LOL.

Try a dictionary.

LOL.

[EFerrari]

137. I love reading. When someone refers me to a source

or points out a big gaping hole in my knowledge or argument, I generally go find out what they're talking about. But, that's just me.

[renie408]

141. Does that mean you looked up 'sophistry' in a dictionary?

If you do not mean to be patronizing or obnoxious, why add the snotty little comments like "But that's just me."? Why not just state your viewpoint without the implication that the person you are addressing is an idiot? Why say the "If you had access to a library" comments? Why pretend that you are not being patronizing? I don't mind saying that I am being a bitch about "sophistry" thing. Hey, own it.

[EFerrari]

61. I know Shakespeare was not an asshole because he was honest

in his business dealings; he took good care of his acting company, he provided well for his family and he tithed.

And the question isn't who he was but who wrote the works attributed to him. And this question isn't seriously entertained by Shakespearean scholars, a club I belong to.

Okay?

[renie408]

77. That assumes that he wasn't Edward De Vere

The Theory of Evolution wasn't seriously entertained by most scientists for awhile, either. I am not sold that the majority of Shakespearean scholars have got it right. I think their is a case for Oxford. But most Oxfordians are a little out there, so I usually keep that to myself.

I am also not sold that there is enough information available about the Shakespeare of Stratford to make ANY assumptions about his personality beyond the works. It seems to me that ONLY the works make any indication about his personality. But, hey, that's just me.

[EFerrari]

114. But we weren't talking about the author of the plays

we were talking about Shakespeare, whose life is quite well documented. Another topic for your reading list.

As for the Oxfordians, they have as much standing among serious people as the Moonies do.

[renie408]

120. Back up that documentation comment...

There are whole chunks of William Shakespeare of Stratford's life which nobody knows anything about. We know who he married and we know he was a glovemaker. We know he bought a bed and his wife had twins. We know about when he died. We don't actually have ANY documentation which proves much else, even that he wrote the works. I have read about it. I have not found the degree of documentation that you elude to, and yet do not support with any pertinent information.

Yes, the majority of Oxfordians are considered nuts. But that does not diminish the fact that Edward De Vere makes a helluva sight more sense as the author of Shakespeare's works, in particular the sonnets and Hamlet (which is practically an autobiography of De Vere's life) than some middle class glove maker from the sticks during a time when books were precious few and far between.

[EFerrari]

135. If you're interested,

Try this: The Elizabethan Stage. E. K Chambers. 4 vols.

It's a great resource and compiles extensive docs -- church records, tax records, notes re SH and his company as written by his competitors. There are also broadsheets, sermons that ref him and his company. The anti-theatrical sermons are great.

Chambers provides great primary sources and frankly, it's amazing that he does, considering all the upheaval (let alone fires and plagues) that were part of this period.

[renie408]

139. Thanks

I will check it out. I am not sure it is something they will have at my local library, but maybe I can find something out about it online. I have a bunch of Shakespeare stuff, but most of it talks about how there is so little firsthand accounts that any information about him has had to be pieced together. This sounds like an interesting resource.

[EFerrari]

140. Putting our bs aside, where it belongs, I bet you'd really like it!

I lucked into a set. And it's very cool to see the original drawings and docs, and just how people thought about themselves some short 400 or so years ago.

When you think about it, there was a LOT of censorship but popular culture kept bubbling up anyway, despite that. And Chambers pretty much dedicated his life to saving everything that was left. fwiw.

/sorry, we're closed

[Hope springs eternal]

67. No, Romans started the trend and it went downhill from there

Fact is, there is something inside the white gene pool that is uber-nasty. We always think in terms of white=pure, but maybe this is an intentional contradiction.........

[DistressedAmerican]

17. That Is A Rather Broad Generalization On The Whole.

If White Homo Sapiens Disappeared would cruelty, exploitation, etc. cease? For many millenia there were whole regions of the world
that never saw a white homo sapien. Those places all had war, over exploited their resources, etc. A rather broad brush for me. Sorry.

[renie408]

25. I don't think they ALL over exploited their resources

I tend to think (off the top of my head, BTW. I have never actually researched this and so could be way off base) that other races had a greater resource to population ratio for a greater length of time than Europeans. And probably didn't get a chance to over exploit their resources before Europeans came and did it for them.

It makes you wonder about the natural selection involved in producing a successful prehistoric European, though. Particularly when you consider that the Inuits didn't develop similarly to Europeans and were in a much colder climate with much more greatly limited resources (kind of proving my aforementioned theory wrong, eh??). So, early on in European development, I wonder if a particular tribe of aggressive, innovative, exploration-oriented humans was naturally selected for (meaning that they survived due to those attributes), multiplied and spread those characteristics throughout that region? Leaving 'white' homo sapiens more agressive, etc?

[Robert Cooper]

31. Aggression not race-based...

it's population-based. Anywhere that humans reproduced to the point of producing a 'surplus' (especially a surplus of males) was ripe for aggression against their neighbours.

You'll also find these societies tended to favour male-dominance (men fought to protect the tribe's reproductive assets: women). Aggression was the way to acquire women (especially important when there is an imbalance in the ratio of genders). By taking the reproductive assets of surrounding tribes, you would boost yuour population while reducing the ability of others to increase their population and thus become a threat to your tribe.

If you examine the Mosaic laws, you'll find most of them were geared towards increasing the number of warriors. The rest were designed to reduce the friction between warriors of the same tribe.

[renie408]

35. It's always sex with men, isn't it??

Seriously, thank you for the input. It is interesting how we were forced (or not) to develop anthropologically.

[Robert Cooper]

40. "sex", never heard of it ;-)

We're still using these standards for our development. Concepts of chivalry and the willingness to risk men rather than women echo those ancient survival strategies, even though we have no real concern about extinction.

The increasing demand for equality between the sexes is the result of men making the world safer for women.

[renie408]

96. I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with chivalry or...

risking men over women. I LIKE having doors opened for me. Last night I was thinking that the only time I have to open a door is if I am alone. My husband is a big door-opener and my teenage son does it, also. And I sacrifice my husband at 2:00 in the morning if the dogs start barking wild all the time. I wake him up and let him go see what is going on.

I am sure all that means that there is something terribly wrong with me and I am very unenlightened.


But I still think there is something wrong with your last statement...

[Robert Cooper]

104. "...there is something terribly wrong with me..."

lol

I also subscribe to the idea of big burly men with beards beating the crap out of vicious wild animals and then returning to their mates who have been keeping the furs warm. It worked for thousands of years. There's something of the primitive in all of us, I think.

As for equality between the genders not happening till men made the world safe enough for women: examine the history of patriarchical societies. Most of the taboos against women have the effect of keeping them safe. None of these taboos eased until men were convinced women would be safe without the taboos.

[renie408]

107. I am sure feminists everywhere are hearing a strange buzzing

sound right now.

I am going to have to roll what you have said around in my brain for awhile to see what I make of it. I can see how you have come to this idea, I am just not sure I totally agree with it. I think that technology also played a part because it is a great equalizer and allowed for the rapid and broad exchange of ideas. It isn't as if men have GIVEN women their equal rights. We had to fight for them. We are still fighting for them.

I have to work on this one. But I do not totally agree with you on this....I think.

[Robert Cooper]

110. Ducking and covering: "Incoming!"

I don't think it was technology. I think it was the rule of law. Women are fighting for their rights, in the courts, not on the battlefield. If men were still doing things as they did before the rule of law, women could never win the battle for their rights.

As for "GIVEN", that is not the word I'd use. Women always had equal rights, men refused to acknowledge this and refused to permit women to enjoy those rights.

It's worth recalling that parliament was 100% male when it voted to permit women the vote.

Gee...is that buzzing getting louder?

[renie408]

112. Uhhh..no

Women have not 'always' had equal rights. In fact, the rule of law has been around a helluva sight longer than the idea of equal rights for women. In the 1500's the Catholic Church actually debated whether women were truly human or just chattel. Its tough for chattel to have ANY rights. And even after they decided we were human, fat lot of good it did us. We were not allowed to vote, our husbands were allowed to beat us if they saw fit and women had a pretty crappy deal up until the turn of the last century. And what happened around that time?? Did we finally develop the rule of law?? NOPE. Charlemagne started working on that quite a while ago. We began to develop technological advances which allowed women access to share information more readily. And which meant that women were more able to compete equally with men. Modern society was based less on who could most effectively beat up others and more on who could most effectively manipulate technology. Intellectual ability began to overshadow sheer physical ability. And women began to be able to share their ideas and began to be less satisfied with being the 'little woman'. A disatisfied woman is a force to be reckoned with. A whole bunch of them won the right to vote. Which began the process of women earning political capitol. It has been a slow and grinding process to secure equal rights ever since.

[Robert Cooper]

126. Perhaps I wasn't clear...

...I meant that women are as human as men, and have always been. They are born with as much entitlement to equal rights as men. Thus, women have always had equal rights. However, having them and enjoying them are two different things. As long as men refused to acknowledge the rights every human should enjoy, women were denied the opportunity to enjoy the rights they (as humans) were born with.

I've got a feeling I'm not saying this as clearly as I'd like.

As for intellect vs brawn, I'm sorry but the printing press was invented centuries ago and did not facilitate the liberation of women. And men have just as much intellectual capacity as women, yet this did not facilitate the liberation of women either.

I know the suffragettes protested long and hard, some died, and certainly this created pressure, but it was not such that it couldn't be resisted. In many places it was for many years.

It was men who had essentially run out of reasons and excuses for denying women equal rights that finally decided to recognize those rights.

It is not so very different to how blacks were liberated from slavery or how GLBTs are being liberated from persecution: we finally got it into our heads that the world won't go to hell in a handbasket if we let go of our exclusive control over events.

[renie408]

153. Sorry

I was sucked into the racial genetic thing and the Shakespeare thing, I wasn't ignoring you. Plus, I have a really sucky connection and it keeps ditching me.


Anyway....Ok, I will give you PART of your argument. Men did have to acquiesce. But you have to give me the fact that that the printing press has been around a lot longer than ready access to the printed word. Books and even pamphlets were not readily available to the broader public until the last, say, 150 years (pamphlets more so than books. I would guess that books were not common in people's houses until the turn of the last century and that started with the Bible not exactly what I would call a feminist manifesto.)

Also, men were trying to impress women with how they were protecting us by keeping us barefoot and pregnant. But the REALITY is that those taboos that you think were designed to 'protect' us were designed to keep us in our place...producing babies for men. You could equally say that Muslim law is designed to 'protect' women. YOU could equally say that, but no woman would. Those laws are designed for men, by men to promote some agenda men find beneficial to them. But now that Muslim women have access to technology and information, they are a lot less likely to buy it.

[Robert Cooper]

159. It depends upon which way you look through the telescope

At the time these taboos were invented, the rule of law didn't exist and they were an effective way of protecting the reproductive assets of the tribe (men were the 'military' assets of the tribe). To me that's putting these taboos in the context of history.

Today, and for some time now, the rule of law has largely replaced the need for the taboos, which is why they are coming down. But we are talking about taboos that have lasted for 2500-3000 years with roots in cultures even older.

What started as a way to defend the tribe and its reproductive assets has over time turned into a system defending male 'superiority': control over power structures. Because men can defend women without personal ownership (police/military), women have found the freedom to express their desire to exercise their human rights. As the concept of personal ownership diminished, the taboos eased and freedom was given room to grow.

Now, most of us view these taboos as archaic and sexist. Today they are. But when they were invented, they served an essential strategy for tribal survival. And that they were appropriate can be demonstrated by comparing taboos from various tribes. They tend to serve two purposes:
1. increase population (the bigger the tribe, the less vulnerable to attack)
2. reduce friction within the tribe (the greater the soilidarity within a tribe, the less vulnerable to attack)

Note that the original Jewish practice was to take more than one wife, thus increasing the size of the tribe very quickly. As population pressure increased, this practice changed to monogamy (thus reducing the friction between warriors competing for a mate).

So on the one hand you have women being locked into their baby-making function, but you also have men being told to keep their hands off the women of the tribe unless they've accepted responsibility for one (or more) through tribe-approved rituals.

It's a trade-off that has worked for hundreds of years, until the rule of law was strong enough to take over the role of the protective taboos.

A few years ago, shortly after we'd moved into pur home and before we'd built a perimeter fence, we were visited by a couple of strange dogs. The two dogs we had at the time were not pleased, and a fight broke out.

When I realized what was happening, that my family was threatened, I didn't ask my wife to go out, or ask her if she -wanted- to go out and fight these dogs. I grabbed a butcher knife and headed out myself, wasted no time even thinking about whether I should go or not. It was automatic.

Just as it was automatic for my wife to remain behind.

The instinct to protect my mate and her instinct to seek safety seem deeply ingrained and not subject to concepts like equal rights: in danger we tend towards the function we're best suited to serve. Certainly neither of us had had experiences to train our responses.

Others might react differently, trained through their own experiences. But that experience helped me to recognize that the male/female conflict over rights is the result of having enough safety to feel one has power over events. it isn't until one loses control that one starts looking for that nice, burly police officer with the gun to offer protection.

[DistressedAmerican]

56. Off The Top Of My Head I'll Point You To Several Appropriate Examples.

People moved into Australia and that was followed by a wave of large game extinctions. This pattern was also seen in North America following man's intrusion into this continent.

The people of Easter island are largely thought to have dies out because they cut their forests completely down. In large part as the conditions worsened, they cut faster as much of the timber seems to have been used in the erection of a huge flurry of monument erecting at the end. Trying to placate the gods?

The Maya collapse was in large part a function of massive deforestation combined with soil erosion. Most of which was a result of over population and limited fertility of tropical soils.

There are many, many more examples. As am archaeologist, I can tell you, over-exploitation of resources has been a constant in human populations. In fact most species if left to uncontrolled population growth, have populations that expand to exceed carrying capacity.

This regulates better in the wild as prey and predator species interlock and their numbers control each other. Remove the top predator and rapidly the prey species will grow to exceed the available food supply. Conversely, add a new predator to the mix and extinctions will soon follow.

[renie408]

90. Makes sense to me

In the Australian example, are you referring to aboriginal Australians? I am NOT an archaeologist and so probably have some pretty idealized and vague concepts about many pre-industrial societies. I always have kind of thought of the aborigines as being relatively few in number and living in peace with their natural world. But maybe I got that from watching Crocodile Dundee. Sadly, I am not kidding about that.

The Mayans I was thinking about this morning. I was pondering what made them as whacked out as they were. I mean, my limited understanding is that they were some pretty violent, competitive people. Kind of like us, now that you think about it. I wonder if there was also some kind of 'grasping' gene that was also prevalent in the people whose societies failed?

[Mr.Green93]

32. You may be right it is a broad brush

but if fish with thumbs are going to wipe out humanity they may need a starting place.

[Robert Cooper]

18. Like sanitation, indoor plumbing, electricity...

...increasing agricultural yields, founding the United Nations, advances in the sciences, democracy...

It's worth recalling that whites are nothing more than genetically-mutated blacks who left the relatively favourable conditions of Africa to make a life in more challenging conditions, demanding more innovations than those who lived under conditions that did not stress the need for the inventions required to survive the glaciation of Europe and parts of Asia.

If you are looking for a "root cause", try "blacks leaving Africa around 50,000 BP". There would be -no- whites if the blacks hadn't migrated out of Africa.

Whether you like it or not, we're all brothers under the skin.

(edit: typo)

[William Bloode]

69. A little correction.

It is correct to say man came from Africa, but he did not leave as a black man. We are not all descended from blacks. The great die off that took place 90,0000yrs or so ago killed off early Homo Sapiens, almost to the point of extinction. Just a few thousand lived, and they seemed to be a single tribe or closely related group.

These first true humans who first exhibited ideas like art and music emerged about 60,000yrs ago and were not black like say the Masai. They had a very mixed appearance and would have shown all the traits shown in most modern populations today. Some would have had almond eyes like asians, some would have had large round eyes like some europeans, some would have had kinky hair like blacks, some straighter hair like other groups.

I forget the name of the tribe, but there is a real world tribe that can be traced back to the first early true humans. They are in fact thought to be the direct descendants. Their appearance is a lot like i said, very mixed. Many have the hair, lips, of negro's but the eyes of an asian and lighter skin like a latin or a semitic group.

[Robert Cooper]

73. Got a source?

As an amateur I am by no means new to this topic and I've no doubt our ancient ancestors were black. From Afarensis through Habilis we were creatures of equatorial Africa. Not until Erectus (aside to Renie: yes, that "sex" thing again ;-) did we leave Africa and judging from how far we spread out it would be rather difficult to wipe us out to a thousand individuals.

As I recall, mitochondrial Eve was found to be an African living about 1.25 MYA.

I don't see how you suggest to disconnect us from A.Afarensis/H.Habilis/Early H.Erectus, all African progenitors of humans.

[William Bloode]

88. I don't have an online source.

This info comes from books, and a television program on the topic. 1st just because it is African does not mean black. Erectus, Habilis etc do not count. We can not even truely determine if the are truely direct decendents or just another branch. Also you cannot say what their appearence would have been for sure, no one can.

The program i saw was more or less similar to your mitochondrial Eve, as this was on the genetic Adam. And yes gene mapping seems to show that we do or can indeed trace back to one single idividual about 60-75,000yrs ago. Also genetic Eve is around 150,000 years old by todays reckoning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists have been studying human DNA for traces of extinction events. By knowing the rate of mutation of mitochondrial DNA and by a complex analysis of the distribution of these mutations, Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending have estimated the size and distribution of our gene lines in the past. They discovered that roughly 70-80,000 years ago, human population experienced a 'bottleneck' - when its large and well distributed gene pool of millions of individuals passed through mass extinction of family lines, leaving perhaps as few as 5000 individuals, from whom we are all descended.

http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/albertbates/akbp12.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The human population appears to have crashed to around 2,000 individuals around 70,000 years ago, at the same time they were headed into the worst part of the last ice age. The crash was possibly brought on by a massive volcanic eruption, Wells said.



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0216_050216_omo_2.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"You can ultimately trace every female lineage back to a single Mitochondrial Eve who lived in Africa about 150,000 years ago," said Dr Spencer Wells of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics in Oxford, UK, who was part of the team.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/999030.stm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am no professional myself. This subject has just been of great intrest to me my whole life. Information changes quickly and therories evolve as new evidence is found and deciphered. All this information and line of thought may change again in the next few years, and most likely will. I can go through many of the books i have collected on this subject and watch them contridict themselves from year to year. I have books from when Piltdown Man was still considered legitiment.

[Robert Cooper]

108. Thanks for the links...

Despite the bottle-neck, the humans who existed at that time were descended from the humans out of Africa.

As for "why assume black skin": exposure of more skin, equatorial/savannah environment, lack of melanin leading to skin cancer and other problems.

As for afarensis and habilis not being on the branch that leads to us, regardless of whiuch hominids you propose they're going to originate in Africa, branching off from the same family as produced the chimps.

[Yupster]

82. The Ainu?

Is that who you were looking for?

And I'm thinking that if ants had the size and strength to be the dominant species on the planet, they wouldn't be any nicer to us lesser species than we are.

[Robert Cooper]

85. As I recall...

...the Ainu are a remnant caucasoid tribe that spread into the area prior to the development of Mongoloid people (those with an epicanthic fold). If I recall correctly they are now at least partly related to Mongoloids due to inter-racial reproduction (part of that recollection is that there was a time in recent history where the Japanese tried to assimilate the Ainu, but I might be confusing that with the story of half a dozen other aboriginal peoples).

The Basques are another ancient tribe from this original migration.

[Kipling]

27. Rubbish.

Because whites run the world, most good and bad things are bound to come from them. And it is worth pointing out that the "nation" idea that drove European military and industrial growth originated in the Middle East. Anyway, what about disease?

[fishnfla]

30. you mean white male homo sapiens to be exact, right?

:hi:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. That has to be the most racist thing I have ever seen written

here on DU, and I've seen a few.

Humans are humans.

[EFerrari]

37. And they're all talking as if race existed except as an idea.

:eyes:

[Robert Cooper]

41. Please clarify nt

[EFerrari]

45. Physical anthropologists will argue that "race" is not a physical

category.

That's why cultural anthropologists talk about ethnicity instead.

[DistressedAmerican]

62. YEAH ANTHROPOLOGY! School 'Em!

Frankly, I wish the thread hadn't even gone down this road at all.

As you note, physical anthropologists dismiss race as any meaningful typological category. Specifically because, race is extremely limited to a small set of characteristics. They is more genetic variability within each of the large racial groupings than there is between the various groups. Statistically race is irrelevant to scientific classification.

[Robert Cooper]

68. But not prejudice...

It's impossible to deny we are a species who wants to identify everything and are willing to make some rather fine distinctions. Look at the various breeds of cattle, each with its own identifier. We go much further when it comes to each other: race, tribe, family name, personal name. Each conveys some detail regarding an individual.

If we left it to science to identify each of us humans we'd be hard pressed to communicate with one another. When I say "Human" how would you know it was you I was speaking of rather than someone else or everyone in general?

[DistressedAmerican]

72. Since My OP Was In Terms Of "Homo Sapiens" and "Species" I Thought That

was the whole point. To compare humans to other species. That is defined scientifically. As an extention, our linnean classificiation system does not recognize that fine a distinction. Some may. But, that has little to do with the original parameters of the discussion.

[Robert Cooper]

74. No argument from me on that score...

Never under-estimate the human ability to de-humanize one another.

See the second and third point of my first response:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5453936&mesg_id=5453969

[DistressedAmerican]

78. Certainly Electing Repugs Is Grounds To Question Our Much Lauded

intellect! That's for sure.

These guys will tell you that!

[Robert Cooper]

83. Yes but...

then we have examples like you :-)

Let me take this opportunity to compliment you on the 'Bush/Chimp" picture in your.sig I find myself wondering if you used a Bonobo for that particular pic. They're more stream-lined than the common chimp.

[EFerrari]

115. I know. That's why I stopped. Sorry, DA.

My real answer is shrink wrap.

:)

[Robert Cooper]

64. Precision vs generality

I think the reason for this is the inability to precisely define racial parameters that do not intersect the parameters of other races. We're one species, there is going to be overlap between racial groups if for no other reason than the fact we can still reproduce with one another.

I suspect by the end of the this century that ethnicity will be as difficult to define with precision as race is (in some areas) now.

Nonetheless, "race" has meaning to the general population just as tribal affiliations have meaning within racial groups. We're just entering a global society and its development is accelerating. For many of us terms like "Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Negroid" still have valid applications.

Bear in mind that "ethinicity" is an idea too. All words represent ideas. Their value depends upon their usefulness and portability.

[renie408]

43. Is 'breed' better?

As in breeds of dogs or cats? Or is the difference between Rottweilers and poodles an idea, too?

Edited to add:

Isn't there a gene that determines race? If so, how is race simply an 'idea'? Your comment implies that two caucasions have as much chance of producing a black child as they do a caucasion child.

[EFerrari]

46. No, it doesn't. If you have access to a college library, go find

an Intro to Physical Anthro text and read. It will be illuminating.

In short, the genetic difference among the "races" is so minuscule that it is simply silly to attribute gross characteristics like "aggression", for pete's sake, to that difference.

[renie408]

54. I am but a humble stay at home Mom

and therefore don't have ready access to an Intro to Physical Antrho text.

But...I do have decent reading comprehension and I *think* that your argument is total crap. The genetic differences between breeds is equally 'miniscule' when considered in the totality of genetic material required to define a species. And yet, due to selection on the part of humans, breeds of domesticated animals have varying general personality traits. Just because we have not currently defined a general genetic tendency towards personality types amongst the varying human 'breeds, why do you assume that there is none?

Because it is an icky thing to think, that's why.

[EFerrari]

59. You make my point, humble. There are not enough genetic

differences to constitute human breeds.

Put that good comprehension to use!

[renie408]

81. Uhhh...what?

BTW, you can always tell when somebody is outweighed in an argument. Their answers get shorter and weirder.

Umm....I think I said the exact opposite. And I don't think calling MY comprehension into question is going to change the fact that you just completely mutilated what I said.

If you aren't going to play well, don't play at all.

[EFerrari]

117. renie, you're arguing for a position that Science disgarded

at least 50 years ago, besides being, in itself, racist. I don't think you know that because I don't think you'd do that on purpse.

Now, I'm going to go plant a rose garden. Have a good one.

[renie408]

121. It is not racist to acknowledge differences between races

It is racist to discriminate based on the assumption of differences between races. Where did Science discard differences between races? I didn't get that memo.

How can you recognize generalized differences between types of other species and completely refute that there could be similar differencese between humans?


This is not a good time of year to plant a rose garden. You should wait until after the last frost. Ok, that assumes that you live in a frost prone area. But if you do, your roses won't have a chance to lay down strong enough roots at this time of year.

[renie408]

125. BTW... For the record

I don't actually believe that there are significant differences in personality traits between races. But I don't see how anybody could acknowledge genetically inherited physical traits specific to a particular race, genetically inherited diseases specific to certain races and then say that there is no chance of ANY genetically inherited personality tendencies.

Speaking of which...why is it that serial killers are nearly always white males?

[EFerrari]

142. Do we know they are? Or, do we pay more attention when white

people get killed by white people? :shrug:

[renie408]

144. Yes, we do. Statistically, serial killers are nearly always likely

to be white males within a certain age range. Something like 25 and 40. It is likely to be white males with a BULLET, BTW. Like, no other segment of society is close. There are some black and hispanic serial killers (and the occasional woman), but it is not nearly as common. I don't know if the reason is societal or racial, but there you go. Makes you wonder.

[Robert Cooper]

160. It is social...

...look at how few whites are serial killers and how many whites there are. If it were racial it would be far more prevalent.

[EFerrari]

133. In San Francisco, I plant roses year round.

And the "difference" between "races" is exactly what is at issue here.

The genetic "difference" is mostly melanin, said this brown woman.


How can you recognize generalized differences between types of other species and completely refute that there could be similar differencese between humans?

Oh, I don't know. Years of coursework? Common sense? WhatEVER. :)

You might check a source you feel better about before you forward this argument again. Because you seem to have some interest in the topic beyond just trying to make me "wrong".

[Robert Cooper]

52. Then we get into "half-breed" and "mongrel"...

Rather not go there.

And there are several genes controlling race: skin colour and the presence/absence of the epicanthic fold are two features of race. There are others that tend to be based more on tribal affiliations (such as height and placement of the cheek-bones, colour of hair and presence/absence of facial hair).

For some of us, "species" is an idea too. All life on Earth is inter-connected in ways that three-dimensional beings rarely consider.

[renie408]

89. I tend to agree about 'going there'...but can't resist

Lacking an Intro to Physical Anthro book, here is where I am coming from….I have raised and trained horses most of my life. We have a variety breeds currently on our farm. While you cannot say that ALL Thoroughbreds are more highly strung than ALL Quarter Horses, in general, my experience leads me to believe that TB’s are more jacked up than QH’s. While compared to the amount of genetic material which determines that these animals are HORSES, the amount of genetic material which determines their BREED characteristics is miniscule; it is directly connected to their personality traits. It makes sense to me that humans more or less work the same way. Also, in horses, certain traits are genetically linked. Take American Saddlebreds, for instance. Saddlebreds have been bred for long necks and animated motion. It just so happens that lordosis (low back or sway back) is in many cases linked to these traits through some root breeding stock. And so is a tendency to be what we would call highstrung. Makes sense that it works the same way with humans.

That said, the other thing I have learned from years of training animals is that nurture far outweighs nature. I can make any Quarter Horse just about as freaky as any Saddlebred and I can also take a Thoroughbred off the track and make them laid back enough for a kid to ride. So, I would also tend to believe that cultural influences and upbringing go a lot further to influencing a person than where their anthropological ancestors come from. I also do not believe that it is probably socially beneficial to worry too much about the genetic differences between races and whether or not they may or may not have any influence on behavior. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that, most likely, some of these differences exist.

[Robert Cooper]

111. I understand...

...and to some degree agree. I feel there are aspects of personality that are genetically linked: instincts for example.

However, I think we are far too complicated to predict behaviour based on racial background. I think if you compare very young infants from various racial groups you'll find more similarities than differences, and the differences will exist within racial types just as much as they exist between the groups.

In other words, we're all working with the same wiring when born, with minor variations between the passive child and the assertive child. But social indoctrination begins almost immediately.

It's as if we're born with chalk and blank chalkboard. Our chalk may be green, purple or blue, but it makes little difference because what matters most is what others write on our chalkboard.

[renie408]

113. On this, we agree completely

I have friends who have adopted a daughter from China. If you put a bag over her head, you would not be able to tell her from my own blue eyed, blonde haired, family has been in America since the 1700's daughter.

I concur that nurture supercedes nature in most things. I just can't help but interject that there is SURELY some nature in there somewhere.

[Robert Cooper]

127. Your daughter wears a bag over her head? ;-)

You certainly conjure colourful imagery :-)

I think there is nature in each of us. But I don't think it is racially inspired. I think it works on a much more fundamental basis than that, at the level of individuals. I also think there is another level, instinct for the species (flight or fight, for example).

I think the individual level is a pure random generator from a small set of genetic characteristics, emphasizing some senses over others which would create pre-dispositions (which explains why some kids are passive and others assertive).

I've seen no personality characteristics which can be assigned to the genetics of racial physical features.

[DistressedAmerican]

66. See Post 62. Same typological rules apply with breeds.

The differences are still too small to even make dog breeds different sub-species from the standpoint of typological classification.

[renie408]

91. Well, that would be relevant if we were discussing classifying

humans, but we weren't. We were discussing the chance that specific personality traits are linked to specific 'breeds' or 'races' of humans (I think. To be damn honest, this discussion has gone all over the place and I may be slightly lost). And while the genetic differences between dog breeds may be scientifically too insignificant in relationship to classification, those differences are primary to determining many personality traits. Why would it work any differently in people?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

58. Yes, because how far is it from

the white race is the problem on the earth to all blacks are criminal and should be in prison?

Same skewed thinking.

[EFerrari]

63. We can usefully talk about culture and behavior, tradition and so

on but not seriously about race and behavior.

[EFerrari]

147. The science doesn't support it. Funny how this is news in some way.

:shrug:

[renie408]

149. It isn't news

But that is all you will say. You will not explain WHY the science does not support it. And again with the snotty comments. You say that the only genetic difference between races is the amount of melanin in our skin. That is obviously untrue. So that single argument that you have made is out. You say that the amount of genetic code related to the determination of race is miniscule in comparison to that which establishes us as human. Check. Easily believed. But even a miniscule amount of genetic difference can account for a total racially associated physical difference, a racially related prediliction for some diseases and could also account for, MAYBE some kind of racially inherited personality tendencies. I am not saying I am right. I am saying that you have offered me no proof that I am wrong. You have only offered the snippy comments. That is NOT reasoning.

[EFerrari]

151. renie, I think the best course of action would be to do your own

research on this issue.

My job is not to spoonfeed you. Your job is to inform yourself.

I was a "humble" single mom of two, and managed to put myself through college and a PHD program. I'm sure you can do as well if not better than I did.

To recap: You assert there are "breeds" of people, that Shakespeare could have been an "asshole".

The "ignore" button is right about here.

[Robert Cooper]

162. Let's put...

the peddle to the metal.

Let's -assume- (for the sake of argument) that there is some bit of DNA that carries personality traits -specifically- associated with race. What trait(s) would you uniquely associate with each race, and how do you distinguish them from the individual personality traits each of us is born with?

My own feeling is that the physical traits of race are not connected with personality traits and for good reason: the personality traits are applicable under all conditions whereas the physical traits are only applicable to specific environmental conditions.

For example, dark skin is better suited for the tropics whereas white skin is better suited for northern and southern latitudes. Whenever either leaves its preferred environment, opportunities are created for mutations to take hold and propagate into the next generation (thus dark skinned people became light skinned people as they migrated away from the tropics).

This accounts for physical variations.

But what about personality traits? Are there any instinctive personality traits applicable to the tropics but not applicable elsewhere? Or are all the personality traits applicable to one's environment the result of learned behaviour?

Between the instinctive traits we all get, and the individual traits each of us inherits when conceived, I don't see any room for race-based personality traits, let alone some way to meaningfully measure their impact and distinguish them from the other two sets of traits.

In theory such traits might exist. But if you can't prove their existence, can't measure their impact and can't tell the difference between them and two other sets of traits, what is the point in insisting such traits exist?

[VLenin]

103. Who is Green?

Is this cover for

Mugabe?
Pol Pot?
Ganges Khan?
Adide?
Hussein?
Zarquawi

The teacher who taught me to spell?

[name not needed]

106. Hating white people is still racism. Fuck off.

[Neil Lisst]

34. Animals have become the "nobel savage" of legends & myths

The duality of humankind is based upon the conflict between our animal urges taken to extreme, with our spiritual, or social, need to reach out to and protect those like us.

We have imagined animals more wonderful than they are. If you die alone, with your family dog or cat, they will start eating you if they don't have food. It's not personal, they just need to eat, and while they may love you, when it's meal time ....

I love animals, but the big ones will split your head open in a minute if they get spooked.

[EFerrari]

39. Not unlike the hordes of relatives who descend to hear the will. n/t

[Neil Lisst]

47. there is nothing quite as unsightly as relatives and an estate ...

OMG it's disgusting. The worst behaviors come out from the very worst people. I don't know how estate lawyers put up with them.

[EFerrari]

50. And remember, we've spent a number of years developing

our taboo on cannibalism.

lol

[DanCa]

42. Chimpy's crew arent human so I say yes.

[Lefty48197]

49. Yes: Deer flies

I see no reason for their existence.

[cigsandcoffee]

51. wasps & hornets

Kill them all.

[BuelahWitch]

53. Does any other species kill for sport?

For food or protection or mating purposes, but I doubt it is done with the joy that we seem to have when we do it.

[Denali3]

70. Orcas "play" with their prey before they eat it....

Tossing the little baby seals around for several minutes before actually eating them. Scientists label it as play....bastard orcas...don't they know they're not suppossed to enjoy it? :)

PS...I don't have a link but I've seen it on Discovery Ch several times...

[Swede]

75. I saw a documentaty of a group of Orcas stalking a grey whale.

The whale was an infant and the mother tried to protect it. The Killer whales toyed with it,chasing the greys for hundreds of miles. They finally killed the young one,and the mother left. The orcas then ate only the tongue of the dead grey and left the carcas sink into the deep.

[Robert Cooper]

76. Cat - Mouse/Bird nt

[Mr.Green93]

86. You must not have cats

They live to kill.

[BuelahWitch]

94. No, I do have a cat

And I have had several, thank you. To say that they "live to kill" is not correct. They have that instinct bread in them because they kill prey to eat (my first cat, a world class mouser, always ate what she killed).
That still doesn't make them as horrid as humans who do not NEED to kill but still glory in it. We're supposed to be at the top of the food chain, aren't we?

[renie408]

100. But think about the instinct to kill which is in us

Today's society allows very few acceptable outlets for the human instinct to hunt and kill. I would reckon that a lot of societal problems are probably due to our intellect outrunning our instincts. And our technical abilities outstripping both. In a very short period of time anthropologically, we have changed the rules of human society and made technological advances which have completely changed our lifestyle.

[renie408]

93. Yes (see orca and cat references), BUT other species

tend to have a built in prohibition from killing EACH OTHER for the helluvit. While one male may be fatally wounded in a battle for dominance, in most species that isn't the main point. There is usually room to back down. I don't think there are many orca or cat serial killers and I doubt that there are many animals which derive sexual satisfaction from killing and torture. That would appear to be a human thing.

[BuelahWitch]

95. But the cats and orcas eat their prey!

Make the idiots who like to run down animals in the road eat their "kill." Now THAT would be funny! :woohoo:

[renie408]

97. Not all the time, at least in the case of cats

I have some fat, grain-fed cats that kill stuff from instinctual imperative and not from need. And they don't eat them, either.

Oh, no! They like to bring them into the house as love offerings. And they leave them in the middle of my bed. Eww.

[fishnfla]

102. Wolves have been known to kill seemingly for the blood lust of it

I may be wrong but I think I read that somewhere

[Hope springs eternal]

65. No, humans simply have more extremes.....

As has been said, we murder millions, we save millions. We simply have more varience in our temperment.


Notice, Animals are somewhat socialistic, maybe we should follow that goal. It's the "gimmie" mentality that has got us into this cycle, maybe we truly do need to learn to share.....

[blindpig]

71. It wouldn't occur to them.

They'd have to become civilized first. Maybe have organized religion too.

What the hell happened to us? For millenia we were just fine as hunter gathers. Our population was stable and proper for a top tier predator. It seems that agriculture and food storage brought us to where we are today. Is the hubristic situation we find ourselves in today ineviable?

I find the work of Paul Shepard very persuasive on this though I don't buy his whole package. Who could, there's something there for everyone to hate. :D

[lonestarnot]

80. There is one animal about to work us over is scientific investigation

is conclusively correct and that is the VIRUS, Aids, birdflu etc.

[Greyhound]

87. No they wouldn't, but we deserve it. n/t

[Qanisqineq]

98. That's what I was thinking

I didn't see that option in the poll.

[Marr]

105. I consider myself a humanist. I'm a great fan of humanity.

There are bad people, there are stupid people, cruel people, etc.- sure. But overall I think the human race has alot going for it.

[renie408]

109. Compassion, charity, self-sacrifice, generosity, loyalty...

These are also traits not typically seen in the animal kingdom. (outside of dogs. Dogs are the best species on earth, if you ask me.)

[misanthrope]

128. Try learning a few things...

...about elephants.

I've also seen instances of carnivores developing relationships with animals that would otherwise be prey.

[renie408]

150. Ah, you are dead right about elephants.

I don't know about the carnivore thing, though. I mean, I have also heard about such instances as you are referencing, but they are usually females who 'adopt' young prey animals from misguided maternal instinct, aren't they?? Do you think that constitutes the same thing as compassion, charity, sympathy, blah blah blah?

[Lorien]

122. We don't need other animals to drive us to extinction

we're already doing one hell of a good job of it ourselves.

[leftofthedial]

123. well, I don't much like cats

[EFerrari]

138. That's it. You are on the list, buddy. lol n/t

[leftofthedial]

152. I need to be spanked

[EFerrari]

154. Enjoy!

lol

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

124. If animals had guns, would the NRA defend their "rights'?

It would sure give the word "sportsman" a different meaning if the hunted could shoot back.

129. those bird flu viruses might take a crack at us

and laugh themselves silly.

[JVS]

136. Humans rule! The fact that we are killing off other species is a...

tribute to our might! Eat shit, mother nature!

[EFerrari]

143. (Please, alien overlords, forgive that! We've just gone through

a major holiday and aren't our best selves. :eyes:)

lol!

[JVS]

145. Bring it on aliens! We'll kill you or blow up the planet trying!

YOU'LL NEVER TAKE US ALIVE!

[EFerrari]

146. Reaching for my fashion gas mask -- with both NATO and Canadian

filters.

Okay, you HAD to be a cowboy. :)

[AlienGirl]

156. *brings it on* nt

[JVS]

157. *fights with all strength*

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[Redstone]

155. If you think humans are so bad, why do you continue being one?

There's a book titled Final Exit that may be instructive for you if you find you can't stand the idea of belonging to the species annymore.

Redstone

[kineneb]

158. don't know, but raccoons shall inherit the earth

and they will develop opposable thumbs. Then they will develop the stardrive and colonize the moon and Mars.

And laugh at the pitiful attempts of H.Sapiens to go into space.
:)

...a little Sat. evening humor

[jmowreader]

161. Candiru is worse

Candiru is an inch-long catfish and is the only vertebrate species to parasitize humans.

http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/animals1/catfish/candiru.html

"The candiru has few, if any, enemies at all as they are feared throughout its range and are given a worse reputation than the piranha."

You know those neat stories you sometimes hear from South America about the fish that swims up your urethra and lodges itself there, and the only way to save your life is to get someone to cut your dick off before your bladder explodes? They happen to be true (although you have to be IN the water for it to happen; the candiru hates sunlight so it won't swim up your urine stream if you're standing alongside the bank pissing in the river) and this is the fish.

In fact, this fish has a lot in common with the modern Republican.

[hyphenate]

163. I can't really answer the poll

because I know that animals would not do what we have done to this planet.

Regardless of any other factor, animals currently (in their evolution) don't possess the desire to harm, torture or kill other animals simply for the "pleasure" of it. Whether it's the hypothalamus which might not yet be developed to that point, or simply no inherent desire to kill for the sake of killing, I don't know. However, if certain animals did develop opposable thumbs, it would take millennia, perhaps even millions of years before they would have evolved enough to build and make full use of them.

Mankind is really the only animal to have developed to the point where torture, pleasure killing and committing harm to others are part and parcel of the pleasure center in the brain. Whether that is a mutation of what was intended at some point, or the culmination of eras of imprinting on the brain, it's hard to say. Are we the end result of millions of years of barbarism, the survival of the fittest, to the point where emotionally we are without any stabilizing factors? Or are we at a crossroads in humanity where we can continue to be barbarians or take a higher road to a point in evolution where we are better because we have shed our barbaric ways? It will still take millennia, but neither road is compatible with the other, and we, as a civilization, must make that choice consciously, because the easier road will be chosen if we don't.

The primates, our distant ancestors, were the first mammals to proceed to an upper level of development. If instead, the first mammals to go higher were of the feline variety, let's say, I would assume, simply because of the predatory nature of the beast, that their form of "mankind" would continue to be predatory without much skill in rendering civilization a peaceable kingdom. On the other hand, if canines were the one group to have become better developed, there would be more of a social structure, and therefore there could be a better hope of a higher standard of living. It simply depends, I believe, on the overall environment of the species which evolves. Their modern day counterparts really do give us insight into the possible outcomes of such evolutionary possibilities.

However, animals who are carnivores really do not torture animals when they kill them for consumption. They make it as quick a kill as possible, and, frankly, as painless a process as possible. This is not always possible, as we know, but the mechanics for doing so are there and intended for such.

Man is the greatest setback to life on this planet. If it weren't for man, there would be an ecological balance. Animals would thrive, flora would be abundant, and there would be little extinction caused by hunting a species to death. Some extinction would still be likely as other animals evolved, but killing on such a massive scale as there is now would never have happened.

It would be nice to discover a planet somewhere out there that developed like Earth but without the scourge of Man. A place where animals really do live in harmony, even the carnivores, without the horror of killing for pleasure never developed.