The biggest problem of humanity is that We are Animals pretending not to be Animals
-
Like, yeah of course there's a lot other things. Maybe I should should have say "one of the biggest"
-
If aliens were to visit Earth, human vs. not-humans (aka sentient vs. not) would be the single biggest thing to consider. Far more so than male vs. female, plants vs. animals, even alive vs. nonliving (rocks), humans can literally send nukes in their direction while they hang in outer space, while literally nothing else can. We light up the night sky... on purpose and could stop it in a moment if we wanted.
We're kinda a big deal.
Although now computers (e.g. Skynet) could do it too, so it's humans and those highly specialized rocks together on one side, vs. literally everything else on the other.
So humans are not "just" animals, like computers are not "just" rocks.
-
What would it mean to you, to stop pretending to be animals?
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I knew someone from this instance was going to post. I knew it!
-
You must be high. That made no sense.
-
I was already expecting this type of comment to appear at any time lol. Ok pal
-
-
To "Stop pretending we are not animals" to me is to stop the antropocentric way of seeing nature and the universe.
For example, is not that certain animals have "human-like" behavior, but rather that we, as animals, share the certain behaviors with other animals.
And I'm convinced that, if we understand other animals more, we would understand ourselves better.
-
-
-
I don't know that taxonomy is our biggest problem...
-
But like, practically, what does that mean?
I ask, from a philosophy point of view, that this is a perennial idea.
Generally through history, where this usually goes, is that a defined set of behaviours get classified as "natural". Cats hunt mice. It's natural. There are no ethical concerns with a cat hunting a mouse.
Anyways, near the end of the philosophical exercise, people realize that a TON of behaviours which are without any meaningful counterargument "natural" are actually fucking terrible. Theft, murder, rape, etc.
And that's usually where the wheels come off. We're animals. We have animal urges. They're informed by parts of our brains designed for survival in an environment that no longer exists, because humans have crafted our environments into something unrecognizable to what the human animal evolved to exist within.
We're animals transplanted outside of our evolutionary environment. We can recognize we're animals for whom our animalistic instinct and urges clearly don't suit our reality. This is what puts such strain on trying to connect ideas of "natural" and "acceptable" and limits the practical value of any models which try to relate the two.
This isn't a new idea. I can't stress enough how old and recurring an idea it is. It just, under careful consideration, is found to be much less useful a model than imagined once the leap from conception to application is made.
-
Well, you have explained it as concisely and clearly as I never EVER could. Thank you.
-
Being concious of and being able to critically look at what we are and how we act would be one answer. Sort of like what you did when you made this post
The cat outside isnt arguing about ethics, doesnt think about the consequences and decide not to act on some base desire, etc
-
Good point. I'll give you that.
-
"I am cringe, but I am free"
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Personally, I think it does a phenomenal job of explaining a great deal of human behaviour. Resource hoarding despite enough for all, the will to dominate, visceral hatred of those who believe differently than us, and I'm sure there's more.
From a psychological viewpoint, it explains a lot of behavior that isn't necessarily reasonable unless you account for an irrational mind acting on modern problems - things that our minds weren't designed to handle.
-
That's literally my mantra, and I'm waaaaay more happy since I accepted it
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I agree that from a psychological lens there is value. "Why does a person do or think things?" Valuable there.
I don't think it's very valuable from an ethics/philosophy standpoint. "Is it right to do a thing?"
I don't think it's especially valuable from a sociological perspective either, it needlessly complicates a model. For some population, a variance of greed will exis within it. A variance of fear of outsiders.
I don't mean to shit on the idea. Just suggesting where the limits of value may be on the idea.
-
We still have this notion and hubris that we're above animals, and animals are below us who are alright being stepped on and abused. I noticed that in a lot of cultures, their insults and profanities is being compared to an animal (in Europe, the profanities seem to be generally sexual).
Also, for the religious, admitting we're animals is definitely an insult and denial of biblical teachings that god created humans. When Charles Darwin's theory of evolution first became a mainstream sensation, some cartoonists drew him as a monkey. I debated with a religious before who believes in conspiracy theories. After pointing out about evolution, I was called a monkey. I wasn't even insulted though because, yes, that is basically what I'm trying to say. But technically I'm not a monkey, I'm an ape. Humans are apes. The monkeys are our cousins. Religious folks don't like to admit we're animals because it contradicts their beliefs.
