Are We Still Animals?

[peter]

Odd question, but here's how it goes. We all have an idea, a conceptual understanding of what we mean when we use the word (in a general sense as in 'a cat is an animal' rather than a specific, 'he's an animal when he's angry'), but is this a set, a grouping, that we can still claim membership of? Sure, in a biological functional sense we can define ourselves as such (we are members of the classificational kingdom Animalia) but in the light of the clear differences resulting from our rationating abilities, have we not 'raised' ourselves (or been raised) into a different order of being. When Shere Khan in Kipling's Jungle Book says there is no (longer a) place for the Mancub in the Jungle, does this not, in some way, serve as a metaphor for our increasingly difficult relationship with the rest of the natural world?

[Skyweir]

mmm... interesting ..and yet we see humankind acting like animals in every walk of life.

But maybe thats misusing the term "animals" because even animals dont do the things that some humans do. Not many species of animals abuse their own offspring but some humans do. Yes they do kill each other, but for different reasons. Ive seen some of the most despicable things that some humans are capable of. Id be surprised if any animal could come even close to some of the depravity Ive seen.

Have we evolved out of the kingdom Animalia?

Well perhaps in many ways humans have.

Animals are motivated by instinct, therefore survival, their community needs, the needs of their offspring to a degree and their environment.

mmm... it is an interesting topic.

[Skyweir]

mmm... interesting ..and yet we see humankind acting like animals in every walk of life.

But maybe thats misusing the term "animals" because even animals dont do the things that some humans do. Not many species of animals abuse their own offspring but some humans do. Yes they do kill each other, but for different reasons. Ive seen some of the most despicable things that some humans are capable of. Id be surprised if any animal could come even close to some of the depravity Ive seen.

Have we evolved out of the kingdom Animalia?

Well perhaps in many ways humans have.

Animals are motivated by instinct, therefore survival, their community needs, the needs of their offspring to a degree and their environment.

mmm... it is an interesting topic.

[Avatar]

Of course we are. Despite our veneer of civilisation and advancement or whatever, we're still effectively motivated by biological imperatives to eat, breed, maintain a territory, etc. We might put pretty words over them, but when you get right down to it, those are still the fundamental driving forces.

--A

[Vraith]

peter---just because there is no longer a place for us in the jungle [assuming that is true at all] does not mean we aren't animal. We've just adapted/speciated to/for a new environment. And/or adapted the environment to suit us---which is ALSO an animal thing to do.

Of course we are. Despite our veneer of civilisation and advancement or whatever, we're still effectively motivated by biological imperatives to eat, breed, maintain a territory, etc. We might put pretty words over them, but when you get right down to it, those are still the fundamental driving forces.

--A

Yea, mostly. But I object pretty strongly whenever people start talking about the "veneer" of civilization/society/progress. Those things are, in every way, just as fundamental, just as integral. They're just as biological---what else could they be?
And what they REALLY are is both:
a higher expression and far more effective means, of meeting the mindless needs.
And:
The source and result of new, superior, advanced, creative desires.

The table is more important than it's surface...that's veneer.
But civilization/advancement...that's a cathedral on top of dirt.
And, among other things, intelligence NEEDS cathedrals...any fool---or even things too stupid to qualify as foolish---can roll around in the mud.
The things we desire that AREN't fighting, feeding, fleeing and fucking are the important things. And they're real things. Things thick, deep, rich, not surface.
Even the goddamn F's, we try to turn into cathedrals...to elevate, advance, civilize them.
And it is in our animal nature to do so.

And Sky: the thing about the horrible depravity of humans is this---MOST of us are horrified by it. Plenty of animals kill and eat their own or others young. They don't seem very upset by it.
Circling back to advancement---most are becoming more horrified by it every generation. People are always going on and on about the growing horrors of violence--in war, against women, religious, etc. etc...and people SHOULD be against those things--but the reality seems to be that violence between humans has been plummeting for dozens of generations.

[Skyweir]

Actually thats true. As our intelligence advances I believe our humanity advances with it. We do see a movement away from war, in deference to diplomatic alternatives, a social distaste for domestic violence, where once society may have been wary to intrude within the privacies of domestic relationships. We no longer condone slavery or other human abuses despite their continued appearance.

In these respects we are more than the primal. I think there are greater advancements yet to be made . Who knows if we will recognise our humanity in future generations.

I think human depravity will continue so long as there are humans. Greed, profit, envy, lust seem the prime motivators .. till we rid humankind of these attributes, I doubt we will ever be completely free of them.

My life and work exposed me to some of the least favourable aspects of humankind .. but through those many and varied experiences Ive also seen the better qualities humans are also very capable of. I think I allow the negative to too often colour my perspective. I think this is one of the main reasons I see humans as still having a place in kingdom Animalia.

Cheers for that needed reminder. Perhaps we have or can evolve into a different classification, perhaps generally speaking and from what you have said V, some may already have.

Though are we not still at our core also primal ....

ok I need to think more on this and be on my laptop

[Avatar]

Yea, mostly. But I object pretty strongly whenever people start talking about the "veneer" of civilization/society/progress. Those things are, in every way, just as fundamental, just as integral. They're just as biological---what else could they be?
And what they REALLY are is both:
a higher expression and far more effective means, of meeting the mindless needs.
And:
The source and result of new, superior, advanced, creative desires.

The table is more important than it's surface...that's veneer.
But civilization/advancement...that's a cathedral on top of dirt.

Meh...doesn't mean it's not a veneer.

Yes, they're outgrowths (maybe even inevitable outgrowths) of it, but when law or social norms conflict with those underlying drives, it's not the necessity that gets subsumed in the conflict, but the niceties.

We might be moving (socially) away from things like war, but at the end of the day, when diplomacy clashes against territorialism, humans will fight and kill and die for what they think is theirs.

--A

[peter]

But the point is surely that that 'veneer' is what has come to define us. We are now more the veneer than the table underneath. Our Apotheosis is all but complete, and but a few small steps forward in terms of tech and knowledge and it will be so.

There is no guilt in the animal world; guilt is a thing born of the human understanding of right and wrong and it does not come into the animal way. "The line between good and evil is drawn through every human heart". This is what it means. All animals have their own 'way' and never act in a fashion contrary to it. Only humans appear to have outgrown their way - and this can be a fine thing! We choose! We have the power to say no to our way. (Trivially only humans defer the need to sleep I'm told; don't know if it's true.) These things as I suggest above, might be cause to question our continued status as animals; like it or not we are different. We have been to the edge of the void and stared into its blackness. Did you not expect us to return changed by the experience?

(Bit florid all that - sorry guys; got into my swing a bit! )

[Vraith]

Meh...doesn't mean it's not a veneer.

Yes, they're outgrowths (maybe even inevitable outgrowths) of it, but when law or social norms conflict with those underlying drives, it's not the necessity that gets subsumed in the conflict, but the niceties.

We might be moving (socially) away from things like war, but at the end of the day, when diplomacy clashes against territorialism, humans will fight and kill and die for what they think is theirs.

--A

Yea, it does.
Without that "veneer" we, literally, would not be recognizably human.
Also...I never went for the idea that extreme circumstances/conditions prove what someone/thing "really" is.
"Testing to Destruction" reveals things---but it in no way reveals some total reality or absolute truth.

Heh, also...it's kinda like saying the Earth is "really" a black hole---because if we had a big enough gravity generator to shoot at it, it would become a black hole.

Also...there are a surprisingly large number of folk who will do anything...including die...to not kill, or not let someone else die.
Also...even if many/most will do anything when absolutely forced to do so...they hate it. [except a few psychopaths].
Most who are forced into such circumstances end up permanently damaged to some extent.

[peter]

....... which must support the case that we are fundamentally (key word) changed from our pre-human state, a new order of being.

[Avatar]

There is no guilt in the animal world; guilt is a thing born of the human understanding of right and wrong and it does not come into the animal way.

That's because right and wrong is a human construct that we inculcate our children with. There is no right or wrong in nature. Only survive or die.

Without that "veneer" we, literally, would not be recognizably human.

Weren't we human before those veneers were in place?

For me it's a simple matter of biology. Those "survival instincts" were there long before we evolved socially / behaviourally, and they are still there.

Yes, some people would rather die than kill, but that doesn't negate anything. It just means that they would lose out if it came down to the survival of the fittest. They would be less efficient animals. Our "civilisation" shields them from that necessity.

That's not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean we're not animals at heart. When those extreme circumstances happen, we revert right back to the survive or die paradigm.

--A

[Vraith]

....... which must support the case that we are fundamentally (key word) changed from our pre-human state, a new order of being.

Nope...we've just been sliding along the continuum.
Fact of note, we started doing civilizing/advancing [[or painting on our veneer, according to some folk....]] way before we were human.
And we aren't the only ones to do it.

Av, I believe you are quite mistaken.
Altruism/sacrifice is a pro-survival trait.
Cooperation survival trait---and MORE important/functional, not less so, in extreme circumstances. [[usually...at least more often than the opposite]].
That's why almost every human, and large numbers of other critters as well, have a healthy dose of it and tend to outnumber the purely selfish...tend to out survive the 4-Fers.

[[which is a joke... U.S. military category for those who failed to be capable of service, even in wartime. You should look up the supposed origin of the term. It's kinda funny]].

[Avatar]

Av, I believe you are quite mistaken.
Altruism/sacrifice is a pro-survival trait.
Cooperation survival trait---and MORE important/functional, not less so, in extreme circumstances. [[usually...at least more often than the opposite]].

Altruism / sacrifice can be a genetic survival trait, it's not an individual one.

And co-operation is a long term one, not an immediate one. The fact that many animals exhibit it doesn't exactly suggest that us possessing it means we're not animals.

Animal:

a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli.

--A

[peter]

On the 'continuum' argument we will never be other than animals though, even if we evolved into ether like multidimensional beings who pervade the multiverse with our omnipotent knowledge of all that ever was, is and will be?

Will check out the word V.

[Skyweir]

So we remain Kindom Animalia

[Vraith]

The fact that many animals exhibit it doesn't exactly suggest that us possessing it means we're not animals.
--A

Why do you think I'm arguing that we're not animals?
I'm not. We are totally animals.
I just disagree with the ordering/hierarchy.
The 4F's model is contrary to reality, and reductiveness of the worst kind, just like the selfish gene stuff. Claims to tell the whole story, but is just a sub-plot.

Our minds have only created a difference of degree, not kind.
It APPEARS to be a very large degree...and is a large degree, actually, from our current position...because the transitional states and closest relatives are extinct.

I'll avoid the altruism debate. We've had it before [had it with someone, anyway, think it was you] and it's its own topic.

peter...I'm not sure that follows.
Depending on what, if any, physical systems were necessary to our aetheric existence, we might still be animals...but probably we'd have become a new kingdom.
If we totally digitize ourselves, we'll definitely be a new kingdom [[maybe we'll just go through a meat phase, before digitizing. Heh...you HAVE read the story, right? It is one of the best short stories ever written. LInk at bottom.
Cyborgs...that's the tough one. It would probably depend on which part was the Boss...the digital or the biological.

www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

[Skyweir]

Interesting .. so, answering the initial question of the thread we are indeed still animals, we remain rightly placed in the Animal Kingdom, though humans have "speciated"

[Avatar]

Why do you think I'm arguing that we're not animals?

Uh, I'm not sure actually.

I'll avoid the altruism debate. We've had it before [had it with someone, anyway, think it was you] and it's its own topic.

Possibly. I don't believe in it personally. Or at least, I like to believe that all altruism is inherently selfish. As much as I believe anything anyway.

--A

[Skyweir]

Why do you think I'm arguing that we're not animals?

Uh, I'm not sure actually.

Yeah .. I remember a thousand millennia ago at University studying Philosophy 101 .. we concluded that Altruism did not exist. The reasons were numerous but .. even after all allegedly "altruistic" actions were unpacked .. it was deemed there were some benefit or advantage that the doer received from their act. Even to the degree of it being an ego stroking advantage.

[wayfriend]

Not only are we all animals.

We are all Animal.