Obsessions

[EAO]

My name is Alexis and I am doing research for a new documentary series. We're interested in where the line between human and animal exists, and we want to tell the stories of anyone who's life might make you question this.

 

The concept is very new, and we're just getting started, so I'm just reaching out to people to see if they are interested in chatting about the subject.

 

At this point I'm just researching, and trying to get a sense of the different communities that are out there, what's important to them, how they feel about media exposure, bad press they've received in the past, and things like that.

 

We're interested in a huge variety of topics right now, and we're trying not to narrow things down yet. We want to build an outlet to explain these things and what they mean to the people who live the lifestyle.

 

We're not going into the realm of fetish, but more interested in animalistic behaviors or beliefs that are a part of everyday life.

 

Happy to answer any questions/concerns you might have. Just comment or message me.

 

Thanks!!

[tomgwyther]

can you be more specific? i don't quite understand the question.

[PhDwannabe]

We're not going into the realm of fetish, but more interested in animalistic behaviors or beliefs that are a part of everyday life.

 

That strikes me as a problematic way of looking at things. What human behaviors, exactly, are animalistic? We're animals. We, as well as all of our behaviors and tools, are part of nature. The quest for some sort of essential quality to separate Man from Beast is a hallmark of Victorian science and anything that smacks of it is often quite rightly giggled at now--you can't delineate a set of "animal" behaviors that humans supposedly engage in without simply making a bunch of largely arbitrary value judgements about what we do that you believe is more or less "evolved."

 

Unless you're just talking about people who dress up like sexed-up cats and unicorns. In which case, just come out and say you're making a documentary about furries.

[thinker_jeff]

My name is Alexis and I am doing research for a new documentary series. We're interested in where the line between human and animal exists, and we want to tell the stories of anyone who's life might make you question this.

 

The concept is very new, and we're just getting started, so I'm just reaching out to people to see if they are interested in chatting about the subject.

 

It doesn't sound like an interesting documentary series. Everyone believes knowing where the line between human and animal exists (may or may not be precious enough), so that the most of people don't even bother to question it.

Edited September 23, 2011 by thinker_jeff

[PhDwannabe]

Everyone believes knowing where the line between human and animal exists (may or may not be precious enough)

 

...what?

[thinker_jeff]

...what?

 

Yes.

[Ringer]

Yes.

 

He meant that the sentence didn't make sense. Were you saying that everyone believes the line exists or that everyone knows where the line is? Both of these things are false, but maybe you meant something else. In which case, please elaborate.

[Phi for All]

My name is Alexis and I am doing research for a new documentary series. We're interested in where the line between human and animal exists, and we want to tell the stories of anyone who's life might make you question this.

I think everyone's life makes me question whether there is a "line" between animals and humans. PhDwannabe said it very well; you can't delineate between human and animal behavior without using arbitrary judgements. Very little behavior is strictly animal or strictly human.

 

Sophistication as a result of higher intelligence might be a better benchmark. Perhaps that's what you're after. We form more complicated social structures that compete and cooperate together. Our bigger brains and upright walk allows us to take tool use to a much higher degree than any other animal. And our communication is much richer. Combine all of those and you have a more sophisticated approach to your environment and survival in it.

[thinker_jeff]

Were you saying that everyone believes the line exists or that everyone knows where the line is?

The line exists and every one knows that.

 

I think everyone's life makes me question whether there is a "line" between animals and humans. PhDwannabe said it very well; you can't delineate between human and animal behavior without using arbitrary judgements. Very little behavior is strictly animal or strictly human.

 

Sophistication as a result of higher intelligence might be a better benchmark. Perhaps that's what you're after. We form more complicated social structures that compete and cooperate together. Our bigger brains and upright walk allows us to take tool use to a much higher degree than any other animal. And our communication is much richer. Combine all of those and you have a more sophisticated approach to your environment and survival in it.

Let's ask this question in another way - Does anyone believe that a human and an animal (not in human species) are the same? Even a first grader will say "no."

 

If they are two different identities, there must be a line between them. One may not point out the line as precious as Phi for All does, but he may still point out that human is more intelligent or civilized, etc.

[Phi for All]

Let's ask this question in another way - Does anyone believe that a human and an animal (not in human species) are the same? Even a first grader will say "no."

 

If they are two different identities, there must be a line between them. One may not point out the line as precious as Phi for All does, but he may still point out that human is more intelligent or civilized, etc.

I think you're being too literal with the question. I don't think the OP is interested in first grader distinctions. And I think you mean precise instead of precious.

 

The question, AFAICT, was not whether humans and animals are different. The question was where do humans begin to descend into what one would cease to call normal human behavior and start thinking of as more animal in nature. I'm guessing that examples might be a man having multiple wives, or a person eating only raw meat.

[thinker_jeff]

I think you're being too literal with the question. I don't think the OP is interested in first grader distinctions.

 

Maybe I was. I thought that nobody would be interested even though he/she might not know where the distinction is.

 

I'm guessing that examples might be a man having multiple wives, or a person eating only raw meat.

There may be still some elements attached with civilization. A man having multiple wives typically makes love with each of them privately. A person eating only raw meat still cares if it is clean.

 

Anyway, I still don't know what the OP needs.

[Ringer]

The line exists and every one knows that.

 

I don't. I am under the impression that humans are, monophyletically, primates. Primates are part of kingdom animalia, so we are animals. If you are using some other usage of animal such as, "something that isn't human," your definition is circular. If you are somehow saying that humans are above other animals you are mistaken.

[thinker_jeff]

I don't. I am under the impression that humans are, monophyletically, primates. Primates are part of kingdom animalia, so we are animals. If you are using some other usage of animal such as, "something that isn't human," your definition is circular. If you are somehow saying that humans are above other animals you are mistaken.

You don't because you are more literal with the question than I do. The OP's "animal" means the animal not in human species, otherwise he asked a wrong question.

[Dekan]

If you are somehow saying that humans are above other animals you are mistaken.

 

But surely humans are above other animals. Animals are stupid things, which just run around obeying their biologically programmed instincts.

These instincts cause animals to feed, fight and copulate. But not to invent culture and civilisation.

 

Our wonderful cultures and civilisations are strictly human creations. We've been able to create them, because we are superior beings - we have intelligent minds, which the lower animals don't have.

 

Therefore, we should not be too modest. Don't say we're "just animals" - we aren't!

[PhDwannabe]

How has this confused post which is probably about making a documentary about furries turned into this gigantic clusterf*** this quickly?

 

But surely humans are above other animals. Animals are stupid things, which just run around obeying their biologically programmed instincts.

These instincts cause animals to feed, fight and copulate. But not to invent culture and civilisation.

 

Our wonderful cultures and civilisations are strictly human creations. We've been able to create them, because we are superior beings - we have intelligent minds, which the lower animals don't have.

 

Therefore, we should not be too modest. Don't say we're "just animals" - we aren't!

 

Is this sarcasm? Seriously, this is a joke, right? Evolution is nondirectional--nothing is "on top" of anything else. I'm not going to really go any further explaining that, because I have to think that everyone understands that--and commensurately I have to think this is sarcasm--in order to sleep tonight.

[Dekan]

How has this confused post which is probably about making a documentary about furries turned into this gigantic clusterf*** this quickly?

 

 

 

Is this sarcasm? Seriously, this is a joke, right? Evolution is nondirectional--nothing is "on top" of anything else. I'm not going to really go any further explaining that, because I have to think that everyone understands that--and commensurately I have to think this is sarcasm--in order to sleep tonight.

 

No sarcasm intended! How can you possibly say evolution is "non-directional"? Surely evolution always goes in the direction of increasing complexity.

You won't deny that on Earth, life started with simple, single-celled organisms. And these gradually evolved into more complex, multi-cellular organisms.

 

These organisms showed the trend of evolution - which is towards increased complexity. This complexity has reached its peak, for the present, in the the human brain.

Which is absolutely the best brain in the world.

 

I think you've been unduly influenced by political correctness, which asserts that nothing is better than anything else.

[PhDwannabe]

I think you've been unduly influenced by political correctness, which asserts that nothing is better than anything else.

Really? Tell that to the people to whom I argue that parts of eugenics aren't a terrible idea, and that infanticide is not a moral wrong. I'd advise you to be careful when you read motivations into peoples' commentary; you'll be wrong more often than is comfortable.

 

The point, Dekan, is not that organisms do not change along meaningful dimensions, or that we are not able to compare them to one another on any number of meaningful dimensions. All of that is true. The cheetah sprints faster than we do. Great apes tend to have more powerful grip strength. Birds of prey, superior visual acuity. These are demonstrable facts. The point is that evolution is not teleological. Since there is no designer guiding it--and indeed, nobody standing outside of it to "watch" it from an objective, detached perspective--you cannot in any clear sense say that it is "advancing," or "progressing." You might say that certain traits are increasing in refinement--over the course of evolution, for instance, eyes have changed from tiny photoreceptive spots to extremely complex organs able to wonderfully sense light intensity, motion, wavelength, along with the associated perceptual machinery necessary to finely adjust muscular movements in response to visual stimuli. But to call this "progress" is problematic--the idea of progress itself connotes a greater proximity to a goal or end--whether something distinct and concrete or something more Platonic--as if "evolution" was this thing trying to produce a good eye. It isn't.

 

There's nothing, indeed, "good" about any eye at all. It's only usefully adaptive, and indeed, it's only usefully adaptive under certain environmental contingencies. Think an advanced eye is useful to troglobitic creatures? No, it's a waste of energy and resources, which is why selection pressures rapidly do away with them.

 

Nor is there anything "good" about the sorts of things that distinguish h. sapiens from other primates, mammals, or animals. There are certainly stark differences, particularly in linguistic expression, tool use, and abstract problem-solving abilities. Despite exciting findings which suggest that these sorts of characteristics are not exclusive to our species, our abilities in these areas are certainly separated from even our close biological cousins by several orders of magnitude. If you thought that I was denying this, you weren't paying attention to what I was saying. But the idea that the superiority of certain characteristics makes us, in general, superior, is silly. What objective authority has chosen the correct metric of evaluation? Why are we not using grip strength, where we might crown the chimpanzee the pinnacle of the evolutionary climb towards grip-strength greatness? The whole point is that all of these characteristics are simply adaptations to environments, and that it doesn't make sense to use any of them as a standard to judge other creatures' "superiority" in the Great Chain of Being. So, no, we don't have

 

absolutely the best brain in the world.

 

Was there some sort of contest I didn't know about? Look, Dekan, it's extremely advanced, as brains go, in the sorts of characteristics I just described, among several others. That is different than calling it the "best." It's just really well-adapted to the niche the species is trying to fill. You can't meaningfully use characteristics which might be used to assess superiority within a species to assess superiority between species. The brains of other creatures work fine for the niches they're trying to fill. Jellyfish are rather good at being jellyfish; cockroaches are rather good at being cockroaches. I'm making a point about the philosophical bankruptcy of teleological descriptions of living organisms, and you seem to be assuming that I'm some hand-wringing idiot who doesn't see any reason why we shouldn't appoint a reticulated collared lizard to the supreme court in the name of equality. Go to your local college campus. Read your posts aloud to whatever bio professor you find with his door open. When he stops snickering, let him explain to you why that particular viewpoint has been snickered at for many decades; perhaps he'll explain it better than I can.

 

 

Now, can the OP come back and talk about furries yet?

 

 

 

 

Edit: Stealing the idea from Ringer below me, this is also the last post I'll make on this because it's so far off-topic, though to be honest, I'm not sure if there ever was a topic.

Edited September 25, 2011 by PhDwannabe

[Ringer]

But surely humans are above other animals. Animals are stupid things, which just run around obeying their biologically programmed instincts.

These instincts cause animals to feed, fight and copulate. But not to invent culture and civilisation.

 

Our wonderful cultures and civilisations are strictly human creations. We've been able to create them, because we are superior beings - we have intelligent minds, which the lower animals don't have.

 

Therefore, we should not be too modest. Don't say we're "just animals" - we aren't!

 

Oh yeah, no other creature has complex social arrangements. Well as long as we ignore birds, ants, termites, most primates, and millions of other animals. Your logic is only saying that humans are better because they are humans. That is circular logic, aka it doesn't work.

 

No sarcasm intended! How can you possibly say evolution is "non-directional"? Surely evolution always goes in the direction of increasing complexity.

You won't deny that on Earth, life started with simple, single-celled organisms. And these gradually evolved into more complex, multi-cellular organisms.

 

These organisms showed the trend of evolution - which is towards increased complexity. This complexity has reached its peak, for the present, in the the human brain.

Which is absolutely the best brain in the world.

 

I think you've been unduly influenced by political correctness, which asserts that nothing is better than anything else.

 

How do you explain the forms of yeast that seem to have been multicellular and are now single celled? Also, if evolution goes the direction of complexity and we are at the top, why is it that if single celled organisms cease to exist most of life on Earth would go with it, including us. On the other hand if multicellular organisms died out suddenly most single celled organisms wouldn't be affected much at all.

 

This is the last I will post on this because it is so far off-topic for this thread. If you want to continue start a new thread.

[Moontanman]

The line exists and every one knows that.

 

 

Really? Just where is that line?

[Phi for All]

Our wonderful cultures and civilisations are strictly human creations. We've been able to create them, because we are superior beings - we have intelligent minds, which the lower animals don't have.

Yet without higher intelligence, ants can organize super-colonies that number in the hundreds of millions, larger than any human city, all without crime, poverty or aggression. Unicoloniality is probably one of the most successful and productive social groupings in the animal kingdom.

 

Virtually any single behavior you can name, with the exception of tool use, is done more effectively by what you call a "lower" animal. "Superior" is a subjective term, and you can't apply it like a blanket over humans.

 

Until the OP comes along to tie together the first post and the title with a little meaning, feel free to discuss this further. I will split it off if "Obsessions" and "animalistic behaviors" turns out to be a more hirsute pursuit.

[thinker_jeff]

Really? Just where is that line?

If you have read every post before this, you should know it has been answered already.

One knows that something exists, but may not know where it is exactly.

[Moontanman]

If you have read every post before this, you should know it has been answered already.

One knows that something exists, but may not know where it is exactly.

 

 

Many people "know" many things that are not real in any sense of the word, I think there is no line between animals and humans because humans are animals. If you know where that line is i suggest you tell us instead of assuming we all "know" something when in fact you cannot possibly "know" what "One" knows any more than I can....

[thinker_jeff]

Many people "know" many things that are not real in any sense of the word, I think there is no line between animals and humans because humans are animals. If you know where that line is i suggest you tell us instead of assuming we all "know" something when in fact you cannot possibly "know" what "One" knows any more than I can....

I don't understand why you jump into a discussion but don't want to read what have been discussed.

I said that the OP's animal means the animal not in human species, otherwise he shouldn't ask this question. For some reason we don't know, the OP hasn't clarified his concept.

The animal not in human species is a different identity from human; therefore, by logic, there must be a line between these two identities. Do you agree with that?

[Phi for All]

The animal not in human species is a different identity from human; therefore, by logic, there must be a line between these two identities. Do you agree with that?

No.

 

Some things are easy to distinguish with a line between them. Shoes and socks are both something you wear, they're similarly shaped and they both go on your feet. A sock can be thickened and reinforced, almost made to do what a shoe does, but there will be a point where your efforts to toughen the sock will turn it into a shoe. When it's so tough and thick that you can't put a shoe on over it, the sock crosses the line and becomes a shoe.

 

You can't do the same thing with animals and humans. There are too many shared characteristics and not enough truly distinguishing factors.

 

Evolution doesn't always move towards complexity. Refinements that increase survival in an environment are generally selected, but there is no overall best structure to have. Put me in the ocean and I'd rather be a shark than human. Put me 1000 feet in the air and I'd survive better as a bird. 1000 feet underground and blind troglofauna are more skilled than I am.

[TonyMcC]

I sometimes wonder about how much of what we do is instinctive and how much is taught. Examples:-

Some animal species live in groups and some live solitary lives only coming together during mating times.

Are we instinctively gregarious (except for the odd loner or hermit)?

Some animal species generally mate for life and for some species sex is some kind of free for all when the opportunity arises.

Do we instinctively generally prefer to mate for life (except for a minority who prefer variety)?

Some animal species build a home which they inhabit all the time or return to regularly at breeding time whereas some animal species have no fixed abode.

Do we instinctively want to make a fixed home for ourselves and our offspring?

The male of some animal species care for and will protect their offspring against any threat. Some species impregnate the female and then leave her to bring up her offspring alone.

Do human males instinctively feel they must care for and protect their offspring ?

At the very least, I think it must be said that without answers to such questions the line between a human and an animal must be very hard to determine

- even if you feel that it does exist.