Human community compared to animals...

Isn't "society" to humans the same as a pride to a group of lions or a school to numerous fish?

 

Yeah I think in a way it is. But with animals they ALWAYS have a community. Their never "outcasted". With humans it's kinda rare to see a real "community". Human relationships are not valued at all. In the animal world they depend on eachother, and are always there for one another.

 

PeaceInTheStreets, how do you reach the conclusion that animals are always there for each other? In nature the strongest competition is between conspecifics.

Aside from that, many animals form groups only for the purpose of dominating the reproductive ability of multiple females.

At least people have the ability to form coalitions for the sake of the coalition itself, such as friendships. Also no group of animals shows the level of compassion, dedication, and willingness to sacrifice for the good of others as people do.

 

I didn't mean like emotionally. I meant their there for eachother in a way that makes everyones life easier. They ensure survival with the help of eachother. Their "brother/sister"

 

I see the term 'society' as meaning people on a whole - not sectors, cliques, families, etc. In any case, I think I see what you're getting at and it's a fair comparison. There are those who perform particular functions within a group and we lean on one another for support and don't forget the occasional outcast.

 

Animals often kill and eat the weaker members.

 

But that behavior is accepted and expected in an animal community.
It isn't "violent" or "malicious"

 

What group of animals is this true with?

 

PeaceInTheStreets, I think your view of nature could not be farther from the truth. Non-human animals are rarely there for each other at all. There are very few examples of non-human animals helping each other in any way, and when they do help each other it is always for selfish reasons.

Any helping behaviors found in non-human animals pails in comparison to the extent to which humans help each other. Adoption, blood donation, police departments, volunteer firefighters, welfare, charities, and doctors are all a distinctly human thing. In no other animal group will you find individuals willing to risk everything to help individuals that they don't even know. Certainly humans are the only animals that have the ability to act morally, and we are probably the only animals that feel intense discomfort from witnessing the suffering of another individual.

 

no humans are a virus or a cancer with no redeaming qualities

 

do you ever watch the show orangutan island on animal planet? it is great they all have names and its like a reality tv show for monkeys

 

The position could definitely be laid out, and has been laid out, that humans only help each other for selfish reasons. You get positions such as Dawkin's selfish gene hypothesis. There are also several studies that show that the tit-for-tat strategy is the best strategy for dealing with conspecifics. Such tit-for-tat strategies are exactly what humans have been shown to use. It is best to cooperate until someone defects, at which point the defector is no longer cooperated with.

 

Yes it can be argued that people only help for selfish reasons but I think the argument is flawed. Humans do not consciously try to maximize fitness, and we often act in ways which reduce our fitness. People genuinely help other people for the purpose of reducing that person's suffering. No other animal does that.

 

I think that the fact that we do not not consciously try to maximize fitness proves nothing. The phenomenology does not really matter, only the behavior. There have been several studies that show that we do in fact improve our fitness when we act altruistically. In fact, it would probably pay off for our altruism to not be totally conscious because then our consciousness of it might get in the way. Islanders in New Guinea often engage in food sharing, but they tend to travel greater distances to share food only if the person they are sharing with is closely related, thus increasing their inclusive fitness. Of course, the individuals doing the sharing do not really think that they are increasing their inclusive fitness; they just do.

As far as acting in ways that reduce our fitness, we don't really do them all that often. In the case of revenge, one does often lower one's fitness, but revenge typically results from the other individual defecting. Thus, the fear of revenge may keep the other individual from defecting, leading to a more cooperative relationship which does in fact lead to an increase in fitness.

As to actually helping people only to alleviate their suffering, we may engage in this, but again it may not be as often as one thinks. Males are much more likely to give money to panhandlers and display other altruistic behaviors in the presence of a female they have just met. We may also be unconsciously expecting the other person to reciprocate in times when we are the one in trouble. This would have been more expected in the Pleistocene in our environment of evolutionary adaptation, but our brains have not had time to adapt to large scale urbanization.

You are very probably right though. There are probably times when we act completely altruistically and help only to alleviate the suffering of others, but those instances may not be as plentiful as intuition would make it seem. My suggestion would seem to be that the difference is one not so much of kind but of quality.

 

Wow.. thats all I can say about this thread so far. Animals aren't selfish, just self-interested. There's a big difference. Being selfish is not good, but nothing is wrong with being self-interested. Everything in life is self-interested. The only question is what constitutes the "self". The physical body, the community, the species, the biosystem?

Plus, MANY animals eat their own species. This is fact.

We're no more moral than any other animal. We swat flies because they annoy us. We cage "misfits" for life because we're scared to live with them. We ban substances out of fear and confusion and we oblige ourselves to laws that make no sense. We have slaves, economic slaves, we kill babies. So don't act like we're above these "savages". Morality is in the mind, EVERYTHING is moral given who's rules you play by. A brown bear eating your five children for food is moral.

Emanrasu... police dept.... fire dept... all that... it's self-interested (not selfish!!!) whether you see it or not. Plus look at creatures such as ants or bees, which give their all for the survival of the species. You can say that they're mindless drones inspired by firing chemical reactions which cause them to act in a such a way. Or you could say that they have evolved in such a way in which their sense of "self" is strongly identified with the colony and so what's best for the colony is best for the "self".

Altruism is also self-interested, although nothing is wrong with this because as humans the sense of "self" is not just our physical body. If you understand the phrase "United we stand, Divided we fall" it fully explains this principle.

 

For the most part I think you can read selfish as self interested. I don't see any problem with that. You are right though, we should have explained what we meant by selfish.

As far as humans having a sense of self that is not just our physical bodies, I am not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean that we have concepts of groups and communities? If this is what you meant, I am not so sure that the concept of self lines up perfectly with our concept of community or group. True, we have an idea of ourselves belonging to a group, but we also have the concept of ourselves as a distinct member of the group. The self seems to be a different concept from the group. You seem to be hinting at a sort of group selection, which is fine. A lot of people will object to such a position, but many have also defended such a position as well. Let me know if I am confused on any part of that.

 

What animals eat their own species? I'm dying to know !!!!

 

There are TONS of cannabilistic organisms... snakes.... some fish..... many insects...... if you didn't know this, then just do a quick google search and you will turn up tons of info I'm sure. Anyone who watches the Discovery channel or Animal Planet would know that. *Animals are out casted, and they dont' always have community btw.*

Most of them are invertebrates tho, and a lot of reptiles and insects are.

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

But tubahead... it's kinda complicated, I'm not hip on the term "group selection" so I couldn't definately say that explains it. But it's basically like we evolved as communal creatures. We have become so dependent on each other that we're basically tied to each other. We're not like crocodiles who hatch and are self-sufficient. It's kind of like how ants do what's best for the hive. Why bees work together, and why animals form into factions. We have a very hollistic sense of "self" (meaning community, environment, or however we're taught).

 

No, I dont believe that to be the case.
Society to humans is made by our abstract thinking , the way our brains are formed, human society is an thought form manifested into our reality based on our abstracted interpretation of nature and the basic instincts all animals share..

 

What is the point of this thread?