Animals, Aliens and Human Destiny

[jordan179]

IntroductionSince the dawn of science fiction, we have speculated about the possibility of nonhuman sapient life on other planets. This is not hyperbole: some of the earliest guesses that other worlds might exist like the Earth also postulated that other races of "men" might exist on these other worlds. The supposition makes sense: why could

Comments

Re: Nature verses Nurture

[jordan179]

Indeed. If we stopped looking for reasons to consider animals as "things" and instead started looking for reasons to consider them as "people," we'd be enlightened. At least where the smartest animals are concerned, and since I've started studying the issue, I've been amazed at times how smart even the duller ones can be.

Re: Nature verses Nurture

[jordan179]

Look into some of the pseudoscience about animal memory...it's clutching at straws to maintain a conceptual difference between animal and people. Really hilarious stuff.

Indeed.

Another problem is that top-of-the-form human cognition is compared against average, or subnormal, animal cognition. For instance, it is often argued that signing apes are merely learning routines to get what they want, rather than thinking about what they sign. In other words, that it's all just Stimulus-Response, rather than a "real" use of language.

First of all, this is obviously not the case when Koko puns (at least not the first time she thinks up a pun) or when Kanzi or Panbanisha ask unprompted questions or provide unsolicited information regarding their social environment. It's only in the planned experiments that this is possible, because the planned experiments involve lower levels of thought than does "real life."

Secondly, it's true that a lot of what signing apes say are routines, but then this is also true for us. When you go into the

[captheavy]

Dear Nazi,

You need to make common cause with the Arabs if you are to have any hope of achieving that objective. Wanting to "wipe out" the "sand niggers" ensures that America will simly divide and conquer, as we did in 1941-45 to your little tin god, Hitler.

Coming out of the MOUTH OF A FILTHY JEW such as yourself your JEWWORDS mean NOTHING TO ME..

[glenniebun]

Would it help if he bathed? That'd at least take care of the filth, if not the Jewwords.

[glenniebun]

"Sapient" and "humans," perhaps? I can see how the post would be difficult to get through without those.

[skyfirefox]

Interesting thoughts. In the criticism against extraterrestrial life, skeptics often cite the Fermi paradox: if there are intelligent aliens out there, then why have they not contacted us? It's similar to Stephen Hawking's arguement against backwards time travel; it can't exist since we haven't had visits from tourists hailing from the future. (But that's a whole other discussion.)

Some have suggested that technologically advanced aliens would be peaceful; the reasoning is that any highly intelligent culture will dislike violence.

[jordan179]

Some have suggested that technologically advanced aliens would be peaceful; the reasoning is that any highly intelligent culture will dislike violence.

This is certainly possible. It is also possible that most highly intelligent cultures destroy themselves through their inability to stop being violent. One of the many reasons why it is worthwhile for us to explore our Universe is to find out why we observe no technologically advanced aliens in our vicinity.

[kalance]

the reasoning is that any highly intelligent culture will dislike violence.

In that case, humans must be absolute morons...We seem to revel in it.

How many incarnations of wrestling have there been?

[jordan179]

the reasoning is that any highly intelligent culture will dislike violence.

In that case, humans must be absolute morons...We seem to revel in it.

How many incarnations of wrestling have there been?

I'm sure that every sapient race will have its warts. And at least boxing, wrestling, football etc. are less violent forms of entertainment than we enjoyed in the Civilization immediately preceding this one, the Classical Greco-Roman. I'm not even only talking about the gladitorial games: even the Greek concepts of "sport" -- the pankration and the chariot races -- were incredibly violent and dangerous by modern standards.

[baikonur]

We have only been scientific for five hundred years,

I think Aristotle might have something to say about that.

[jordan179]

We have only been scientific for five hundred years, ...

I think Aristotle might have something to say about that.

Well, to be precise, I was thinking of the experimental method. It's a key but vital change in outlook: Archimedes apologized for his experiments, while Galileo openly argued for them, and made them the focus of his investigative technique.

It ties in to my point about slavery. Aristotle came from a mostly-slaveholding society, in which it was base and vulgar to mess about with one's hands; Galileo from a mostly non-slaveholding society, in which artisans and mechanics were people just like oneself, and successful artisans and mechanics might become wealthy and important.

It's difficult for us to see this difference because we, today, take for granted that building things is not ignoble, and that the importance of an idea is enhanced, rather than degraded, by its practical value. Both these ideas would have shocked a Classical intellectual.

[baikonur]

I think the issue isn't whether or not to acknowledge animal sapience; in some of the more highly evolved species I think not too many people question the intelligence of dolphins and apes.

The issue is... so what? What is the significance of it, other than some interesting natural trivia? My understanding is that to whatever degree apes and dolphins actually posses sapience, they do so on a very low level. What, if anything, can we learn from them?

A mentally retarded child might also technically possess sapience, but that doesn't mean anyone is interested in what they have to say.

Although the discovery of extraterrestrial life, even low-level sapient life, might have profound implications for the way humans think about their role in the cosmos, I think in very short order that too would pass into the role of scientific trivia.

[jordan179]

I think not too many people question the intelligence of dolphins and apes.

Actually, very many scientists do, at least when it comes to acknowledging that their mental equipment may be functioning on a level roughly equivalent, though inferior in detail, to our own.

The issue is... so what? What is the significance of it, other than some interesting natural trivia?

On the most basic level, its significance is that we are not alone, and that we should begin forming cultural institutions to enable us to treat the higher animal as (stupid) people rather than as chattel property. We do not buy, sell, or casually kill people who happen to be mentally retarded: we should likewise not buy, sell or casually kill people who happen to be nonhuman great apes.

At a minimum. Because, if we can't tolerate and get along with our cousins, who can we tolerate and get along with?

My understanding is that to whatever degree apes and dolphins actually posses sapience, they do so on a very low level. What, if anything, can we learn from them?For

[last_servant]

Not to be glib, but your bias is showing. In the Third World where most of these animals are found, there are grave rights abuses for both animals and people in general, which "we" as a species commit. Even in the First World, we lock up the mentally substandard if they are a danger to others.

[jordan179]

Not to be glib, but your bias is showing.

My bias in favor of whom or against whom?

In the Third World where most of these animals are found, there are grave rights abuses for both animals and people in general, which "we" as a species commit.

I'm well aware of that. Your point being?

Even in the First World, we lock up the mentally substandard if they are a danger to others.

Yes, we do -- but (1) they first have to prove themselves a danger to others through some action, (2) they are locked up as wards of the state, not as chattel property. This is perhaps a subtle difference, but it makes a big difference in terms of how they are allowed to be treated under the law.

By contrast, even the most harmless sort of sapient nonhuman animal is under law a "thing" with no legal "personality."