Sad news: baby elephant has died.

[Delphinus]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/12/08/773558-cp.html

I guess she had too much of an uphill battle to fight.

That's too bad, the zookeepers and vets who put in so much to care for her, must be very saddened.

[albert_dao]

That is awful.

Critics say this is proof elephants shouldn't be bred in captivty.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. That's equivalent to saying a teenage mother should be barred from having children later in her life because of an irresponsible act made during years when better judgement was lacking.

The fact is that, as stated, it is normal for first time elephant mothers to abandon their offspring in the wild. Looking at that, you can easily make the leap of logic and say, "Hey! this would have happened anyway!!"

Animal rights is one thing, animal liberation is another.

That aggravates me to no end.

[Beverly]

I've been following the story. Very sad to hear the little one didn't make it :cry:

In the wild, elephants live in matriarchal societies where young female elephants are able to "learn" how to care for their young by watching the older females of their group rear their young. Yes, occasionally, first time wild elephant mothers abandon their babies, for much the same reason the captive mother abandoned her baby - it was sick. Unfortunately, there is no elephant medicare to help in these situations.

The vets and other zoo staff did their best to care for the sick infant, but in the end it was not enough. Elephants are highly social and live in complex societies. I have a whole bunch of if only's going around in my head, but, ultimately, infant mortality is an utterly sad fact of life :sad:

[Canadian Man]

I heard that on the radio this morning. Very sad :frown:

It was a cute little elephant!

[AJ_77]

...infant mortality is an utterly sad fact of life :sad:

Isn't this an elephant we're talking about? Are newborn elephants referred to as "infants?"

[Beverly]

...infant mortality is an utterly sad fact of life :sad:

Isn't this an elephant we're talking about? Are newborn elephants referred to as "infants?"

Hmm, yes, infants generally refer to human babies. Elephants are very intelligent and live in highly evolved societies, so I have great reverence for them. Please, don't get me started on elephants in most zoos, elephants in cities in South Asia, speciesism in reference to calling a baby elephant an infant......

[AJ_77]

Hmm, please don't accuse me of speciesism. The same quality that allows me to recognize what exceptional and wondrous beasts elephants are tells me that we are indeed a species far apart, and that I may ascertain by this and other "higher faculties" that your life is of infinitely greater consequence than that of an elephant.

I agree that this baby elephant's death is very sad, and would greatly prefer that it had survived. That would be a very cool thing to take my kids to see, as part of their ongoing instruction in the appreciation of nature.

[Beverly]

The same quality that allows me to recognize what exceptional and wondrous beasts elephants are tells me that we are indeed a species far apart, and that I may ascertain by this and other "higher faculties" that your life is of infinitely greater consequence than that of an elephant.

Yes, my life is more important to me than an elephant's life is to me. But to an elephant, I'm sure it's own life is more important to itself than my life is to it. The need to survive and thrive has got to be one of the most basic of all needs in any living entity.

As for the "higher faculties" issue, human animals do not have a way to truly measure the higher faculties of other animals. We only assume that because other animals do not have written language (or spoken/unspoken language that we can understand), do not build monumental cities (with the exception of some species of insects), are not capable of Googling, that they do not have some form of thought or have souls. But in the heaven I go to after this life, there will be mammals, fish, birds, insects, amphibians, et al, and I welcome a heaven populated as such.

[StirCrazy]

But to an elephant, I'm sure it's own life is more important to itself than my life is to it.

you really think an animal has the rational and state of mine to know its importance in the world? isn't that what separates humans from animals?

sure they have a instinct to survive but it is an instinct, not a thought process, and thats it. Lets not project human traits and value onto animals other wise we will have to say our fish would be happier if we killed the one thats bugging it at night :mrgreen:

Steve

[Quinn]

The idea that anything shouldn't be bred in captivity is utterly absurd.

There's no doubt elephants are "highly" evolved. Of course whether being "highly" evolved is such a good thing is anyone's guess. Evolution is about long-term survival (read: eons), and both elephants and humans are unlikely to be around for any significant period of time, compared to, say, many species of protozoa. The more conventional scale we use to measure organismic "success", intelligence, dominance, is one that is of little relevance in the grand scheme of things.

I'm taking an animal behaviour class right now, and it's possibly been the most interesting class that I've taken in my life, along with a few criminology courses. I am tempted to switch my focus to what's known as comparative psychology to spend my career watching monkeys in Africa. This is a little cliché, but it's helped me realize how "small" I am.

[Chad]

I think the only way some of the worlds animals / plants etc will survive is through human interference. IE: Zoo's , Arboretums etc etc. Of course, its our duty to give them as close as possible their natural habitat.

Through this it allows us to get educated about them and give civilization as a whole a broader outlook on the environment around us. Some people don't change their habits until they really see whats being affected by them. (environmental pollution, deforestation etc)

Hopefully they learned something from this baby elephant and are more prepared for the next time.

Just my 2 cents.. :biggrin:

[AJ_77]

Hopefully they learned something from this baby elephant and are more prepared for the next time.
Just saw on the news, the fellow in charge of their breeding program said as soon as they can they want to try again...

[Cap'n]

But to an elephant, I'm sure it's own life is more important to itself than my life is to it.

you really think an animal has the rational and state of mine to know its importance in the world? isn't that what separates humans from animals?


Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

[Buccaneer]

I just love nowadays how " tree-huggers " try to put a human element to the animal kingdom as a whole ... elephants dont do anything except by instinct or in this case of raising their young they " ape " the older females ... this is not a thinking rational being.

You can teach a rat to go through a maze to get some cheese ( and that is a learned behaviour ) but he is never going to compose music like Chopin. :lol:

I was conversing with a " tree-hugger " :razz: and she actually had animals higher on the scale than humans in terms of importance :rolleyes: ... now I know most of you in this thread wont go so far but to think of a animal in human terms as far as evolutionary evolving is ludicrous dont you think ?

[StirCrazy]

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

I know they are animals.. but we have a very different quality from the rest of animals.

and as for marking territory goes this is purely mating instinct. the smell keeps other males away from that area. they don't go out and think "well if I pee on this tree no one will bother me" by instinct they pee on random trees in there area or on rivals already scented trees, in order to attract females. so really he is saying "hey Baaaaaby" :mrgreen:

Steve

[Cap'n]

I just love nowadays how " tree-huggers " try to put a human element to the animal kingdom as a whole ... elephants dont do anything except by instinct or in this case of raising their young they " ape " the older females ... this is not a thinking rational being.

For humans to stake a claim to "rational thinking" as a quality only they posess is extremely conceited and narrow-minded. Doesn't take much study in the animal kingdom to see true learning processes develop apart from instinct.

[StirCrazy]

For humans to stake a claim to "rational thinking" as a quality only they posess is extremely conceited and narrow-minded. Doesn't take much study in the animal kingdom to see true learning processes develop apart from instinct.

thats a Pablo's dog. it is repetitive conditioning, not true learning. there are some animals that can do true learning but they do not posses rational thought and a self awareness.

Steve

[Buccaneer]

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:

[SeaHorse_Fanatic]

I used to volunteer at the Vancouver Public Aquarium. I was there when the baby Orca was born & also when it died. That was a very sad day, especially after seeing all the effort everyone put in to try to save it's life. However, like mentioned earlier, captive breeding programs may be the one hope for long-term survival for many endangered species.

[albert_dao]

I'm sure you're all familiar with PETA and ALF?

This is about as extreme as it gets in terms of animal rights/liberation and I'd hate the play the game against an organization that has millions and millions as its support base, mostly people who are ignorant to the actual concept of PETA.

BLSKBJLKJSAKLJB:LKAJ:LKJELVKJELJ:LVKJLKWAJE:KLJVE. .. I have a six page rant on this if anyone is interested.

[Murminator]

:agrue:








Think I should enter this as my avatar?

http://www.canreef.com/photopost/data/500/1305granny_kick.gif

[Quinn]

thats a Pablo's dog.

Pavlov.

So what separates us from the other animals? We thought it was tool use, then Goodall and others found out otherwise. Is it self-awareness? Good research suggests that many animals know they're looking at themselves when you put a mirror in front of them, and not another individual. Is it the ability to feel compassion? In one particular species of monkey, if you set up an experiment so that everytime one individual presses a button to get a piece of food, it electrocutes another individual in its line of sight, the first animal will quickly stop pressing the button and come close to starvation, apparently to avoid causing harm to its counterpart. Based on what humans value, we certainly are more successful than other primates. However, to say we are somehow fundamentally different than any other animal is pre-Darwin religious drivel.

Instinct is "a behaviour pattern that appears in fully functional form the first time it is performed, even though the animal may have no previous experience with the cues that elicit the behaviour." They are coded for genetically, and most biologists/animal behaviourists accept that behaviour is the result of both genetics and modeling. Salmon know to swim back to where they were born to spawn. But even organisms as simple as wasps can learn that they've made a mistake when they attempt to mate with an orchid for the first time.

Humans have large brains, and the current hypothesis for this is that we evolved them in order to function in complex social environments where relationships with our peers are very different from individual to individual. But I doubt any of us could remember the location of 1000+ seeds over the winter like some birds. So again, what is success in the grand scheme of things?

I'm not a "tree hugger". But seeing ourselves as superior to other animals is a quaint notion that has long been abandoned in scientific circles (since Victorian times). We don't "own" anything on this planet.

[AJ_77]

However, to say we are somehow fundamentally different than any other animal is pre-Darwin religious drivel.


Thanks, Quinn. Merry Christmas to you, too.

That comment puts you into the Angry Young Man category. Let's talk again in 10 years, OK?

[Quinn]

Pre-Darwin, as in, not modern day, tolerant religious traditions. I am not implying there is a problem with religion as a whole.

[G1GY]

It's realy sad to hear about the death of the baby elephant, but equally sad to see animal rights activists come out of the woodwork and say "See! I told you so! You shouldn't breed these animals in capitivity!".

These same retards wouldn't bat an eye at what's happening to people in Africa every day, but ride a bull in a rodeo, eat a steak or wear a leather jacket and they'll go to the end of the earth to stop it.

If not for captive breeding programs around the world, there would probably be many animals gone already. In many countries the animals that are kept and bred are food, clothing and trophie items in their native habitat. Endangered or not!

I think all the tree hugging PETA pukes should get back to their plant eating place at the bottom of the food chain! :lol:

[Cap'n]

For humans to stake a claim to "rational thinking" as a quality only they posess is extremely conceited and narrow-minded. Doesn't take much study in the animal kingdom to see true learning processes develop apart from instinct.

thats a Pablo's dog. it is repetitive conditioning, not true learning. there are some animals that can do true learning but they do not posses rational thought and a self awareness.

Steve

That's Pavlov BTW, but repetetive conditioning is not was I was describing anyway. There are many instances of animals learning new methods of survival which they have discovered through trial and error, just like people do. Both lower and higher forms of life do this.

A couple examples from the primates:

A boy once fell into a gorilla enclosure and was knocked unconscious, I believe it was in L.A. The crowd panicked, screaming for help, wondering if the powerful animals would harm the child. A female gorilla who had recently lost her baby rushed over to the boy and hunched over him, baring her teeth at the other gorillas keeping them away. She them picked the boy up and carried him over to the door where the zoo-keepers enter to feed the primates and clean the cage. She then moved a short distance away, again keeping the other gorillas away until someone came in and took the boy away to safety. This showed learned behaviour which was not taught, advanced problem solving and empathy of another being.

Koko, http://www.koko.org/# the famous signing gorilla, has a vocabulary of over 1000 words in American Sign Language (ASL) and can understand over 2000 spoken English words, responding in ASL. She calls herself by her name, tells people she calls "friends" how she is feeling, describing a full range of emotions ranging from happy, sad, to embarrassment. She desired a pet and was given a kitten she named Ball. She now wants to have children and says she will teach them sign language. I find it hard to disagree that Koko has self awareness.

I do believe that humans have evolved in many ways beyond that which other animals have, that is beyond question. But when it comes to processes as simple as knowing who they are and what they are doing I believe there are many other species alive that have this ability. To return to the origin of this thread let's consider the mourning of the passing of a member of an elephant herd. The other members of the herd will spend days with the dying and the deceased, caressing the body, bellowing mournful cries. They will go without food and water just to be with their longtime companion. Those especially close to the deceased will often spend extra time with the body after the rest of the herd decides to move on. This process will even be repeated when the herd comes upon the bones of those they once knew. Pretty advance for "just an animal."

[Cap'n]

oops, missed a few posts while I was typing...

[Cap'n]

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:

As Quinn has stated chimpanzees invent and use tools.
Other animals can rationalize and there are probably marine mammals with more expansive minds than primates. Humans definately have developed an advantage over the other residents of the planet but I cannot agree that we have a certain something that makes us more important, special or significant than others.

I am not and was not upset. Just asking some questions and enjoying the conversation. The "tree-hugger" term is being thrown around quite loosely here with a lot of generalizations. I fail to see how someone like myself can be labelled as such just because I have studied and have an understanding of animal behaviour anyway. Does that by default make you, BukAneer, an "ignorant redneck"? I think not.

[albert_dao]

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:

As Quinn has stated chimpanzees invent and use tools.
Other animals can rationalize and there are probably marine mammals with more expansive minds than primates. Humans definately have developed an advantage over the other residents of the planet but I cannot agree that we have a certain something that makes us more important, special or significant than others.

I am not and was not upset. Just asking some questions and enjoying the conversation. The "tree-hugger" term is being thrown around quite loosely here with a lot of generalizations. I fail to see how someone like myself can be labelled as such just because I have studied and have an understanding of animal behaviour anyway. Does that by default make you, BukAneer, an "ignorant redneck"? I think not.

On that note, there is anecdotal evidence (har har) that suggest that dolphins may have even greater cognitive prowess then humans!

[UnderWorldAquatics]

To stick with the topic of this thread, I am very sad that the baby elephant has died.

To continue on with the meat of this thread.... I havent read every word posted but have disagreed greatly with the majority of what has been posted..... You have voiced your opinions and they are yours to voice, on my end personally, you can throw all that evolution crap out the window! I think Darwin was a very stupid man, he went all over the world and saw all nature had to offer in all its intricate detail, and said, "evolution is the answer" What a Moron!!! I love and hate science, if you study science and cant figure out that a greater being "God" created everything, you are foolish in my eyes. Science proves gods existence and disproves evolution. There is no proof of evoloution, only speculation, there has been no species found in the midst of an evolutionary change. Have you ever looked at the supposed prehistoric human skulls that they found, they are 2 colours, 1 colour is actual bone that they found(very small skull area), then the other colour is what forms the whole shape of the monkey man skulls. And then they find hair on the skull, so prehistoric man is hairy all over, but they only found hair on the top of the skull, go figure??? I cant fathome how a person can study the complexity of just the small marine life enviroment that we try to sustain in our tanks and not belive that god created that life... If I had a big steel box and filled it with every seperate part of a car and shook it for a million years, do you think when I opened the box I would have a running perfectly torqued to spec car...???? I sure dont think so, yet the odds of a rock hitting earth and life starting, or you and myself comming from some sea goo are sooooo much higher..... many wont agree with my post, fair enough.....
In the bible God told us that we would be above all his other creations on earth, monkey is not my equal.....

[EmilyB]

I was conversing with a " tree-hugger " and she actually had animals higher on the scale than humans in terms of importance

Was that me? :confused:

[albert_dao]

To stick with the topic of this thread, I am very sad that the baby elephant has died.

To continue on with the meat of this thread.... I havent read every word posted but have disagreed greatly with the majority of what has been posted..... You have voiced your opinions and they are yours to voice, on my end personally, you can throw all that evolution crap out the window! I think Darwin was a very stupid man, he went all over the world and saw all nature had to offer in all its intricate detail, and said, "evolution is the answer" What a Moron!!! I love and hate science, if you study science and cant figure out that a greater being "God" created everything, you are foolish in my eyes. Science proves gods existence and disproves evolution. There is no proof of evoloution, only speculation, there has been no species found in the midst of an evolutionary change. Have you ever looked at the supposed prehistoric human skulls that they found, they are 2 colours, 1 colour is actual bone that they found(very small skull area), then the other colour is what forms the whole shape of the monkey man skulls. And then they find hair on the skull, so prehistoric man is hairy all over, but they only found hair on the top of the skull, go figure??? I cant fathome how a person can study the complexity of just the small marine life enviroment that we try to sustain in our tanks and not belive that god created that life... If I had a big steel box and filled it with every seperate part of a car and shook it for a million years, do you think when I opened the box I would have a running perfectly torqued to spec car...???? I sure dont think so, yet the odds of a rock hitting earth and life starting, or you and myself comming from some sea goo are sooooo much higher..... many wont agree with my post, fair enough.....
In the bible God told us that we would be above all his other creations on earth, monkey is not my equal.....


Harsh, and no, you're wrong in assuming that those people who believe in evolution are ignorant or stupid. Let's be fair here; for some people, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in evolution, for others, creation. There's no definitive proof that says either is absolute (personally, I think both are wrong but have no solution to offer).

For all the naysayers to evolution: yes, macroevolution does have merit to it (see 21 proofs for macroevolution). Yes, indeterminant and intermediate fossils have been found, not all of them, but enough to say that they do exist (keep in mind that fossilization is a rarity at best).

To those who want to bash creation: Sometimes, using abberant mineralization to explain human footprints found alongside dinosaur footprints is hard to swallow.




Oh, a bit off tangent, but I don't by the "OMG, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE ODDS OF THE EARTH BEING EXACTLY THE RIGHT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO SUPPORT LIFE AND SPINNING AT THE EXACT SPEED NEEDED TO MAINTAIN AN ATMOSPHERE, ETC, ETC, ETC" arguement.

Consider this: If you have six six-sided dice and you roll them six times, you will end up with six permutations of six in six results, with the odds of obtaining any given result as a function of x^y^z. Now let's take that logic and consider if you have six six-sided dice and are prepared to roll the infinite times. What's the result? Well, you're looking at something like infinite permutations of six in infinite results. Within those results, the chances of obtaining any unique permutation is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE.

Now, I know the universe is not infinite (well, so science tells me), but it is vast. So vast as to say that it is wholely feasible for there to be a unique, or otherwise, occurance of a planet that is EXACTLY THE RIGHT DISTANCE FROM THE SUN TO SUPPORT LIFE AND SPINNING AT THE EXACT SPEED NEEDED TO MAINTAIN ATMOSPHERE, ETC, ETC, ETC!!!

[UnderWorldAquatics]

[
Harsh, and no, you're wrong in assuming that those people who believe in evolution are ignorant or stupid. Let's be fair here; for some people, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in evolution, for others, creation. There's no definitive proof that says either is absolute (personally, I think both are wrong but have no solution to offer).

!!![/b]

I disagree, what I said is my strong personal opinion, I am not assuming anything, it is the way I feel, and I feel strongly about it....

Also dont take anything I say personally... I may have forgotten to take my meds...lol

[albert_dao]

.. OMG, OMG, OMG, OMG!!!! I think I may have come up with a reasonable (in my mind) explanation for life!

Holy crap, I think I'll write all this down and present it here later!!!!!


Edit: Nope, nevermind. It's stupid. Dammit.

[UnderWorldAquatics]

As I said dont take anything I say personally, and I never said your opinions were stupid, they are your opinions, not mine, personally I cant fathom the belief in darwinisim, I find it "stupid" for lack of a better word. Because of what I believe in and what I have researched, I personally find evolution to be insulting. Again, please dont take offense, its a touchy subject, like abortion, if you say pro life like I do, pro choicers hate you....religion is always a touchy subject

[Quinn]

I think my first point about Darwin and religion was taken horribly out of context. My aim was not to disparage religion. Certainly religion has its place, and I do not believe that belief in evolution (macroevolution/speciation, not just microevolution/natural selection) means that a person cannot also be deeply religious. I know he probably doesn't mean much to most of you, but even the Pope has said that evolution is compatible with Catholicism. Other than in the case of a few conservative sects with relatively literal interpretations of the Bible, I don't think there are any strands of Christianity that are completely incompatible with a belief in macroevolution. All I was referring to was the lack of critical thought that existed in most circles in Western society during the revival, the Victorian era, etc. Remember, up until Darwin, most revolutionary scientific thought complemented the Bible quite nicely (Lamarckian evolution, for instance). In fact, at first glance, Darwin's theory does not appear to contradict the Bible at all. It's the idea that chance mutations are selected for that causes so many problems, because it excludes the possibility of "man being created in God's image."* Remember also that it was precisely the fear of the public's reaction to this that kept Darwin from publishing until he was essentially forced to. Hopefully this clarifies what I meant when I brought religion into the equation.

As an aside, agreeing with Albert here, clearly our existence, if not an act of a supreme being, is a tremendous bit of good luck.

Kyle, for you, may I suggest some readings. Regarding creating a car by chance, please see the numerous critiques of Paley's "The Teleological Argument", which are available online. You may be familiar with Duane Gish, if not, take a look at almost any of his writings, also on the net. Then read Ketcher's "Against Creationism", and Gould's "So Cleverly Kind an Animal." Proving or disproving the existence of God is a difficult task, and to date, neither has been successfully accomplished. And if he/she/it/they do exist, who created them? :wink:

* Belief in evolution can leave a person feeling a bit empty. Modern revisions to Darwin suggest that any organism is really just a vehicle for the propagation of genes... I'm mostly here to give my genes a chance to replicate...

[sumpfinfishe]

I guess I'm gonna toss in my two bits here too!

Evolution or creation doe's it really matter-we're here- let's just enjoy life for now and for the future!

Getting back to the poor baby elephant, I think it's really sad that she died, but I also feel that we need to protect and sustain life on on earth not just for us humans but for the animals of this world too!
If we don't try to help in some way, wether it be education, funding, volunteering, or a life long career- we all need to do our part to help keep this planet healthy.

Animals deserve as much respect in my book as much as humans, and in some cases they deserve more than some ignorant humans!
If this makes me a tree hugger, then I'm proud to be one :mrgreen:

[Fish]

So what separates us from the other animals? We thought it was tool use, then Goodall and others found out otherwise. Is it self-awareness? Good research suggests that many animals know they're looking at themselves when you put a mirror in front of them, and not another individual. Is it the ability to feel compassion?

I would suggest the topic of this thread as a possible difference. Despite the amount of destruction and killing and clear-cutting we seem to do as a species, I can not think of a single other animal that cares personally about the well being of another species (that is not motivated by personal preservation). I mean really, our concern for an elephant in the zoo or even all the elephants in Africa is not motivated by any sort of benefit to ourselves because, as a species, we do not rely on the elephant for anything. Infact, if anything, it could be seen by many as a competitor for space and a thief of farm produce. Despite this, there are people who have devoted their entire lives to keeping these animals alive. I don't think you will find a parallel anywhere else in the animal kingdom. It flies in the face of all the rules about survival of the fittest and whatnot.
Also, I don't think anyone would contest species evolve over time. I think it is the "theory of evolution" as an explanation of the origon of man (without the involvement of a Higher Power), that some of us have a hard time with. I belive that I am a man of strong convictions but I recognize that I probably don't have half the "faith" or conviction or fervor that someone who believes in a Big-bag-type theory has. Because, of the two options, .... that is really a stretch :razz:

- Chad

[Buccaneer]

Does that by default make you, BukAneer, an "ignorant redneck"? I think not.

Whoa ... dont get your panties in a knot ... no time to stop being a lady :razz: ... I used the term " tree-hugger " far more affectionately than most people would use the term " ignorant redneck " ... and what exactly do you mean redneck anyway since you have never met me and have no clue as to my heritage. Tne term redneck would in this case be a racial slur and I am pretty sure we can all agree that we can keep race out of this conversation and focus on species instead.

[Fish]

Buk_A_neer
No it's because we can all see that you live in DeWinton :biggrin:
Just kidding!

What I want to know is, how come there's been no action in the nano forum for weeks and the lounge is getting this kind of interest?? C'mon guys, I posted updated pics of my tank and everything. :smile:

- Chad

[Buccaneer]

I was conversing with a " tree-hugger " and she actually had animals higher on the scale than humans in terms of importance

Was that me? :confused:

Is it you ? :razz: :lol:

As far as I know we have not talked about this subject in the past so there are at least 2 of you with that opinion ... is that what you are saying ?

What is your views on the subject then and are you then a " tree-hugger " ? :razz: :eek:

[albert_dao]

Must be something in the water :neutral:

[Buccaneer]

Must be something in the water :neutral:

salt ? :eek:

[Cap'n]

I love and hate science, if you study science and cant figure out that a greater being "God" created everything, you are foolish in my eyes...

I know you said not to take anything you said personally but you make it kind of difficult with stingers like this. Quite a bold statement.

I second Quinn's suggestion that you do some more research into the science of evololutionary and other theories which differ from creationism as many of the "facts" you cited are either highly inaccurate or mere rumours. Remember to always study both sides of an issue to obtain an unbiased opinion, or at least try. I have read the bible and have taken a couple university courses on the practice and study of various religions, quite possibly my favorite classes. There are so many different beliefs that it seems impulsive to say only one could be correct.

I once met a guy who described himself as an apathetic agnostic, "I don't know, and I don't care.".

[Cap'n]

Does that by default make you, BukAneer, an "ignorant redneck"? I think not.

Whoa ... dont get your panties in a knot ... no time to stop being a lady :razz: ... I used the term " tree-hugger " far more affectionately than most people would use the term " ignorant redneck " ... and what exactly do you mean redneck anyway since you have never met me and have no clue as to my heritage. Tne term redneck would in this case be a racial slur and I am pretty sure we can all agree that we can keep race out of this conversation and focus on species instead.

Now this one has me confused...

First off, I did not call you a redneck, I was illistrating the fact that it was unfair to call me a tree-hugger because the act of chaining oneself to a tree to save it from a chainsaw has little to do with the topic(s) of this discussion. If you re-read the post I hope you'll see that I was saying it would be just as inaccurate to call you something dissimilar.

And...I don't wear panties, never been a lady, don't plan on having the sex change operation anytime soon.


I might as well add, I have a moose-hunting, 4x4 driving, C&W listening good friend of mine who I often call an ignorant redneck, and he loves to call his backpack wearing, anti-TV, bicycle commuting friend of his a tree-hugger, so I can take a good natured ribbing, I'm not that sensitive.

[Cap'n]

Again, please dont take offense, its a touchy subject, like abortion, if you say pro life like I do, pro choicers hate you....religion is always a touchy subject


pro life = anti choice

.

[Fish]

Again, please dont take offense, its a touchy subject, like abortion, if you say pro life like I do, pro choicers hate you....religion is always a touchy subject


pro life = anti choice

.


I don't think it is necessary/desireable to get into this debate but I strongly dissagree with this statement. I think that we can all agree that the names these different camps have decided to call themselves are not really descriptive of their respective views so much as they are derrogatory of the opposing view. Really, no one belives that if you are not "pro life" you are "anti life" or "pro death" and if you are not "pro choice" you are "anti choice". Obviously choice and life are valuable to all of us. The difference in opinions lies in when human life is believed to begin.

[Buccaneer]

Does that by default make you, BukAneer, an "ignorant redneck"? I think not.

Whoa ... dont get your panties in a knot ... no time to stop being a lady :razz: ... I used the term " tree-hugger " far more affectionately than most people would use the term " ignorant redneck " ... and what exactly do you mean redneck anyway since you have never met me and have no clue as to my heritage. Tne term redneck would in this case be a racial slur and I am pretty sure we can all agree that we can keep race out of this conversation and focus on species instead.

Now this one has me confused...

First off, I did not call you a redneck, I was illistrating the fact that it was unfair to call me a tree-hugger because the act of chaining oneself to a tree to save it from a chainsaw has little to do with the topic(s) of this discussion. If you re-read the post I hope you'll see that I was saying it would be just as inaccurate to call you something dissimilar.

And...I don't wear panties, never been a lady, don't plan on having the sex change operation anytime soon.


I might as well add, I have a moose-hunting, 4x4 driving, C&W listening good friend of mine who I often call an ignorant redneck, and he loves to call his backpack wearing, anti-TV, bicycle commuting friend of his a tree-hugger, so I can take a good natured ribbing, I'm not that sensitive.

I did not call you a tree-hugger ... you did :lol:

you were also the one that brought up the term redneck and threw it out there with my name attached to it and then retracted it just as quickly ... I know you may feel very fond of your 4X4 friend but lets keep the term redneck out of this conversation if you dont mind.

also ... the term tree-hugger in this case was a term my friend called herself ... not that she actually chained herself to trees or anything like that but she has very strong feelings on the subject where animals are concerned ... but fails to have that much passion for people starving in the third world countries or the diseases like aids that are ravaging some countries.

[Cap'n]

Agree it is not a desirable topic.

Disagree that the name is insignificant. There are many pro-lifers who could more accurately be described as anti-choice.

Personally, it's a terrible thing that is sometimes necessary.

I'm ready to move on, was enjoying this thread 'til now. Not meaning to offend.

[Fish]

Worry not Cap'n I wasn't offended :cool: .

And I never suggested that the name is insignifigant. Only that the names cleverly represent a falicy of logic - the strawman falicy I think.

[Cap'n]

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:


Hey man, you did call me a tree-hugger, I never did.

And I didn't retract anything, even the part of my post that you quoted states "I think not" in reference to the possibilty of calling you such a term.

[Cap'n]

And I never suggested that the name is insignifigant. Only that the names cleverly represent a falicy of logic - the strawman falicy I think.

Ah, a more eloquent way to say the same thing I was attempting.
Thank you.

[Fish]

Ah, a more eloquent way to say the same thing I was attempting.
Thank you.

No but I think... uh... oh... ur welcome. :razz:

- Chad

[Buccaneer]

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:


Hey man, you did call me a tree-hugger, I never did.

And I didn't retract anything, even the part of my post that you quoted states "I think not" in reference to the possibilty of calling you such a term.

LOL ...

this was you saying this as well right ? or was your friend referring to somebody else ?

and he loves to call his backpack wearing, anti-TV, bicycle commuting friend of his a tree-hugger, so I can take a good natured ribbing, I'm not that sensitive.


you dont deny being a tree-hugger though as it is a term you are familiar with right ? :razz: :rofl:

[G1GY]

I'm a tree hugging redneck that has a fixation on glass boxes full of rocks and water! :BIG:

[StirCrazy]

Bahhh trees just get in the way of good space for parking cars :mrgreen:

Steve

[Aquattro]

Bahhh trees just get in the way of good space for parking cars :mrgreen:

Steve

Careful Steve, or God will evolve you back into a monkey, and then you'll miss the trees.

Now, I'm thinkin', as us mods must every now and then, that this thread is heading in a precarious direction. Let's try to keep it on the long noses, or it may get aborted. :razz:

Thanks

[Beverly]

Despite the amount of destruction and killing and clear-cutting we seem to do as a species, I can not think of a single other animal that cares personally about the well being of another species (that is not motivated by personal preservation).

Our concern with the welfare of other species is definitely self-motivated. Beginning centuries ago, we have destroyed other species' habitat at an ever excelerating pace. In the last few decades it has become increasingly clear that if we do not have more of a balance between the ever-expanding, so-called civilized human world and the natural world, humans will eventually share the planet with only a few other pest species.

I mean really, our concern for an elephant in the zoo or even all the elephants in Africa is not motivated by any sort of benefit to ourselves because, as a species, we do not rely on the elephant for anything.

Actually, we subconsciously rely on the knowledge that elephants still exist on our planet to relieve ourselves of the guilt we would feel if elephants, along with other well known species, were inadvertantly killed by our aggressive human expansionism.

Humans are the only animals on the planet that keep other animals in zoos. There are two elephants at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Every time I've seen them, they and the other animals looked so sad in their relatively small enclosures, that I had to stop going to the zoo. Can you imagine yourself as an animal in a zoo? I mean, honestly see yourself caged in surroundings not of your choosing, being fed food not of your choosing, and being without others of your own kind, such as friends and family?

Infact, if anything, it could be seen by many as a competitor for space and a thief of farm produce.

Actually, elephants lived in the places where farms now exist, so who is the competitor here?

This is a pretty harsh thought, but sometimes I think a good plague that would wipe out 90% of the human population might do the planet and all who live here plenty of good.

[muck]

I mean really, our concern for an elephant in the zoo or even all the elephants in Africa is not motivated by any sort of benefit to ourselves because, as a species, we do not rely on the elephant for anything.

Actually, we subconsciously rely on the knowledge that elephants still exist on our planet to relieve ourselves of the guilt we would feel if elephants, along with other well known species, were inadvertantly killed by our aggressive human expansionism.

Humans are the only animals on the planet that keep other animals in zoos. There are two elephants at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Every time I've seen them, they and the other animals looked so sad in their relatively small enclosures, that I had to stop going to the zoo. Can you imagine yourself as an animal in a zoo? I mean, honestly see yourself caged in surroundings not of your choosing, being fed food not of your choosing, and being without others of your own kind, such as friends and family?

Bev,
If this is how you feel how is keeping fish in a glass box any different? :confused:
I don't think they choose to live there either...

[Fish]

Humans are the only animals on the planet that keep other animals in zoos. There are two elephants at the Edmonton Valley Zoo. Every time I've seen them, they and the other animals looked so sad in their relatively small enclosures, that I had to stop going to the zoo. Can you imagine yourself as an animal in a zoo? I mean, honestly see yourself caged in surroundings not of your choosing, being fed food not of your choosing, and being without others of your own kind, such as friends and family?


I think if you ran this past the men and women who care for these animals in the zoos they would have slightly different opinions. Unfortunately, zoos have become vital for the survival of some species whos natural habitat has been swallowed up. I'm not saying this is good, or it's the best possible outcome - I'm saying this is reality. I think you would also find that these people are motivated by a true love for these other animals and not by a desire to appease their own unconcious guilt. JMO.

- Chad

[Fish]

Actually, elephants lived in the places where farms now exist, so who is the competitor here?


Um... well that's the whole point of my post (I guess I'm not very good at expressing myself today :smile: ). Of course we are the competitor! But as the ultimate competitor, would the elephant, or any other animal, strive to prevent our extinction? Would any other animal mourne if we as a species dissapeared from the earth?
It was asked earlier what qualities separated us from the other animals. I merely pointed out that our concern for the welfare of other species (as evident in many of the posts) makes us kinda special (or kinda wierd :rolleyes: ) in the animal kingdom.

- Chad

[Quinn]

Without going into details, to assume everything humans do now is adaptive would be foolish.

I expect keeping animals with little resource value in captivity started with the Pharaohs, who brought various African animals back from war with them, perhaps to impress their people.

I wouldn't argue that this isn't a unique and perhaps "higher level" activity, but as shown by Koko's experience with the kitten, this interest in other living things is quite natural, and our concern for other species does not indicate we are somehow special.

[AJ_77]

* Belief in evolution can leave a person feeling a bit empty. Modern revisions to Darwin suggest that any organism is really just a vehicle for the propagation of genes... I'm mostly here to give my genes a chance to replicate...

I'm sorry Quinn, you're not angry at all. I forgot how frustrating the quest to replicate one's genes can become... :mrgreen:

Great post, that one, BTW. I'm encouraged by the openness and sensitivity displayed by many here.

[Delphinus]

I don't know know whether to be amazed, or impressed, where this has gone.

I wanted to express my sadness at the loss. Whether the practise of attempting to breed is right or wrong, regardless of our place in the universe, or whatever we may feel the need to expound on, this is still a loss.

My condolences and best wishes go out to those who tried so hard. It may not feel as such, but your efforts were not in vain. I think, as a value, quality of life supercedes quantity of life, and this baby knew that she was loved in her brief existence. Such would be my hope, anyhow.

[Beverly]

Bev,
If this is how you feel how is keeping fish in a glass box any different? :confused:
I don't think they choose to live there either...

Yes, you are completely correct that the animals in my tanks are not there because of their choice. Personally, I have conflicting attitudes when it comes to the animals I keep that are not in their native habitat.

One is that I feel guilt by keeping them in an environment not natural to them, even though I try my best to give them as non stressful a place to live as possible. But who knows, according to fish/invert standards, if I am hitting anywhere near the mark.

The other is that I'm as selfish a human being as the rest of us and justify my keeping these animals in that I don't expend a lot of energy on vacations, drive a small car when I drive at all, and try not to be a grand consumer of much of anything else.

I realize the choices we make in life are not black and white, but many shades of grey. I am also fully aware of the dichotomy of my own feelings when it comes to reefkeeping and the keeping of other animals in our care.

[Fish]

I wouldn't argue that this isn't a unique and perhaps "higher level" activity, but as shown by Koko's experience with the kitten, this interest in other living things is quite natural, and our concern for other species does not indicate we are somehow special.
I disagree, I feel that the primate examples only demonstrate how powerful the adaptive phenomenon of maternal instinct is. I think it is reasonable that a captive gorilla, wanting to have children would accept and nurture and care for a cat. The point is "are gorrilas as a species (not isolated incidents) as concerned with our well being as we are with theirs? Also the story of the boy that was rescued by the gorrila at the zoo. I think that that story would have turned out a lot differently if the enclosure was full of only males. Or females with their children. Or if the fallee didn't have the good furtune of being bipedal, having opposable thumbs, and bearing a close resemblance to the gorilla herself. I don't think that the recently childless female gorilla would have cared so much for a dolphin that fell into her enclosure.

- Chad

[Fish]

Without going into details, to assume everything humans do now is adaptive would be foolish.


I agree, infact I personally believe that adaptive learning motivates us as a species far less than it motivates any other animal. I guess me trying to describe people's behaviour on the same level as other animals' is as problem-frought as you trying to contest humans are not superior by giving examples of animals that posses human-like attributes :smile: .
I mean really, if we are not superior over other animals why can't it be due to qualities or physical abilities that other animals posess and we do not? Why must it be due to qualites that we posess that other animals do too???
The focus of the argument itself seems to pre-assume our superiority.
JMO.

- Chad

[Beverly]

Actually, elephants lived in the places where farms now exist, so who is the competitor here?


Um... well that's the whole point of my post (I guess I'm not very good at expressing myself today :smile: ). Of course we are the competitor! But as the ultimate competitor, would the elephant, or any other animal, strive to prevent our extinction? Would any other animal mourne if we as a species dissapeared from the earth?

Ahh, okay, I understand what you are saying about humans being the great competitor.

You ask if any other animal would be capable of mourning us if they outcompeted us into extinction. To this I have no answer as I do not know what would go on in the mind of an animal capable of beating us at our own aggressive game.

The only animal that is as aggressive as humans are is other humans. So the question can only be, do we mourn the loss of others we kill in war? Personally, overall, I don't think so.

[Fish]

You ask if any other animal would be capable of mourning us if they outcompeted us into extinction. To this I have no answer as I do not know what would go on in the mind of an animal capable of beating us at our own aggressive game.


That's a good point Beverly, and would also make for a chilling movie :biggrin: .

[christyf5]

WoW! :eek:

I thought the Lounge was for aquarium related topics :razz: :wink:

[Fish]

The only animal that is as aggressive as humans are is other humans. So the question can only be, do we mourn the loss of others we kill in war? Personally, overall, I don't think so.

I guess to answer this one, we would have to ask someone who has actually killed someone else in a war. I don't want to keep answering for other people but I think you will find some very sobering responses from our war veterans. Even though it is not a popular thought in our hollywood-violence society, throughout every war prior to Vietnam, the recorded fireing rate for soldiers on the front line was 15-20%. That means that 80% of the soldiers would not even FIRE their weapons at the enemy - even to save their own lives. There have been other studies which have shown that even those who did shoot could not possibly have missed their mark as many times as they did unless it was intentional. Of the rifles recovered on civil war battlefields over 20% of the unfired ones were loaded with multiple loads, some loaded with as many as 16 differnt ball and powder charges. This suggests that many of these soldiers merely went through the motions of loading and firing their guns, not wanting their companions to know that they were in fact concientios objectors.
The only way that fireing and killing rates were increased (90%) in Vietnam and subsequent wars was though intensive training that most closely resembles behavioral conditioning ie "Pablo's" ( :razz: ) dog. And the prevalence of PTSD amongst these soldiers may indicate the high costs that must be payed for overcoming this natural aversion to killing a member of your own species. (Note: not my own thoughts. Plagerized from a pulitzer prize winning book called "On Killing" by LT Col. Grossman).

- Chad

[Fish]

WoW! :eek:

I thought the Lounge was for aquarium related topics :razz: :wink:

Sorry everyone, Iguess that I mistook this "Lounge" for being the same idea as Reef Central's "Lounge" which is really the opposite. I'll be quiet now. :redface:

- Chad

[muck]

Looks like chad has doubled his post count from this thread... :razz: :mrgreen:

[Fish]

ha!... ok ok
I'll be in the nano forum if anyone needs me :redface:

Cheers,

- Chad

[muck]

ha!... ok ok
I'll be in the nano forum if anyone needs me :redface:

Cheers,

- Chad

no worries Chad.
It was actually a very interesting read. Its great to see people actually discussing their point of views, beliefs with an open mind. I wish more people would do that as opposed to the great "Im right and thats final" philosophy.

[trilinearmipmap]

Whether you believe God created all the animals, or whether you believe evolution is responsible, or whether you believe like me that God created the conditions necessary for all life to evolve, doesn't matter.

Yes we are more intelligent than other animals, most of us anyways. It is clear that animals have demonstrated intelligence and not just simple repetitive behaviours. Many people by the way seem to have no intelligence but are just "along for the ride", letting others do all their thinking for them.

It is interesting the way the logic goes: We are more intelligent than other animals, therefore intelligence is a measure of superiority, therefore we are superior to other animals.

If zoos do everything they can to keep animals like elephants healthy and thriving, then OK. Some animals will die despite this, as they do in nature. But if a zoo is not able to provide the best possible environment for these creatures, then leave them alone. Animals were not put on this earth for our entertainment.

Anyway I have no use for the "tree hugger" environmental types who are generally a bunch of unemployed hippie pot smoking feminist types who could use a good bath and a firm kick in the butt. At the same time if we do not clean up our act and take better care of our environment, we will all be worse off in the future in many ways.

Well that is my opinion, go ahead and blast away now.

[christyf5]

Hehe, Chad I was just kidding. :biggrin:

I just found it interesting reading through the 5 pages of this thread that it went from the sadness of a baby elephant dying to whether baby elephants should be referred to as infants since infants can apparently only be human, then of course captive breeding/keeping zoos, "I hate tree huggers", instinct vs. conditioning, evolution, much bickering and name calling (all in good fun no doubt :razz:), a few things out of left field, and finally the ethics in keeping reef tanks.

I find it amazing how you can start with such a seemingly harmless topic and incite such hot debate on such a wide range of topics.

Way to go!! :mrgreen:

I love 5 page threads. They make for a good break from reading stupid microscope slides at work :wink:

Christy :)

[Doug]

WoW! :eek:

I thought the Lounge was for aquarium related topics :razz: :wink:

Sorry everyone, Iguess that I mistook this "Lounge" for being the same idea as Reef Central's "Lounge" which is really the opposite. I'll be quiet now. :redface:

- Chad

He,he. This thread would have been closed on RC already. Politics and religion threads are not allowed in the lounge there.

They do have another board where it all hangs out. :eek: Or one can get entertained on RDO lounge. I would not be able to argue on either and not lose. Cant keep up to them. :lol:

[Fish]

I agree this has been really entertaining and thought provoking!
But I am not coming out of retirement to comment anymore in this thread...
not even to bump my post count to 200...
:razz:

- Chad

[Fish]

... and that's final!

- Chad

[muck]

:lol:

[Aquattro]

OK, the lounge is for baby elephant topics, not reef stuff. Politics and religion is prolly best left to other places, just because it starts things we don't want happening here. We seem to be on track for the baby long nose and friends in zoos, and I guess that's OK. We can let God and Darwin discuss their differences elsewhere please :biggrin:

[albert_dao]

Actually, I have another thought to add:

In terms of intelligence, there is a lot of evidence that dolphins possess a greater capacity for intelligence then humans (do google search on "dolphins smarter then humans" or something to that degree, there will be a fair amount of results). It's just a matter of need vs. resource vs. environmental demand that prevented them from becoming the dominant species on the planet as far as I'm concerned. That and the power of the posable thumb.

Empathy in animals has been documented in many instances. Hell, there was an award winning two hour documentary on it called "Why dogs smile and chimpanzees cry." I highly suggest for anyone who hasn't seen it to do whatever they can to get their hands on it. Priceless. During this documentary, you'll see countless undeniable examples of animals who experience happiness, anger, sadness, grief, and gratitude. Watching it, I found it hard to attribute these emotions as merely derivative behaviors connated from basic instincts like territorial aggression or maternal bonding.

[UnderWorldAquatics]

i was writing my post as god was asked to be left out, I retract my post....

[Beverly]

The only animal that is as aggressive as humans are is other humans. So the question can only be, do we mourn the loss of others we kill in war? Personally, overall, I don't think so.

I guess to answer this one, we would have to ask someone who has actually killed someone else in a war. I don't want to keep answering for other people but I think you will find some very sobering responses from our war veterans.

After I posted, I began to question what I said in that paragraph based on the same information you referred to. You beat me to my being able to retract that statement. And it's nor even war vets who have misgivings about killing others. The folks at home often balk at their nation's soldiers killing other people, and you get events like the backlash to the Vietnam war as well as the current displeasure of some Americans over the war being waged in Iraq.

At some point in the future, when the current ice age has fully passed, there will be life-threatening problems concerning water. Either there will be too much in some places because of polar ice caps that have disappeared and coastal water levels have risen wiping out entire cities. Or, there will be too little water in other places because glaciers that once fed rivers along which many cities have grown will become inadequate to serve the populations. How people react to this scenerio will be a true test of how easily we will kill each other..... if some virus doesn't get us all first.

Also, not to worry about continuing to discuss the issues of this thread. I mean, the initial topic was not reef related, and it was started by one of the moderators :razz:

[Cap'n]

Humans are animals. At one time there would have been very little difference to even consider our species seperate from others on this planet. At what point in evolutionary history did humans "decide" they were special? When they could think that they are?

When a territorial animal marks its territory it is saying to the world, "This is me! This is my land! I am important!". Just one example.

Because we can " decide " to invent things we became special ... when we could rationalize and expand our minds past a primate we became " special "

Oh No ... I have upset another " tree-hugger " :razz:


Hey man, you did call me a tree-hugger, I never did.

And I didn't retract anything, even the part of my post that you quoted states "I think not" in reference to the possibilty of calling you such a term.

LOL ...

this was you saying this as well right ? or was your friend referring to somebody else ?

and he loves to call his backpack wearing, anti-TV, bicycle commuting friend of his a tree-hugger, so I can take a good natured ribbing, I'm not that sensitive.


you dont deny being a tree-hugger though as it is a term you are familiar with right ? :razz: :rofl:

Well, you almost got it right. This was my friend calling me a tree-hugger, just like you did. I never said I was. The term was initially used to describe people who would place themselves between a tree and a lumberjack. I have never done that.

[Delphinus]

I posted about something that meant a lot to me personally. Yes, it had nothing to do with aquariums but I consider the Canreef community my "friends" and thought it was OK to speak frankly amongst friends. If I erred, then I apologize.

[UnderWorldAquatics]

one thing I like about this forum is that it is a close community, and it is small enough that we can get to know one another and large enough to be a valuable pool of knowledge....

[Fish]

I couldn't stay away...

Bev,
That is a really good point. And about the water... thanks for adding yet one more thing to have nightmares about! :razz:

And also to Albert and Quinn,
I don't want to come across as saying that other animals don't feel fear or love, or compassion. Of course I agree with you. Infact, I believe that we love in return and care more for those animals that seem to have a greator capacity for feeling like we do. No one is really upset by the lobters that are boiled alive but we are all quite saddened by a dolphin getting caught in the same fishing nets. A rare dung beetle getting killed won't ever make the news like the death of a baby elephant will. I believe this is because there is something magical about an elephant and when you look into its eyes you realize that it knows things and feels things about life that we will never know. We all unconsciously rate animals and their importance. Animals that appear to have a greator depth of feeling, elephants, dolphins, dogs, gorrillas all rate higher on the scale. Anyone that values an ant less then a gorrila (I think the majority of us) engages in the same judgement. Some of us stop a few steps short and pick smileing dogs and crying monkeys and some of us follow it right through and chose our own species.
My only point is that, as a whole, our species seems to be the only one that is concerned with the plight of other species, as a whole. I know there have been individual instances that contradict this (a gorrila troup that adopts a human - a person who engages in animal cruelty) but I was commenting as a whole.
Really why do we all feel so guilty for what we are doing to the planet? We are enjoying an incredible period of evolutionary good fortune. We are multiplying and taking up space at the same rate that any other species would if it had no natural predators, abundant resourses, and the ability to heal itself. We are doing what natural selection says we should be doing. So why do we feel guilty? Because we feel responsible for the other creatures on this planet and how our actions are affecting them. All I am saying is that we are the only animal to feel this way. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, and I would also say that whether a person sets the criteria of superiority as 'apparent depth of feeling', 'proficiency with tools', or 'ability to outcompete competitors in Darwins survival of the fittest game', the human race has taken home gold medals is each of these events. Anyone who believes strictly in evolution must accept that we are superior because we are at the top of the food chain! We have, from all appearances, proven the strength of the species. It hasn't even been a close game! The only thing that would stop us from calling ourselves superior (aside from modesty) is the notion of moral superiority. The judges are still out on this one - and so am I.

- Chad

[Cap'n]

Wow, this has been quite the ride. It always feels good to have a discussion on topics people feel strongly about, especially when there are so many different opinions and ideas. I'd like to thank everyone for maintaining relative composure and especially for the wealth of information.

Bev and Chad, some fantastic points in those last few posts. Really got me thinking about the kid in the cage example, and I total empathize with Bev about the dicotomy of keeping fish in a small tank while professing to care about all life on earth. I wish all my fish were tank-raised, but then, how did we learn to breed clownfish without trying many times with wild-caught specimens? One of the things I admire about the reef-culture is the ability to grow and proliferate frags thereby sparing the remaining wild corals.

Those battle stats blew me a way! I never heard of, or considered, such a thing. I always assumed the urge for self preservation would push a soldier to fight in the heat of battle even if they were reluctant to join the war in the first place.

Albert, kudos to you as well. You seem to be one of the few who are truly knowledgeable on both sides of the science / religion issue and have presented both cases in a positive light. And, where can I find that video?

Tony, please don't apologize for starting this, looks like everyone is enjoying themselves. Besides, I'm sure any statement could eventually turn into any one one of the topics covered here if discussed long enough.

Quinn, I think you and I are cut from the same cloth.



Here's something this thread made me think about. Because humans have such an amazing ability to learn and grow it allows individuals to blossom. The unique qualities of each person are hard to define as "nature or nurture". Take us for example, how can a group of people with so much in common be so different? I bet you even have family members that you sometimes consider strangers in their beliefs or values. I wonder if other animals in tight-knit communities have the same individuality?

[albert_dao]

I couldn't stay away...

Bev,
That is a really good point. And about the water... thanks for adding yet one more thing to have nightmares about! :razz:

And also to Albert and Quinn,
I don't want to come across as saying that other animals don't feel fear or love, or compassion. Of course I agree with you. Infact, I believe that we love in return and care more for those animals that seem to have a greator capacity for feeling like we do. No one is really upset by the lobters that are boiled alive but we are all quite saddened by a dolphin getting caught in the same fishing nets. A rare dung beetle getting killed won't ever make the news like the death of a baby elephant will. I believe this is because there is something magical about an elephant and when you look into its eyes you realize that it knows things and feels things about life that we will never know. We all unconsciously rate animals and their importance. Animals that appear to have a greator depth of feeling, elephants, dolphins, dogs, gorrillas all rate higher on the scale. Anyone that values an ant less then a gorrila (I think the majority of us) engages in the same judgement. Some of us stop a few steps short and pick smileing dogs and crying monkeys and some of us follow it right through and chose our own species.
My only point is that, as a whole, our species seems to be the only one that is concerned with the plight of other species, as a whole. I know there have been individual instances that contradict this (a gorrila troup that adopts a human - a person who engages in animal cruelty) but I was commenting as a whole.
Really why do we all feel so guilty for what we are doing to the planet? We are enjoying an incredible period of evolutionary good fortune. We are multiplying and taking up space at the same rate that any other species would if it had no natural predators, abundant resourses, and the ability to heal itself. We are doing what natural selection says we should be doing. So why do we feel guilty? Because we feel responsible for the other creatures on this planet and how our actions are affecting them. All I am saying is that we are the only animal to feel this way. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, and I would also say that whether a person sets the criteria of superiority as 'apparent depth of feeling', 'proficiency with tools', or 'ability to outcompete competitors in Darwins survival of the fittest game', the human race has taken home gold medals is each of these events. Anyone who believes strictly in evolution must accept that we are superior because we are at the top of the food chain! We have, from all appearances, proven the strength of the species. It hasn't even been a close game! The only thing that would stop us from calling ourselves superior (aside from modesty) is the notion of moral superiority. The judges are still out on this one - and so am I.

- Chad


Agreed and well put!

[Fish]

Thanks Albert.

And Cap'n - I don't want to start rumers so I should clarify. Those stats apply strictly to the infantry. Firing and killing rates have always been higher among the airforce (due to physical distance from the victim), and artillery (due to shared responsiblity and group absolution of these "teamwork" weapons). Also does not apply to some of the horrible attrocities and ethnic war crimes (due to moral distance from the victim).
I have seen lectures given by Grossman and he compares our aversion to harming each other to horned animals that fight members of their own species by ramming head-on against the stongest part of their oponent's body but who will attact a member of another species from the side with a horn in their belly. Piranas hit each other with their tails but will set their teeth to anything else that hits the water, and the only animal a rattlesnake will not bite is another rattlesnake.
In his conclusion he points out that the same techniques used to "take the safety catch off" of modern soldiers to make them more efficient, are present in the media and videogames our children are watching and playing.
Now there's a scary thought for you to think about Bev :eek: .

- Chad

[Cap'n]

Thanks Albert.

And Cap'n - I don't want to start rumers so I should clarify. Those stats apply strictly to the infantry. Firing and killing rates have always been higher among the airforce (due to physical distance from the victim), and artillery (due to shared responsiblity and group absolution of these "teamwork" weapons). Also does not apply to some of the horrible attrocities and ethnic war crimes (due to moral distance from the victim).
I have seen lectures given by Grossman and he compares our aversion to harming each other to horned animals that fight members of their own species by ramming head-on against the stongest part of their oponent's body but who will attact a member of another species from the side with a horn in their belly. Piranas hit each other with their tails but will set their teeth to anything else that hits the water, and the only animal a rattlesnake will not bite is another rattlesnake.
In his conclusion he points out that the same techniques used to "take the safety catch off" of modern soldiers to make them more efficient, are present in the media and videogames our children are watching and playing.
Now there's a scary thought for you to think about Bev :eek: .

- Chad

Thanks for the clarification and further info. I can easily see how proximity to the victims would play a huge role in the ease of killing the target. Imagine what had to hand combat must have been like for the foot soldiers before the intruduction of firearms. Great cross-references from nature as well.

I agree with Grossman about the media and it's desensitizing effects, especially on children. Have you ever noticed in a movie theatre more people wince when a dog or cat is harmed than when a person is? I don't think this is because we care more for our pets than our fellow man, we're just used to seeing our fellow man get tortured. This is one of the reasons we don't watch TV or play violent video games in our home.

Did you see the clip of the American soldier describing how listening to music in his helmet served to take him away from the action, make it more like a video game, make it fun? That's straight out of "Starship Troopers". I mean the book, not the cheesey movie.

[albert_dao]

Did you see the clip of the American soldier describing how listening to music in his helmet served to take him away from the action, make it more like a video game, make it fun? That's straight out of "Starship Troopers". I mean the book, not the cheesey movie.

Are you referring to the interview with the American soldiers in Iraq present on Micheal Moore's pseudo-edu/propoganda-documentary?

[Samw]

The only way that fireing and killing rates were increased (90%) in Vietnam and subsequent wars was though intensive training that most closely resembles behavioral conditioning ie "Pablo's" ( :razz: ) dog.


So it doesn't surprise me about reports that some soldiers enjoy killing unarmed civilians in Iraq.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6682913/

[Beverly]

Really why do we all feel so guilty for what we are doing to the planet? We are enjoying an incredible period of evolutionary good fortune. We are multiplying and taking up space at the same rate that any other species would if it had no natural predators, abundant resourses, and the ability to heal itself. We are doing what natural selection says we should be doing.

There have always been animals that have been at the top of the evolutionary ladder, but they haven't gotten into the same troubles we have. There have always been natural checks and balances in place to prevent one species from taking over the planet at the expense of all other species.

Take, for instance, the African lion (before humans came along). Lions would eat well and populations thrive if there was abundant food brought about by good grazing and other positive factors for the prey species. However, lions have never eaten all the prey species for some reason, even though they were at the top of the heap in their environment, so there would always be some lions and some prey species.

Here I segue into a discussion about humans..... If humans are so smart, and if we're at the top of the evolutionary ladder, why are we inadvertantly killing so many other species, and damaging our planet by overpopulation and pollution? Is it because we have no natural predators? And why don't the same checks and balances that occur between lions and prey not apply to us? I guess if I think about this long enough, I may find my own answer.....

Okay, I've thought enough :razz: Perhaps we've run rampant over the planet because there are no natural checks and balances for us - yet. Remember, as a species, we've been here a relatively short period of time. Sure, we've suffered the Black Death a few centuries back when a good portion of Europe was killed off. Then at the end of WWI, there was the Spanish Influenza which killed millions. Now there is AIDS, which is still wreaking worldwide havoc despite promising new drugs. And scientists are still concerned that another catastrophic flu, not unlike the Spanish Influenza, is ready to hit hard any year now especially with gobal travel as prevelant as it is today. Maybe disease is going to be our natural check and balance.

However, even with all the pollution, people in the post-industrialized world are living longer than ever before. Geez, I just don't get it. Are we that smart that we hink we can keep going forever and ever and not suffer the consequences of our actions? Are we the new lion, but a lion that will devour all they prey species until there is nothing left? Is Earth going to become another Easter Island? Not that I think you are saying that, Chad.... I'm going off on a tangent here.

So why do we feel guilty? Because we feel responsible for the other creatures on this planet and how our actions are affecting them. All I am saying is that we are the only animal to feel this way. That's all I'm saying.

Yes, I think we all feel somewhat guilty, though by judging from some of the posts in this thread, some will feel it much more than others. However, I want to say that we do not know if other animals feel guilty for some of their actions. Indeed, perhaps some animals do, and others don't. We do not know for sure what other beings feel because we have no true way of measuring their feelings or lack thereof.

Anyway, interesting thread. Glad it's being allowed to continue. We can be intellectual here for awhile and get to read a broad range of thoughts on a variety of issues.

But, really, I gotta go feed the fish, some of which will be doing loop-de-loops by the time I pass in front of their tank with their food :biggrin:

[Fish]

So it doesn't surprise me about reports that some soldiers enjoy killing unarmed civilians in Iraq.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6682913/

Interesting article! I remember that the study estimated that 2% of the enlisted men in any military have what was referred to as psychopathic tendancies. I don't remember if the 2% ratio applies to our population as a whole or just the military but Grossman suggested that these individuals will gravitate to the different specialty/elite units and appear to the observer to be the perfect warriors.

Bev,
I do not personally believe that our species will ever face extinction the same way that others have - but I definitely think the greatest threats we face will be of our own making.

I have really enjoyed everyones comments - unfortunately I have to go to work soon (boo). My coworkers are probably in for an earful :smile: .
Take care,

- Chad

[Samw]

Here I segue into a discussion about humans..... If humans are so smart, and if we're at the top of the evolutionary ladder, why are we inadvertantly killing so many other species, and damaging our planet by overpopulation and pollution?

Because our unique intelligence also gives us our unique attribute of greed. This is the answer for many questions on why humans are destroying the planet and ultimately themselves. We have known for a long time that industrialization has damaged our planet. Yet in order to control the destruction, the economies of the countries that do the most harm would probably take a hit. Its not that we aren't smart enough to know that we are doing something wrong. It is just very expensive to do the right thing. I'd love to be using solar and wind power to generate my electricity and be driving a fuel cell car (though it would be better for the planet to ride a bike and wash all of my clothes by hand). :smile: That's just 1 example. Another example. How many of us want big houses with lots of land. If everyone of us bought large properties, how much land is left for the animals??

[StirCrazy]

Bahhh you guys type to damn much, don't you have jobs? :mrgreen:

Steve

[albert_dao]

Here I segue into a discussion about humans..... If humans are so smart, and if we're at the top of the evolutionary ladder, why are we inadvertantly killing so many other species, and damaging our planet by overpopulation and pollution?

Because our unique intelligence also gives us our unique attribute of greed. This is the answer for many questions on why humans are destroying the planet and ultimately themselves. We have known for a long time that industrialization has damaged our planet. Yet in order to control the destruction, the economies of the countries that do the most harm would probably take a hit. Its not that we aren't smart enough to know that we are doing something wrong. It is just very expensive to do the right thing. I'd love to be using solar and wind power to generate my electricity and be driving a fuel cell car (though it would be better for the planet to ride a bike and wash all of my clothes by hand). :smile: That's just 1 example. Another example. How many of us want big houses with lots of land. If everyone of us bought large properties, how much land is left for the animals??


Personally, I think greed is a spinoff behavior of territoriality.

[Samw]

Personally, I think greed is a spinoff behavior of territoriality.


To me, territoriality is about survival of the individual. On the other hand, greed is the desire to obtain more than is necessary to survive. This requires a level of intelligence only exhibited by humans (I think). We don't need a BMW, but many people want 1. We don't need a (insert some expensive designer clothing maker) designer jacket but many people want it. We don't need those diamond rings, etc, etc. On the other hand, Predatory animals generally don't kill more than they need to survive.

[EmilyB]

I was conversing with a " tree-hugger " and she actually had animals higher on the scale than humans in terms of importance

Was that me? :confused:

Is it you ? :razz: :lol:

As far as I know we have not talked about this subject in the past so there are at least 2 of you with that opinion ... is that what you are saying ?

What is your views on the subject then and are you then a " tree-hugger " ? :razz: :eek:

No, I don't think a lot about trees, nor do I get stirred up much about issues, so I think I wouldn't fit into the tree-hugger category.

I do think a lot about animals. Some of us are just different I guess, but I bet there are a whole lot more than just two of us. :razz: :mrgreen:

[marie]

To me, territoriality is about survival of the individual. On the other hand, greed is the desire to obtain more than is necessary to survive. This requires a level of intelligence only exhibited by humans (I think). We don't need a BMW, but many people want 1. We don't need a (insert some expensive designer clothing maker) designer jacket but many people want it. We don't need those diamond rings, etc, etc. On the other hand, Predatory animals generally don't kill more than they need to survive.
greed, i think, is just another form of survival. While animals wouldn't know what to do with a bmw, food is definitly high on the list of things to horde. A dog in the manger is a good example, the dog doesn't want the grain but won't let the horse eat it either. territories are as big as can be monitered, regardless of whether the animal needs that much room or not.
And the reason predatory animals don't kill more, is because the best way to protect the food is to eat it, and the stomach can only hold so much.

[albert_dao]

And, where can I find that video?



Go out and pick up Micheal Moore's Fareheit 9/11

It's in there somewhere. Don't take the movie too seriously though, it is heavily biased and subjective. Sure, there's a lot of validity to it, but there's also a lot of information that they purposefully left out, that and some cheap sympathy for the masses.

[albert_dao]

Personally, I think greed is a spinoff behavior of territoriality.


To me, territoriality is about survival of the individual. On the other hand, greed is the desire to obtain more than is necessary to survive. This requires a level of intelligence only exhibited by humans (I think). We don't need a BMW, but many people want 1. We don't need a (insert some expensive designer clothing maker) designer jacket but many people want it. We don't need those diamond rings, etc, etc. On the other hand, Predatory animals generally don't kill more than they need to survive.

Well, allow me to explain a bit:

Territoriality, as a behavior can be described as a passive (marking), or active (driving other competitors out) behavior to sustain control of an area or resource. It's the process by which an individual helps protect its survival by controlling competition for resources. Looking at it this way, it's not hard to make a leap of logic and to extend behaviors such as hoarding food and driving competitors out to wanting more then one needs at any given time.

You have to seperate greed from vanity. The two are completely different and juxtaposing them is a mistake. To me, vanity is a consequential behavior resulting from the need to attract mates (Read: sexual instinct). My thinking there is that just as the bowerbird with the largest bower or the peacock with the most extensive tail attracts the most females, humans with the nicest BMW, prettiest attire, largest bank account, etc, attract the most mates. But because we are able to reason, we are able to extend this behavior into a social ritual that transcends sexual instinct and forms its own unique attribute: ambition. Hope that helps.

[Samw]

greed, i think, is just another form of survival.

But I haven't been able to find this definition anywhere. The definitions that I have read is that greed is acquiring more than one needs (ie. to survive). So greed can't be a form of survival by definition of the word.


While animals wouldn't know what to do with a bmw, food is definitly high on the list of things to horde.

Food hording then is for survival and thus is not a form of greed. It is not acquiring more than one needs to survive since it is the act of gathering enough food for the future (ie. survival). I still haven't heard of animal greed before. I have always thought greed was by definition, a human trait.

[Samw]

Well, allow me to explain a bit:

Territoriality, as a behavior can be described as a passive (marking), or active (driving other competitors out) behavior to sustain control of an area or resource. It's the process by which an individual helps protect its survival by controlling competition for resources. Looking at it this way, it's not hard to make a leap of logic and to extend behaviors such as hoarding food and driving competitors out to wanting more then one needs at any given time.

You have to seperate greed from vanity. The two are completely different and juxtaposing them is a mistake. To me, vanity is a consequential behavior resulting from the need to attract mates (Read: sexual instinct). My thinking there is that just as the bowerbird with the largest bower or the peacock with the most extensive tail attracts the most females, humans with the nicest BMW, prettiest attire, largest bank account, etc, attract the most mates. But because we are able to reason, we are able to extend this behavior into a social ritual that transcends sexual instinct and forms its own unique attribute: ambition. Hope that helps.

The only thing we disagree on here is the definition of the word greed. I don't equate greed to survival. By defnition, the behavior of acquiring more than what one NEEDS means that it is not for survival. Therefore, doing something greedy is not the same as doing something for survival. An animal acquiring as much territory as it can is simply increasing its odds of survival and reproduction. Thus the animal is not being greedy at all.

[albert_dao]

Well, allow me to explain a bit:

Territoriality, as a behavior can be described as a passive (marking), or active (driving other competitors out) behavior to sustain control of an area or resource. It's the process by which an individual helps protect its survival by controlling competition for resources. Looking at it this way, it's not hard to make a leap of logic and to extend behaviors such as hoarding food and driving competitors out to wanting more then one needs at any given time.

You have to seperate greed from vanity. The two are completely different and juxtaposing them is a mistake. To me, vanity is a consequential behavior resulting from the need to attract mates (Read: sexual instinct). My thinking there is that just as the bowerbird with the largest bower or the peacock with the most extensive tail attracts the most females, humans with the nicest BMW, prettiest attire, largest bank account, etc, attract the most mates. But because we are able to reason, we are able to extend this behavior into a social ritual that transcends sexual instinct and forms its own unique attribute: ambition. Hope that helps.

The only thing we disagree on here is the definition of the word greed. I don't equate greed to survival. By defnition, the behavior of acquiring more than what one NEEDS means that it is not for survival. Therefore, doing something greedy is not the same as doing something for survival. An animal acquiring as much territory as it can is simply increasing its odds of survival and reproduction. Thus the animal is not being greedy at all.

My original thought on this stream was that GREED was a derivative behavior of territoriality; they are not necessarily one and the same, but IMO, greed evolved from territoriality.

[albert_dao]

Wow, how far we have strayed... Haha, great thread though!

[Buccaneer]

I posted about something that meant a lot to me personally. Yes, it had nothing to do with aquariums but I consider the Canreef community my "friends" and thought it was OK to speak frankly amongst friends. If I erred, then I apologize.

I dont think you " erred " in any way Tony ... and I am sure the majority of us especially those that have met you personally consider you a friend.

It does mean alot to alot of people ... ethics of Zoos in general ... animal lovers ... darwinian theories of evolution ... creation as it is told in the bible ... did I miss anything ? :razz:

It is just talk and can be debated till the end of time ... bottom line is that we are all ( I am pretty sure ) sad that the baby elephant did not make it ... it looks like they are going to give it another try and in my mind that is good thing ... thanks for starting the thread and sorry that I contributed in diverting it from it's original course.

Your friend

[Chad]

Here I segue into a discussion about humans..... If humans are so smart, and if we're at the top of the evolutionary ladder, why are we inadvertantly killing so many other species, and damaging our planet by overpopulation and pollution? Is it because we have no natural predators? And why don't the same checks and balances that occur between lions and prey not apply to us? I guess if I think about this long enough, I may find my own answer.....


Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I think our check / balance is in the form of bacteria & viruses. These will be our downfall. (other than ourselves). Even after we think we have beaten a virus and thought it was extinct. Amazingly it turns up again... and with our global village it can circulate so fast we will probably not know what is hitting us when it does happen.

[Tarolisol]

Critics say this is proof elephants shouldn't be bred in captivty.


Im not sure if this has been metioned as this thread grew so quickly and i didnt get a chance to read the whole thing. But i dont understand how these critics could say this when the calgary zoo alone has had two succusful births of asian elephants in the past. Why dont they start criticising humans for practicing infanticide because it is a horrible reality that still goes on

[Quinn]

Certainly the increasing concentration of humans in certain regions, coupled with accessible high-speed transportation, allows for the possibility of significant loss of life due to disease. Remember that bacteria, etc. evolve much more quickly than humans (hence why vaccines/medicines rapidly become ineffective), and when we start running into more significant problems with developing these remedies, we may have in a sense manufactured our own extinction (using the term loosely - there are enough isolated groups of humans that I doubt we will actually become extinct anytime soon, but our numbers could be substantially reduced). If not for relatively timely and appropriate reaction on the part of the authorities during the SARS outbreaks, we may have had larger problems. And then there's the flu...

Unless I'm very mistaken, I would argue that greed almost certainly did not come out of territoriality. Territoriality is a relatively complex behaviour, and arises only under very specific conditions (which I won't start listing, but I do have them if anyone is interested). I would argue greed is part of resource acquisition, which conversely to territoriality, is something every organism must engage in. I expect at some point in history, early hominids began to collect more resources (food, water, firewood, etc.) than what was required for the collector alone, in order to share with kin and other group members, and to store for times of hardship. The ability to acquire excess/supplemental resources would eventually have become associated with ability to provide for mating partners and offspring, so it would have been selected for, evolutionarily. So I would argue that the interest of modern humans in acquiring material possessions is the result of this. Naturally we have the ability to rationalize and control this behaviour at this time, but the genes still exist, and aren't likely to go away. Note as well the reams of research showing that women tend to prefer older, successful men, and men tend to prefer young (fertile) women, and this of course is why. So, agreeing with Albert, greed does have a purpose, but disagreeing that it could possibly be a behaviour resulting from territoriality.

A comment on predation - predators won't kill more prey than they need for themselves and any others they are providing for, because to kill more than necessary would be a waste of precious energy, and animals with a bloodlust like this would rapidly be selected out (ie. would not have energy/time to mate and thus would not transmit the bloodlust gene). Evolution is about doing "just enough."

Remember that definitions, particularly those on the Internet, are lay definitions, and may not be entirely applicable to what we're discussing here.

Again, if you buy into macroevolution/speciation, then you also have to buy the idea (fact) that only the most functional genes will be passed on over the long term. So there is no straight jump in humans from useful traits/behaviours to exorbitant (maladaptive) ones (although there is environmental moderation on previously adaptive traits/behaviours).

I hope I haven't forgotten something important here. :rolleyes: I'm really enjoying this thread though.

[Beverly]

I would argue greed is part of resource acquisition, which conversely to territoriality, is something every organism must engage in.

I've got to agree with Albert that greed evolved from territoriality. Without the need for territory and the resources within a certain territory by a particular animal or group of animals, there would be no basis for greed to become part of the equation for early hominids. But, then, I have not read the stuff Quinn is reading, so I am only expressing an opinion based on what makes sense to me.

However, if Quinn is talking genetics here to define the distinction between greed and territory, then we must apply the theory of evolution to the territoriality gene to become an offshoot of the greed gene, imo.

I expect at some point in history, early hominids began to collect more resources (food, water, firewood, etc.) than what was required for the collector alone, in order to share with kin and other group members, and to store for times of hardship.

Totally agree here that hominids, at some point, began to store certain resources for times of hardship. However, am not sure how early this would have taken place. For a very long time, hominids and humans were hunter/gatherers and led a nomadic lifestyle. Some cultures even today are nomadic, though they are increasingly being pressured into settling into one place by the invasion of the modern world.

With the development of agriculture, only 12,000 to 14,000 years ago, and the storing of grain for use during upcoming non-harvesting seasons, life change dramatically for many humans. These early humans would have demanded a certain fixed territory for crop production. To me, the development of agriculture has caused the most dynamic change in human behaviour since the taming of fire and tool making much earlier in our evolution.

[Quinn]

On the first point, I've emailed a professor about this to see what he says so hopefully we'll have a good authoritative answer soon. However I also must note that there are species (and even human cultures) which are not territorial but exhibit some of the characteristics of greed that I listed... as for genetics, well, genetics is what evolution is about. Without Mendel, Darwin would have been hooped. There is no evolution without genetics.

On the second point, I'm not sure either, as I have no background in anthropology.

[Samw]

My original thought on this stream was that GREED was a derivative behavior of territoriality; they are not necessarily one and the same, but IMO, greed evolved from territoriality.

I understand now. You didn't say that animals have greed. You were just expanding my points and explaining where you think greed came from in humans.

[Beverly]

soon. However I also must note that there are species (and even human cultures) which are not territorial but exhibit some of the characteristics of greed that I listed.

Even nomadic animals and humans have a particular territory they inhabit, though the territory is vast enough to provide them with food throughout the seasons. Take, for example, caribou in the Arctic. They travel vast distances seasonally, and there have been concerns expressed by environmentalists when building pipelines through caribou migration routes (territory) that the pipelines might disrupt caribou migration.

[Quinn]

Territoriality isn't just about living somewhere though, it's about excluding conspecifics from a home range through physical attack, visual display, scent, etc. Diet is a major factor in whether an animal will be territorial. Gorillas, being folivores, are not, whereas chimpanzees, being primarily frugivores, are. Competition for mates is also a significant factor in territoriality, and this type of territoriality occurs in everything from songbirds to beetles.

[Beverly]

Based on what you're saying, Quinn, I'm confusing territory with range.

[Quinn]

Sounds possible. Although I still wouldn't say that "greed" as we've defined is connected to having an animal having a specific range.

[Beverly]

I don't think so either.

[Cap'n]

And, where can I find that video?



Go out and pick up Micheal Moore's Fareheit 9/11

It's in there somewhere. Don't take the movie too seriously though, it is heavily biased and subjective. Sure, there's a lot of validity to it, but there's also a lot of information that they purposefully left out, that and some cheap sympathy for the masses.

Not that video, the one about the animal's emotion.

Saw Farenheit, it was all right, far too melodramatic for my tastes though. As far as bias, I don't think it was nearly as one-sided as the politicians he was aiming for.

[trilinearmipmap]

Just a little confused re the alleged biases and misinformation in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Exactly which information presented in the movie is untrue?

The part about how the Bush administration is financially in bed with the Saudis?

The part about how ordinary working-class Americans are sending their sons and daughters to die in Iraq, while only one member of Congress has a son or daughter in the armed forces?

I found the movie completely accurate. The only biases I found in the movie were a bias toward truth and a bias against killing people for no reason.

[Cap'n]

Greed now, eh? Allright...

I don't think greed could be passed on genetically, therefore it is not influenced by evolution (at least not directly). More a subject of anthropology, psychology and philosophy than biology.

I think it is a product of human culture. Early settlements would undoubtedly have one individual with the most property and power. Others would note this and become jealous, and in trying to obtain that same amount of perceived respect would become greedy. I think it is a learned behaviour unique to our species. It could be viewed as a bonus that comes with the technology to aquire and store more than is necessary.

[Fish]

Jeesh, I don't read the posts for a couple days and I don't recognize the thread anymore.
Teevee might be the guy to ask because it sounds like he is more current on the classes that the rest of us took ages ago but I do not see any reason why "greed" as a trait couldn't be (or isn't) passed on genetically. I think that the studies done on twins raised seperately has shown us that genetics doesn't influence just the color of a person's eyes or the shape of their face, but also the way they think and feel and their personality traits. ??

- Chad

[StirCrazy]

but I do not see any reason why "greed" as a trait couldn't be (or isn't) passed on genetically. I think that the studies done on twins raised seperately has shown us that genetics doesn't influence just the color of a person's eyes or the shape of their face, but also the way they think and feel and their personality traits. ??

- Chad

Genetics is a small part of behavior, while it may predispose a persons tendency to wards a specific pattern it is mostly environmental stimulus that will shape a person's behavioral pattern. so parents, surroundings, friends, on and on.

Steve

[Buccaneer]

Just a little confused re the alleged biases and misinformation in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Exactly which information presented in the movie is untrue?

The part about how the Bush administration is financially in bed with the Saudis?

The part about how ordinary working-class Americans are sending their sons and daughters to die in Iraq, while only one member of Congress has a son or daughter in the armed forces?

I found the movie completely accurate. The only biases I found in the movie were a bias toward truth and a bias against killing people for no reason.

OK ... so you took the time to watch the movie and see it from MM point of view ... complete with slick editing ... maybe visit this website to see how he actually does what he does to trick you into seeing it from his distorted viewpoint. I have actually gone back in the movies to see if it is true ... guess what ? ... see for yourself

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

[albert_dao]

Just a little confused re the alleged biases and misinformation in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Exactly which information presented in the movie is untrue?

The part about how the Bush administration is financially in bed with the Saudis?

The part about how ordinary working-class Americans are sending their sons and daughters to die in Iraq, while only one member of Congress has a son or daughter in the armed forces?

I found the movie completely accurate. The only biases I found in the movie were a bias toward truth and a bias against killing people for no reason.

Oh, there isn't a speck of a lie anywhere in the movie. I don't think any of us are accusing it of being otherwise. As mentioned prior, it's the purposeful neglect of presenting subjecting information for both sides of the war.

I mean, think about it, if it was ONLY about the oil, why not hit Saudi Arabia? No, there's a little more motivation to the war then some dirty money.

Don't get me wrong, I loathe both the war and the Bush administration, I just think Micheal Moore has become bigger then his pants.

[Quinn]

Genetics is a small part of behavior, while it may predispose a persons tendency to wards a specific pattern it is mostly environmental stimulus that will shape a person's behavioral pattern. so parents, surroundings, friends, on and on.

With all due respect, when did you finish your Ph.D in psychology Steve?

There are numerous theories on the origins of behaviour (and personality), and perhaps most popular among them at this time is biological or genetic theory. Also reasonably popular are cognition theory, social learning theory, and of course behaviourist theory, and they all have something to offer to this discussion.

This topic is highly relevant to numerous disciplines. A general trend in the sciences lately is convergence, in a way. Physics and chemistry are now significantly incorporated into biology, and psychology and biology, as we've seen, are coming together in a relatively new field called evolutionary psychology, which is also closely related to comparative psychology, and both, coincidentally, are fields the U of Lethbridge is strong in (versus, say, Calgary, which emphasizes applied psychology to a significant degree). The U of L is home to the Canadian Centre for Behavioural Neuroscience (http://ccbn.uleth.ca/) as well.

I don't have the figures handy but as I recall current estimates say that between 50% and 60% of our behaviour is the product of genetics. Of course there are significant interactions between genetics and environment.

I'll dig around some more and try to find out more about the relationship between genetics and "greed". I'm still waiting to hear back from the professor of mine on the issue. However, to say something is not influenced by genetics at all would be quite absurd.

[StirCrazy]

With all due respect, when did you finish your Ph.D in psychology Steve? .

never claimed to have one {edited}.



There are numerous theories on the origins of behavior .

exactly.. theorys... so the theory I have read is just as valid as any other as they are all theories.. no need to get ignorant teevee. If you want to point out the differences of newer theories compared to older ones that I know a tiny bit about then do so in a discussion type post not an attack.

Steve

[Quinn]

Some theories are supported by research, some aren't - while certainly any theory is worth consideration, only some have long term value - not all theories "are created alike." To say genetics are a small part of behaviour and that it is mostly influenced by environment is a mistake.

As for Moore... yeah... I liked Roger and Me and Pets or Meat more than F9/11. Haven't bothered watching Bowling for Columbine.

[Doug]

Guys I edited one post already. Please keep it clean or we will have to close it.
Thanks

[Cap'n]

Some theories are supported by research, some aren't - while certainly any theory is worth consideration, only some have long term value - not all theories "are created alike." To say genetics are a small part of behaviour and that it is mostly influenced by environment is a mistake.

As for Moore... yeah... I liked Roger and Me and Pets or Meat more than F9/11. Haven't bothered watching Bowling for Columbine.

I will concede that ones genetic code will predispose some more than others to be greedy, but the major influences would still be surrounding culture. My no means am I saying that environment has more of an influence on our personality than genetics. It's just that greed seems to be so "human" that it would develop in a strictly human setting, which would be the complex societies we live in.

Quinn, you mentioned some animals showing examples of greed, what would those be?

Of the above movies I thought Bowling was the best. It had more of a "flow", like a non-documentary movie.
Of course Moore is biased and one-sided. That's the point. Where else in popular media are you going to find that side presented. The powers that be are so successful at repressing any "leftist" ideals that to find a voice so accessible is rare and should be appreciated. It should also be taken with a grain of salt. No movie, whether documentary or not should be taken as absolute truth. Go out and do your own research.

[StirCrazy]

Some theories are supported by research, some aren't - while certainly any theory is worth consideration, only some have long term value - not all theories "are created alike." To say genetics are a small part of behaviour and that it is mostly influenced by environment is a mistake.


So if Genetics is the driving factor does that mean that if a murder has 15 children, most of them will end up being murders also? I could understand that genetics will play a factor that they could be predisposed or susceptible more than others to wards criminal activities but I still think that if they were all adopted out to very stable and law abiding environments that this would play a bigger part in shaping there behavior.

Steve

[Fish]

I'm sure it isn't as simple as that, and I think that that is what you are getting at when remind us of the importance of environment. I don't think that genetics "makes" anyone do anything. The percentage of people who murder is very very small and I don't think half or even one of the children of a murderer would go on to commit murder (or even any other crime necessarily). I belive that adoption studies have shown though that those 15 children will be 'statistically' more likely to engage in deviant behavior than 15 others chosen at random. For examplem the numbers may look more like 1 in 70,000 for the children of killers as opposed to 1 in 100,000 for children of non-murdering parents.
Note: these numbers are completely made up and are probably no where near accurate :razz: ! Was just trying to demonstrate how 1 in 15 is much too small a number.

- Chad

[Fish]

Something else that just occured to me is that the percentage of people that kill for the sake of killing is probably very very very very small. The influence of a "murder" gene probably doesn't play as much of a role in your run-of -the-mill homicides as an "anger" gene or "impulsiveness" gene or "predisposition to consume alcohol in excess" gene does. JME :smile:

- Chad

[Quinn]

Without going into details, my understanding of deviance is that it is not significantly influenced by genetics. Since all rules/norms/laws are socially created, little or nothing would favour criminal or non-criminal genes. Genes are value-neutral (and of course, evolution has no direction or end purpose).

As Chad pointed out, twin studies are useful in cases like these. We did discuss them in this context in one of my classes and as I recall there was no significance in the data, but I could be wrong, and of course, with probably only a handful of twin studies having been done on deviance ever, there's no solid answer yet.

Behaviour is the combination of environment and genetics. In some cases, genetics have a greater role, in some cases, a lesser one.

Cptn, I can't find where I said I knew of some animal who exhibited "greedy" behaviour, although I well may have. I am more interested in showing that no trait is strictly and distinctly human. I've argued that human greed always has a function (impressing members of the opposite sex, for instance), and under this definition, I would also argue that hoarding, etc. is "greed." Again though, I have no source for this, but I'll post as soon as I find anything out.

For what it's worth, in my mind, altruism falls into the same category as greed. On the surface, neither appears adaptive, but if you look deeper, both are, so in other words, there is no pure altruism (this idea is widely accepted), and there is no pure greed.

[Fish]

Doing a quick search on the internet for "genetic criminal deviance, studies" or something like that will bring up some interesting info, I even found a twin study involving 3226 male twin pairs and whether they were ever arrested before the age of 15 and arrested more than once after the age on 15 and how being raised in the same home or seperately influenced this behavior. The answer really is intuitive if you thihk about it. Either you believe that genetics can influence behavior or you believe that genetics can not influence behavior. If you think some personality traits are influenced by genetics, why would deviance not be?
Perhaps Quinn you were thinking about Lombroso's theory which claimed that criminals posses similar physical features (large jaws, high cheekbones, extra nipples). I don't think people have put much stock in that since 1876. :razz:
I would even go as far as to suggest that traits that influence certain types of criminal behavior might favor the person that posesses them. Hans Eysenck proposed that there is a link between "extrovert personalities" and criminal behavior. He argues that these type of people are more likely to crave excitement, take risks, and act impulsively. Many become respected entrepreneures while others become not so respected (but no less succesful) "entrepreneurs".
I really am in agreement with you guys in that environment is the most powerful influence (I ascribe to this now that I'm a father more than I ever did before). I just wanted to point out that deviant behavior is also the result of certain personality traits which can be influenced genetically.

- Chad

[Quinn]

I guess to some degree this is an issue of semantics. I think it's more likely that if anything, what the evidence shows is that there might be a "risk-taking" gene, or something to that effect, ie. willingness to take risks in order to gain - and certainly I think you could justify almost any criminal act as being adaptive (murder is often attributed to jealousy, and jealousy is certainly adaptive). It would be interesting to do a follow-up study with those twin pairs to look for more evidence of this (legal, deviant behaviour). There's also a problem in the field of criminology in that politics and belief systems tend to become significant factors, and may affect research validity - a lack of objectivity.

I am familiar with Lombroso and his prison studies. I'm not sure what made you think I might put some stock in his work? As you said, it's about as valid as Lamarck's. I am also familiar with Eysenck, but am not his largest fan.

[Fish]

Quinn,
Sorry I wasn't clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that you subscribed to Lombroso, you just said that you had discussed the issue in one of your classes and found there was was no statistical signifigance - just thought it might have been something like that you were referring to.
It was "legal deviant behavior" that I was referring to. And I think that traits that influence criminal acts (but not necessarily criminal acts themselves) are extremely adaptive. Someone who breaks the law is baisically putting their own interests ahead of the interests of another person (or society). Whether it is murder or fraud or doing 70 km/h in a 50 zone. A person who is similarly motivated is probably more likely to succeed, whether or not success is measured as a big business deal, a bank robbery, or getting to your destination 3mins quicker than the guy who drove the speed limit.
You raised a good point that genes are value-neutral. I have never thought about that before.

- Chad

[Quinn]

Understood. In my criminology classes the causes of crime were, of course, a central issue. However the professor I took them with was fairly leftist and (like so many others out there) may have had a bit of an agenda. But I think we agree that a "likelyhood of taking risks" gene is much more agreeable than simply a "criminal" gene.

Simple mathematical formulae can be used to predict and explain behaviour, and I think you could do that here as well. Let a certain choice yield X probability of gaining either 0 or 2 resource points, and the alternative choice guarantee 1 resource point. Based on X, (in theory) you could predict the likelyhood of an individual choosing the former versus the later.

[Fish]

Cool :cool:
That makes sense Quinn.

[Buccaneer]

I disagree that a " taking risks gene " is responsible for criminal behaviour ... most millionaires went broke on average 3 times before they stayed millionaires and had to take HUGE risks to achieve what they did. I am pretty sure that they have a " risk taking gene " but the majority ( 99% ) would NOT resort to criminal behaviour.

On the other hand I think that some people have as Gowan once said in one of his songs " a Criminal Mind " and are predisposed to comitting crimes even though with their intelligence they could be quite successful in normal business enterprises.

[Fish]

Buk,
Sounds good. I don't think anyone is claiming to have identified a single gene responsible for criminal behavior - only that certain traits likely influence it. This 'criminal mind' predisposition that you spoke of... do you think it is something that is only learned, or that we are born with, or that is a combination of both? Sounds like we've reached a concesus.

- Chad
ps- do you really think that the majority of the millionaires out there are not criminals?? jokes :razz:

[Quinn]

...but the majority ( 99% ) would NOT resort to criminal behaviour.

At some point one's socialization/learning/understanding of the world kicks in and moderates behaviour.

Again, since crime is socially defined, there cannot be a "crime" gene. What is considered criminal or lawful varies tremendously across human cultures.

[albert_dao]

Interesting.

Even in animals, you find certain individuals which exhibit oddly abberant behavior within a population. Take chimps for example. Jane Goodall's studies once focused on wildly violent and implusive chimps which, by far and large, lived in a static (as in lacking perversive influence such as media, politics, laws, etc) society. In these individuals, you'd get certain animals which would display gross and misguided behaviors such as stealing food, unprovoked aggression and cannibalism.

I think there was an incidence where one female chimp would kidnap and consume the infants of other chimps. This trait was shared by her daughter and grand daughter even though the activity ceased after the aforementioned mother chimp had her first daughter.

[Fish]

Freak! New nightmare. Thanks.

I dont mean to go off topic in this thread (:lol:) but I was once in a town that had a huge poplulation of monkeys living in it and getting swarmed by those little demons is about the scariest thing ever. Within 5mins of watching them interact with each other I saw old monkeys beating up on baby ones, rapes, thefts... I kept asking myself why would anyone want one of these as a pet?!

- Chad

[albert_dao]

Then again, that raises another question:

How come serial killers were rare to the point of being nonexistant before Jack the Ripper?

[Quinn]

Poor reporting methods? :razz:

[Cap'n]

... I kept asking myself why would anyone want one of these as a pet?!

- Chad

I think the key is having only one. Even then, I agree, not a very good choice for a pet.

I met a guy once who used to have a monkey, not sure what kind. He also had a german shepherd. The monkey would hold some of its food out of its cage and entice the dog to come eat it. As soon as the dog was within range the monkey would grab it with hands and feet and bite the dog as viciously as possible before it could get away and whimper in the corner. A few minutes later, the little monkey hand would come out with some yummy food...

[Fish]

haha that is crazy!
... poor dog

[Buccaneer]

At some point one's socialization/learning/understanding of the world kicks in and moderates behaviour.



First of all ... the jails are full of idiots that not only commit one crime but are repeat offenders ... so much so that in the US there is the 3 strikes law to keep these morons behind bars where they belong instead of terrorizing society.

What you are saying is that these guys/gals are " risk takers " ? ... so they weigh out the odds before they commit a crime and then take the " risk " of not getting caught ... is that about right ?

I dont think so ! :rolleyes:

I think that for some of them they cant help it and/or are too stupid to see that if they get caught they will get locked up for a very long time.



Again, since crime is socially defined, there cannot be a "crime" gene. What is considered criminal or lawful varies tremendously across human cultures.

I am pretty sure that the big ones are fairly universal ( ie. stealing, B&E, rape, murder etc ) regardless of where you grew up ... besides you would have to be pretty naive to think you could argue your case in a court of law in a country that forbids certain acts and get away with it.

People commit crimes every day regardless of the punishments that society puts in their path to discourage them from those acts. One has to think that in those people they are predisposed to committing crime which does not allow them to see the consequences of their actions ( both what happens to their victims and also what can happen if they get caught ) ... the thing is that it is not always IQ as there are some very smart crooks ... as I said before ... so smart that if they applied themselves to lawfull enterprise would do very well.

Alot of these criminal types have no heart whatsoever ... and can be traced back to when they were children ... abusive to children & adults at a very early age ( often with perfectly normal parents & siblings ) and the tale of woe gets worse as they grow up.

Like I said " Criminal Mind "

[Quinn]

Check the statistics... a lot of what you're suggesting may appeal to common sense but isn't supported by the research (a common theme in this thread I think).

At some point in time a significant difference forms between what people wish were the case and what actually is...

I would heartily recommend this title (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0205305571/qid=1102921861/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-7658288-3392027?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) to everyone.

With this I'll take my leave of this particular conversation. As I alluded to previously, crime and punishment is probably one of the hottest topics out there, hotter than evolution versus creationism, likely due to the problems with data collection/analysis. As is the usual for me, I've probably made enough enemies in the last eleven pages. :rolleyes:

[Fish]

You have raised a good point and I think that predisposition probably plays a greator role in so called "stupid crimes" than it does in others. The criminals who cant help but hit every person who makes them mad, or the car theives who don't wear gloves and keep getting caught, etc etc
But I think you are overestimating the risks involved in some crimes and underestimating the thought processes of some criminals.
A marihuana grow is a great example. A person could set up a 500 plant grow in a new community and in one year's time get three harvests and make a profit of one million dollars (after expenses).
The risks they would face are:
Being detected
Being caught and there existing enough evidence to be charged
Being convicted
A hundred little details all need to fall in place (properly) in order to achieve the conviction and then it would probably be only after a second or even third conviction that the person would recieve jail time, and that time would likely be measured in months, not years. Since many of us will work our entire lives and still not earn a million dollars, it would still be profitable even if you were caught and jailed everytime you did it (which would not happen). In a case like this, I believe the criminals' behavior is motivated by very cognitive processes and the "risks" are, to them, just the cost of doing business.

- Chad

[Cap'n]

On the first point, I've emailed a professor about this to see what he says so hopefully we'll have a good authoritative answer soon. However I also must note that there are species (and even human cultures) which are not territorial but exhibit some of the characteristics of greed that I listed... as for genetics, well, genetics is what evolution is about. Without Mendel, Darwin would have been hooped. There is no evolution without genetics.

On the second point, I'm not sure either, as I have no background in anthropology.

Here it is. Not important now, but I'm still curious. Before you go if you could elaborate on "However I also must note that there are species (and even human cultures) which are not territorial but exhibit some of the characteristics of greed that I listed... "

And I've got to leave this one too. Great thread. Now I know more about you all besides the fish and corals you keep. Look forward to meeting more of you in person.

So I'm off to feed the baby. Every three hours! Did you know that?! How do they expect us to get any rest at that rate? Or clean the tanks? Or spend time in elaborate off topic forums?

[StirCrazy]

But I think you are overestimating the risks involved in some crimes and underestimating the thought processes of some criminals.
A marihuana grow is a great example. A person could set up a 500 plant grow in a new community and in one year's time get three harvests and make a profit of one million dollars (after expenses).
The risks they would face are:
Being detected
Being caught and there existing enough evidence to be charged
Being convicted
A hundred little details all need to fall in place (properly) in order to achieve the conviction and then it would probably be only after a second or even third conviction that the person would recieve jail time, and that time would likely be measured in months, not years. Since many of us will work our entire lives and still not earn a million dollars, it would still be profitable even if you were caught and jailed everytime you did it (which would not happen). In a case like this, I believe the criminals' behavior is motivated by very cognitive processes and the "risks" are, to them, just the cost of doing business.

- Chad

ah but you are comparing a soft crime, to a murder/whatever type.. two totally different things. growing or smoking pot is done by 9/10 of kids by the age of 18 (I think this was the last numbers I saw) so our culture is becoming desensitized. at any rate growing pot is non violence and the only impact is on the person who get busted. A murder, rape what ever is usually a spontaneous act with no regard for the consequences. and the person that is hurt is the victim.

Steve

[Buccaneer]

Check the statistics... a lot of what you're suggesting may appeal to common sense but isn't supported by the research (a common theme in this thread I think).



The fact that jails are full of repeat offenders ? ... do I need to prove that point with statistics ?


I have a niece in social work and a few police officers in the family ( both immediate and extended family ) and their statistics seem very different from yours ( albeit anecdotal as they actually deal with these people on a daily basis and not from the comfort of a classroom :razz: )

[Fish]

ah but you are comparing a soft crime, to a murder/whatever type.. two totally different things.

Actually, I was addressing Buk_A_neer's point by comparing crime that some crimianls do because they have carefully planned it out and weighed the pros and cons to that which is commited by those who "cant help it and/or are too stupid to see that if they get caught they will get locked up for a very long time".
I didn't mention murder/rape in this comparison but I do agree with you that it is much more violent and universally accepted as being wrong. I do not agree though with your conclusion that growing pot only affects the person who gets busted. Infact, the only people affected by murders are the victims and their loved ones (not a lot in a city like Calgary), while the cultivation of marihuana negatively affects everyone who owns a house in the city of Calgary because it is you who is making up for the losses incured by banks due to mortgage frauds and homes that end up being written off and comdemmed. Probably the losses from the theft of electricity are passed along to the consumer by utility companies as well. (Not argueing that murder isn't the more serious crime, just that it has a comparetively smaller 'sphere of impact')

[Quinn]

I guess I can't just cleanly extricate myself from this one.

The fact that jails are full of repeat offenders ? ... do I need to prove that point with statistics ?

I have a niece in social work and a few police officers in the family ( both immediate and extended family ) and their statistics seem very different from yours ( albeit anecdotal as they actually deal with these people on a daily basis and not from the comfort of a classroom :razz: )

Of course the jails are "full" of repeat offenders - repeat offenders are more likely to be incarcerated. The jails are also disproportionately full of aboriginals... in short, jail populations do not tell us much about crime in the real world.

For what it's worth (nothing), my uncle is the head of the City of Calgary's Social Work Department. I know numerous prison guards and police officers, and both of these groups are about the most biased out there in respect to beliefs about crime. Guess what social group is more likely to engage in child and spousal abuse than the general population... not really the most objective information source if you ask me. Like asking a Haliburton executive if Bush should allow oil extraction in Alaska's nature reserves.

Marijuana is only illegal because Emily Murphy decided at the turn of the century that it was a tool of "the yellow man" (her words; see "The Black Candle") to seduce young white women. She went off to Ottawa, petitioned the boys in the houses, and they banned it in short order. Personally I am in favour of legalization of all banned narcotics.

Cptn, ah right, as I said before though, if like me you believe that greed under our definition is always adaptive, then you could say that any hoarding/resource storing behaviour is greedy...

[Fish]

Quinn,
Are you saying that prison guards and police officers are a "social group" (I thought that it was 40 hour/week "occupation"), and if so, are you saying that they are statistically more likely to engage in child and spousal abuse than the general population? - I hope you have some sort of evidence to back that up...
And you are for the legalization of all banned narcotics eh???
That's a really great idea Quinn :rolleyes:. I mean general use of addictive, mind altering substances could only be an improvement. Just look how much alcohol alone has benefited our society :razz: .
Sorry, I'm trying to view both sides of the debate but you lost me on that post.
- Chad

[Skimmerking]

I see another thread makes it way off the topic again ..

Mike :lol:

[Quinn]

A "risqué" claim, certainly. Luckily I have evidence, and a nice sound theory to go with it. Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=police+stress+relief&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en) yields numerous results on this topic. If you'd like, I can request any of the full texts and get you the specific details. Last year I wrote a paper on institutionalized police abuse, and in the course of my literature search, came up with a lot of research on police abuse of kin. Unfortunately I do not still have those specific articles. I am not suggesting all or even a significant number of police officers are abusive, but that they are predisposed to this type of behaviour. We all would be if we spent our days engaging in almost exclusively negative interactions with no way to release the pressure. "Community policing" has sought to counteract this feeling of negativity within and towards police services, but unfortunately has been bastardized by many departments and rendered just a cliché. Anyways, I (and the criminologists who's views I subscribe to) would not consider the police a useful information source.

I have a final exam in 30 minutes or so, I'll respond to your comments regarding legalization when I get home.

[Fish]

Quinn,
Thank you for the information and I appreciate you spending the time looking that up when you could have been studying - I hope your exam went well. I looked through the links you provided and found some great info on the effects of job-related stress on police officers and their families. Alcoholism, divorce, abuse, ptsd, suicidal ideations...
What I could not find though was the "proof" that you said supported your claim that police are more likely to abuse their spouses and children than any other occupation. It may just be that I've lost my knack for research :redface: . I feel that a person could write a paper on the negative affects of being a long-haul trucker or a stock trader and I'm sure they would also find a lot of relevant articles. If you could please direct me to a study that says that police officers and prison guards are "more likely to engage in child and spousal abuse than the general population" I would really like to read it. Thanks in advance.

- good point about community policing, I always suspected that much of it was just posturing.

- Chad

[Quinn]

Right, should have added "but I'll keep looking." I don't think you've lost your knack, more likely that it's Google we're talking about, and a beta at that. I'll check the same engines I would have used last year and try to find something specifically related to this topic.

Going back to evolution and greed - here's what my prof had to say (Dr. Hugh Notman, normally of the U of C anthropology dept., specifically, primatology, he studies chimps, but teaches a few animal behaviour courses here and there):

Evolutionary psychology [in short, looks] at how much of our behaviour (all the way from grubby capitalism as a whole to how individuals choose which seat in a movie theatre to sit in!) has been shaped by our evolutionary past, and how selection has favoured certain behavioural tendencies that were beneficial to our ancestors (which could include early humans but also go all the way back to our early mammalian forbearers). Certainly the quest for material wealth and gain could, in theory, be rooted in our animal heritage in which "Contest competition" for resources meant get as much as you can now before someone else gets it all, and I for one have no problem believing that our short-sighted consumerism (at the expense of impending environmental doom!) is linked to this very primitive behavioural trait. There are, however, nay-sayers who make a good arguement for the fact that not all traditional human societies are/were as individualistic as modern industrial western ones. however, there is also evidence to show that these societies imposed strict social conformity - in other words, "greed" needed to be socialized out of people and they were "trained" to be more egalitarian than human nature would otherwise be! Also, small bands of people could be "non-environmental" in their practices (ie., hunt as much as they want/ slash and burn, etc) without too much global impact, whereas we, onbviously [sic], cannot. Saying that, it is believed that much of the megafauna that lived in America and Eurasia (like big cats, wooly mammoths and wooly rhinoceros) went extinct becasue of early human hunters. As for greed and territoriality, well, the latter is really just "defensive" behaviour - ie, keep others away from your turf. Maybe picket fences and security systems are more akin to good old territoriality than "greed"!

[albert_dao]

I was eagerly awaiting that.

But in the end, and I do say this with a lot of personal conviction, I don't think of psychology as a science. That's just a personal thing. I know a lot of you will dissagree with me and that's okay. I have my reasons.

[Murminator]

*YAWN*

This thread is getting longer than "War and Peace"
:sleeping:

[Quinn]

But in the end, and I do say this with a lot of personal conviction, I don't think of psychology as a science. That's just a personal thing. I know a lot of you will dissagree with me and that's okay. I have my reasons.

Can we discuss your reasons? Many people have a very dated view of psychology, ie. Alderian, Freudian. If you define science the same way the scientific community (physics, biology, genetics, chemistry, physiology, etc.) does, then psychology is a science. It's just that simple. I guess it's not that big of a deal, but it does bother me. I will tell you right now though that my area of interest is about as far removed from traditional psychology as you can get. You might be surprised how many branches there are to psychology now. An extremely diverse field of study.

[Buccaneer]

A person could set up a 500 plant grow in a new community and in one year's time get three harvests and make a profit of one million dollars (after expenses).
- Chad

Sounds like you know a bit more on this subject than the average Joe there Chad :razz: :mrgreen:

things that make ya go hmmmm :eek:

[Quinn]

I was going to suggest... extra metal halides... there must be one or two among us.

[albert_dao]

But in the end, and I do say this with a lot of personal conviction, I don't think of psychology as a science. That's just a personal thing. I know a lot of you will dissagree with me and that's okay. I have my reasons.

Can we discuss your reasons? Many people have a very dated view of psychology, ie. Alderian, Freudian. If you define science the same way the scientific community (physics, biology, genetics, chemistry, physiology, etc.) does, then psychology is a science. It's just that simple. I guess it's not that big of a deal, but it does bother me. I will tell you right now though that my area of interest is about as far removed from traditional psychology as you can get. You might be surprised how many branches there are to psychology now. An extremely diverse field of study.

Sorry, I was in a bit of a rush to play SC, so I gave a half assed comment.

To me, psychology's endless failure to produce definitive predictions for behavior clearly outdates it as a science, making it more ideological observation and theorem. That's a nice step in the right direction, but that's about it. I don't know how else to explain it without using movie clips and sound bits that I no longer have access to.

I'll be open minded about this though, maybe there's something big that I'm missing here.

[Quinn]

Albert and Chad, I'll try to respond to both of you tomorrow morning. For now, study, study, study. :neutral:

[Cap'n]

And you are for the legalization of all banned narcotics eh???
That's a really great idea Quinn :rolleyes:. I mean general use of addictive, mind altering substances could only be an improvement. Just look how much alcohol alone has benefited our society :razz: .

I think you are confusing use with legalization. Current studies suggest there would be little to no increase in number of users if marijuana use were to be legalized. It would also rid the city of the grow houses which you mentioned was one of the most serious negative effects of the drug trade. Other benefits of government regulation would include reduction of illegal dealers, a hefty income from sales and taxes, and designated legal areas to consume (smoke) would help contain use to one area.

It was probably Harry Anslinger who influenced Emily Murphy to make her march to the common's. He was the USA's first "drug czar" who was given the position in the 1930's after riding the wave of popular opinion that jazz and other musicians were spreading the "terrible weed" to the good white folks of America. He maintained spreading lies and misinformation about the drug throughout his life and built his career on fighting marijuana use. It was he who originally petitioned Canada to follow the states in its enforcemant of drug use to help protect their border.

I'm not saying it is harmless nor is it for everyone, but marijuana is not the monster it has been made out to be. For an informative and entertaining look at the use of media in altering popular opinion of the drug see "Weed", as narrated by Woody Harrelson. It contains some priceless clips of old propaganda films and astounding statistics regarding the amount of time and money spent battling the acceptance of another vice besides government taxed liquor.

[Quinn]

As Cptn has pointed out, legalization of marijuana would arguably solve more problems than it would create.

Regarding police abuse, I can't find the study which I referenced in the first place, and in fact I seem to be finding very little altogether. I've dropped off an email to someone who works in this area, and I'll check the papers I have at my parents' house over the break if you like. If I can't find that quotation I'll retract the statement and we'll just say "police are a bad group to ask if you want objective information about deviance", since that was my original point. Regardless, here are a few related quotations:

Link (http://slei.org/ilea/publications/domestic_99.pdf)
The survey results provide interesting and useful insight into the problem of domestic assault within the police community. First, as a profession, there is a need to realize this issue is an important one requiring attention. While the survey does not show an overwhelming increase in reported incidents of domestic violence involving police officers, any moderate level of increase cannot be ignored, and may in fact be the beginning of a trend.

Link (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:6y61NS2HRo4J:www.cji.net/clera/CJI/CenterInfo/lemc/Papers/Effects%2520on%2520Family%2520Paper.pdf+police+spo use+stress+abuse)
The second effect of a paramilitary environment is often in terms of displaced anger and frustration. Police officers are just as likely to disagree with their supervisors or be angered by orders they do not agree with as any other civilian in their job. However, expressing anger or disagreement in a paramilitary environment is often seen as insubordination. Police officers often take this anger or frustration home, displacing it into their relationships (Honig and White, 1994).

As for psychology being a science, science is more a process (method of gathering information about the world) than a thing ("doing science"), the process of generating a hypothesis or theory and then testing it (gathering observations). Good science (as per Karl Popper's work) does not prove anything but rather seeks to disprove things. Each observation that supports a hypothesis or theory strengthens it but does not exclude the possibility of finding anomalies in the future. Good psychology generates hypotheses that are then tested. Certainly in the past some early psychologists generated theories after observation, which is extremely problematic, but at this time this process is generally not accepted in the larger psychological community. This is the main problem with people like Freud, Jung and Adler, who are generally not given much consideration anymore, outside some small circles of counselors.

Do we have any psychologists or similarly-qualified individuals on the board? If you haven't jumped in yet, I'm assuming you're not going to, so I'll just go for it. :neutral:

Counselors are generally the private types in the phone book. You also have clinical psychologists, who are essential psychiatrists without an MD and therefore without the ability to prescribe drugs. However they are often employed by governments, in hospitals, prisons, etc., working alongside psychiatrists and social workers in many cases. Clinical psychologists generally have very nearly a decade of schooling and research things like addictions, disorders, disabilities, etc. Also note that, at least in Canada, only certified clinical psychologists can actually call themselves psychologists. Hence why you hear the terms counselor, psychotherapist, etc. sometimes. These people may have anything from an Internet diploma right through to multiple Ph.Ds, but without being accredited by the professional organization, they cannot call themselves psychologists. In Alberta and Quebec you only need a Master's to become a psychologist, in the rest of Canada you need a Doctorate.

Most people consider these fields to make up psychology, and are unaware of the other areas in the field. But not all individuals in psychology even work with people.
-Neuropsychology: Nervous system/brain anatomy, processes, pharmacology. This is where research on plasticity, strokes, marijuana, tinnitus, circadian rhythms, etc. gets done, generally. Many of the advances in medicine you hear about in the news is actually work being done by neuroscientists.
-Cognitive psychology: Memory, thought processes, consciousness, language, awareness, spacial ability...
-Industrial/organizational psychology: Group/team theory, leadership, organizational conflict and change... basically management psychology. In fact, management programs generally refer to this area as organizational behaviour, but it's essentially the same thing. Managers get the vast majority of their information in this area from psychological research.
-Perception: The senses, how the brain processes sensory information...
-Cognitive ergonomics and environmental psychology: More thought processes, how humans process incoming information, environmental design, human/computer interaction, artificial intelligence - Google, Microsoft, HP, Ford, Boeing all employ these types...
-Developmental psychology: Everything but in the context of aging and human development, from infants to the aged.
-Social psychology: Perhaps the parent of I/O psychology, human interaction, groups, conflict, race, sexual orientation, love, the media...
-Evolutionary psychology: The historical development of human psychology, lots of looking at other species here to put things in perspective.
-Comparative psychology: Animals in relation to us. Generally primates but also everything from octopuses to parrots to dogs.
-Theoretical psychology: History and critical examination of psychology as as a whole... philosophy of... research methods.

I think that covers most of it. So in short, by the most accepted definition, modern psychology is a hard science, and there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of research articles out there to prove it.

[Fish]

If I can't find that quotation I'll retract the statement and we'll just say "police are a bad group to ask if you want objective information about deviance", since that was my original point.

Thanks Quinn,
I agree that the only source for true information on devience would be from studies, conducted scientifically, and without bias.
If I could, I would modify you statement again to say that police are not the best group to get objective information on deviance (because, yes they're biased). However, due to the nature of their experience, I believe they are still better qualified to speak to the subject than a dentist, or accountant, or a student :razz: would be (couldn't resist the dig- im joking, you are obviously very well informed).
And yes, you and the Captain do make a good point for the legalization of marihuana and I personally believe that there some powerful arguments on both sides; however, I do not think these arguments hold much water in relation to other narcotics that are currently illegal. JMO.
Thanks.

[Quinn]

I agree that the only source for true information on devience would be from studies, conducted scientifically, and without bias.

This should be the only source for information on anything grounded in the empirical, ie. everything except religion, philosophy, logic, etc.

However, due to the nature of their experience, I believe they are still better qualified to speak to the subject than a dentist, or accountant, or a student...

Definitely. But "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (alliteration in the Bible, who knew). With an issue like this, with scientific data available, you have to be careful interpreting any anecdotal evidence. Be it from dentists or police.

[Cap'n]

however, I do not think these arguments hold much water in relation to other narcotics that are currently illegal. JMO.
Thanks.

Agreed. Marijuana is a mild stimulant and should not be lumped in with the more vile and addictive narcotics, nor the derogatory term "drugs".


Hey Quinn, what are you going to be when you grow up?
I'm envious of the obviously interesting studies you are taking and impressed by the degree of knowledge you are retaining from your classes. Makes me wish I was in a more mature state of mind when I went to school.

Anybody interested in going to the pub, nurse a few beers, solve the world's problems?

[Quinn]

At this point I'm gunning for grad school, either in I/O psychology or more likely, cognitive ergonomics. Both are quite lucrative and very much in demand. I also have an interest in evolutionary theory, obviously, and research methods, statistical theory and by extension the scientific method.

I like pubs, as long as I'm still welcome at Canreef gatherings. :rolleyes:

[trilinearmipmap]

This thread exhibits flight of ideas and circumstantiality. Can we get back to the original topic about a baby elephant dying?

[AJ_77]

I like pubs, as long as I'm still welcome at Canreef gatherings. :rolleyes:
Why wouldn't you be? As much as we like to tease you, your answers show thoughtfulness and sensitivity beyond your tender years. :mrgreen:

[Quinn]

This thread exhibits flight of ideas and circumstantiality. Can we get back to the original topic about a baby elephant dying?

Apparently the zoo employees who worked with the baby will be receiving professional counseling.

[Fish]

Just a little confused re the alleged biases and misinformation in "Fahrenheit 9/11".

Exactly which information presented in the movie is untrue?

The part about how the Bush administration is financially in bed with the Saudis?

The part about how ordinary working-class Americans are sending their sons and daughters to die in Iraq, while only one member of Congress has a son or daughter in the armed forces?

I found the movie completely accurate. The only biases I found in the movie were a bias toward truth and a bias against killing people for no reason.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but this certainly got me to thinking... maybe I'll check it out. Thanks :biggrin:

- AnisotropicChad

[Quinn]

Just thinking out loud here, F9/11 is a documentary that covers several years of history in just over two hours. Therefore it cannot possibly contain all the "truths", so Moore had to select what "truths" to include. From a pseudo-philosophical standpoint, without all the truth, can you have any truth at all? Obviously what Fox, CNN, ABC, etc., even the CBC present is not 100% objective. Nothing on our plane of existence is, because no one is omnipresent or omniscient. The very few pieces that are included in a documentary or news report (or in one person's experience of an event) provide an incomplete and therefore biased picture, despite the best intentions.

However, I did a quick Google for authoritative refutations of claims Moore made and surprisingly, didn't find too many that weren't filled with even more convoluted reasoning than Moore's film. So maybe at least on his own level, the right-wing had a hard time disputing his assertions.

[Buccaneer]

Did you guys even goto the link I gave you ? ... here it is again

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

[monza]

http://www.moorelies.com/book/

[monza]

{edited} Canreef staff.
Read the above book. Not going to debate this one again …already have / debated it to death.

Yes it is too bad the zoo keepers let the poor elephant die! I hope next time they can correct their errors.

Merry Christmas!

Dave

I/O, what is that?

[Delphinus]

Enough of this please. Sorry, it's my thread, and I'm closing it now.