And what are we pretending to be?
“Humans”.
And what are Humans?
“Not animals, that’s for sure!”
What would it mean to you, to stop pretending to edit: NOT be animals?
To “Stop pretending we are not animals” to me is to stop the antropocentric way of seeing nature and the universe.
For example, is not that certain animals have “human-like” behavior, but rather that we, as animals, share the certain behaviors with other animals.
And I’m convinced that, if we understand other animals more, we would understand ourselves better.
But like, practically, what does that mean?
I ask, from a philosophy point of view, that this is a perennial idea.
Generally through history, where this usually goes, is that a defined set of behaviours get classified as “natural”. Cats hunt mice. It’s natural. There are no ethical concerns with a cat hunting a mouse.
Anyways, near the end of the philosophical exercise, people realize that a TON of behaviours which are without any meaningful counterargument “natural” are actually fucking terrible. Theft, murder, rape, etc.
And that’s usually where the wheels come off. We’re animals. We have animal urges. They’re informed by parts of our brains designed for survival in an environment that no longer exists, because humans have crafted our environments into something unrecognizable to what the human animal evolved to exist within.
We’re animals transplanted outside of our evolutionary environment. We can recognize we’re animals for whom our animalistic instinct and urges clearly don’t suit our reality. This is what puts such strain on trying to connect ideas of “natural” and “acceptable” and limits the practical value of any models which try to relate the two.
This isn’t a new idea. I can’t stress enough how old and recurring an idea it is. It just, under careful consideration, is found to be much less useful a model than imagined once the leap from conception to application is made.
Great explanation - I find it does a phenomenal job of explaining a great deal of human behaviour. Resource hoarding despite enough for all, the will to dominate, visceral hatred of those who believe differently than us (ingroup vs. outgroup theory), and I’m sure there’s more.
From a psychological viewpoint, it explains a lot of behavior that isn’t necessarily reasonable unless you account for an irrational mind acting on modern problems - things that our minds weren’t designed to handle.
Edit: clarification
I agree that from a psychological lens there is value. “Why does a person do or think things?” Valuable there. VERY valuable. Greed, fear, when do they become maladaptive? Why does this happen? Is it intrinsic to some individuals or is it just capacity?
I don’t think it’s very valuable from an ethics/philosophy standpoint. “Is it right to do a thing?”
I don’t think it’s especially valuable from a sociological perspective either, it needlessly complicates a model. For some population, a variance of greed will exis within it. A variance of fear of outsiders.
I don’t mean to shit on the idea. Just suggesting where the limits of value may be on the idea.
Haha no worries I think you make absolutely fair points regarding ethics and philosophy - these topics have to stand outside animalistic origins, as evolution only really asks “but will I survive?” Pausing for rational thought about the propriety of a behavior is unlikely to convey animalistic benefit.
Sociologically (?), on the face of it I think it’s a little harder to extricate animalistic tendencies, as our herd behaviors are intrinsically related to our animalistic/psychological tendency - or maybe better said as they share a reciprocal relationship, feeding back into each other. But that said, I have no knowledge of sociology models so I’ll defer to your assertion.
Either way, I think we’re barking up the same tree with some variation in the importance of different factors, hey?
Well, you have explained it as concisely and clearly as I never EVER could. Thank you.
If this definition sits well with you, you’re probably theist.
Emm… Could you elaborate, please? 😅
If something a person created is unnatural then it must be produced by something other than nature. How are we not a part of the natural world?
But we are nature, part of it, therefore everything we do is natural too, I totally convince of it. My problem is that some of us act like we were something apart from nature, above even.
That’s my point. The way we use the words natural and unnatural are not congruent with their definition.
I knew the furries were right all along
The Furries saw the truth and transcend.
“I am cringe, but I am free”
That’s literally my mantra, and I’m waaaaay more happy since I accepted it
We still have this notion and hubris that we’re above animals, and animals are below us who are alright being stepped on and abused. I noticed that in a lot of cultures, their insults and profanities is being compared to an animal (in Europe, the profanities seem to be generally sexual).
Also, for the religious, admitting we’re animals is definitely an insult and denial of biblical teachings that god created humans. When Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution first became a mainstream sensation, some cartoonists drew him as a monkey. I debated with a religious before who believes in conspiracy theories. After pointing out about evolution, I was called a monkey. I wasn’t even insulted though because, yes, that is basically what I’m trying to say. But technically I’m not a monkey, I’m an ape. Humans are apes. The monkeys are our cousins. Religious folks don’t like to admit we’re animals because it contradicts their beliefs.
Religious folks don’t like to admit we’re animals because it contradicts their beliefs.
Their religion is based on the idea that we’re special somehow. It allows their followers to feel better than the ‘lesser’ animals, and the ‘lesser’ races/cultures. They teach that we’re the chosen ones with our tools, and language, and emotion, and thoughts.
The fact that we’re all equal, and that other animals have all of those qualities is a threat to their power.
To be fair, if I took my cats values and morals there would be a bloodbath.
You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals so let’s do it like they do on the discovery channel
Pretending to be an animal doesn’t solve much either but it’s fun from time to time.
If we pretend to be other animal, sure isn’t helpful. Is not about pretending to be this or that, but to stop the antropocentris and start to see ourselves as part of something, not something apart of everything else.
I knew someone from this instance was going to post. I knew it!
This is called speciesism, the believe that your live is worth more/you are better simply because of your species.
Speciesism is a great word and it uses all of the tools of our language in a way that makes sense.
But someone decided at some point we should call this “Anthropocentrism” instead
Agree we are animals…but not sure that is the biggest problem…
Like, yeah of course there’s a lot other things. Maybe I should should have say “one of the biggest”
I love people who are like “we need to return to nature!”
Like, I get the sentiment and we should definitely try to coexist with the rest of the animals since were smart enough to, but i think its important to remember that we are nature. We cannot separate ourselves from it. Even skyscrapers are natural. Just ask a termite.
Yup. Pollution is natural. It’s not about what’s natural, but what keeps our environment in a state where we can thrive.
You’re so damn right! We can’t pull us apart of nature and neither everything we do!
I don’t know that taxonomy is our biggest problem…
There’s psychology that goes along with it, it’s not just scientific classification. It’s also about ego.
The view that we’re better than the rest of the life on this planet is likely one of the drivers behind climate change. It’s used to justify the destruction of entire habitats. Habitats other beings feel is their home.
A lot of folks may know that they’re animals, in a scientific sense. But they don’t feel it in their bones or really empathize. Folks are often raised to think of animals as potential food, after all. So, it runs a bit deeper than taxonomy. And is more like a cultural habit of feeling better than, because we often eat animals and don’t have many predators to worry about other than each other.
No. The biggest problem with climate change is that people are profiting off it. That’s it. Nobody needs to pretend that they’re better in order to care only for themselves.
That view isn’t necessarily taxonomically based: We could still be like, “Ok, we’re apes, but we’re the best apes!”
Furthermore, not everyone holds that view.
The real issue is greed.
Jonathan Swift had the same showerthought.
Overall, he preferred horses.
And who wouldn’t? They are neat.
They are neat, but I trust no animal less than I trust a horse.
You’ll be sorry when one day that plastic bag that wasn’t in the path yesterday jumps up and kills you!
Humans could all be grey blobs and people would still argue they are greyest and blobiest. They love to feel special.
Hey, I recognize a The Fairly OddParents reference when I see one. That’s good taste, fella 👌
We don’t pretend we are not animals. We pretend we are the ONLY animals, and all others are merely objects.
The Apex Animal, the Uber-animal, the Sigma Animal 🗿
Uhhh I would strongly disagree with that being a mainstream belief
Do you consume non-human animals? Then you are probably psychologically dependent on ignoring all the ways they are the same as we are. You probably believe there are lots of things that distinguish us, as long as you never think too closely about it, that make it morally permissible or even morally encouraged to exploit their bodies and pretend that they don’t have a mind fundamentally like yours.
Being an animal means having animus. But we act as though we are the only creature having it; the only with interests, with thoughts and feelings, with desires and goals, that uses reason, that struggles with everything within us to live.
Do you actually have anything to say beyond, “I disagree”, or are you (like most carnists) just psychologically required to obstruct your own inconvenient thoughts whenever they arise?
That’s why furries were invented
If aliens were to visit Earth, human vs. not-humans (aka sentient vs. not) would be the single biggest thing to consider. Far more so than male vs. female, plants vs. animals, even alive vs. nonliving (rocks), humans can literally send nukes in their direction while they hang in outer space, while literally nothing else can. We light up the night sky… on purpose and could stop it in a moment if we wanted.
We’re kinda a big deal.
Although now computers (e.g. Skynet) could do it too, so it’s humans and those highly specialized rocks together on one side, vs. literally everything else on the other.
So humans are not “just” animals, like computers are not “just” rocks.
So, what we are then?
(And, at the risk of sounding harsh, what’s with the constant duology? Why the mania of dividing everything into “this” and “that”?)
We are humans. We are animals. And we are more than that. Perhaps we are also lesser than that at the same time?
The duality was how the idea was presented to me - this is not my OC, or perhaps the words are but the concept I first heard told by an atheist apologeticist (if that’s a thing) Daniel Dennett speaking out against Intelligent Design (which at the time was still a thing that people bothered arguing against). I believe he was relating it to a binary classification scheme such as machine learning approaches are often built to follow. Anyway it’s just a vehicle for the conveyance of the idea - obviously nuances exist irl, yet there is some value in keeping things simple too, especially at first.
Hmm, ok. Now I can see the point you where making. Thanks for elaborate.
Yeah I was thinking about this the other day after watching some Twilight Zone or something. It’s interesting that a lot of our fantasy/sci-fi is about how pathetic humanity might be compared to alien beings, especially since in reality we actualy play the role of the highly superior beings.
That style does seem to predominate, especially in video form, but there are others where humans compete more on if not quite fully equal than at least more equal terms. Babylon Five springs to mind there.
Also more outside but some still fully inside of “scify” the more “fantasy” elements may posit the existence of alternative universes that we travel to & from not by traversing physical space in between but through portals, accessible here on earth. Like Stargate.
So, those others are out there, but yeah it definitely meshes less well with what we see and know now about what might be in space.
