bunny1ohio said:
So what exaclty is human nature?
Uh, would you like that in 25 words or less??
Animals also have a choice of action depending upon circustance and exposure to elements other than their natural environment. A man marooned on an island tends to revert to animalistic behavior to survive... the same as an animal in the wild... you change the circumstances and you change the behavior. A raccoon knows how to forage for food in the wild... but chooses to raid a trash can because it is easier. A dog knows how to hunt down a prey animal in nature, but can be taught to ignore that instinct by a human controller.
And you just listed another difference I had forgotten...ever seen a dog try to tame or control another animal? Humans do this to animals all the time, for better or for worse. We have the ability to dominate and control other species that animals seem not to have. Hm, maybe the author of that story in Genesis had a point I didn't consider.
What actions are those then, since most everything in this thread has pointed to similarities instead of anything that is distinctly "human" in nature. Forebearance... male wolves, lions etc allow their children to attempt to harm them in practice for becoming mature adults and they tolerate it all very well... when it gets out of hand they take control and stop it.
Do they ever show forebearance to other species? Do they show forebearance to wolves that are not members of their pack?
Compassion... herd animals especially will adopt the young of other when the mother dies or cannot care for the baby in some way.
If herd animals find out that another species is short of food, will they drop a little spare around so they can eat? We feed birds all the time, and other species as well, if we know they need some extra support, and not just out of our selfish interests either.
Loving kindness towards all people and kindreds.... since when? People are just as violent and intolerant as they have ever been... we just have better control of how people act in today's society. People destroy entire species of animals for nothing more than a fuel or a fur coat.
That is a function of our fall into excessive greed and materialism, and is not a universal human trait. It's exactly what happens when we act according to our "animal nature" which is to say, only out of concern for our own species and not any wider concerns. I submit that when we act according to our "human nature" we are seen to be greater than animals, because we are capable of doing things to support the entire biosphere and not just ourselves. We *can* be caretakers, if we choose to be. Animals cannot. They act to support their immediate family group and to a very small extent, their species. They do not concern themselves with the well-being of other animal species.
Again... animals can learn and can be taught to ignore instinctive action.
Of course they can. If they had no way to adapt, many of the species would be extinct. This does not mean that they, for no external reason, spontaneously decide to try something new. Unless, of course, you want to assert the example of Harold the Flying Sheep.
And that little skit is funny *precisely because* we recognize that sheep just don't have the imagination or interest in trying to fly. They are land animals and have no knowledge that there is even another possibility, much less any drive to achieve it.
Refer to the Koko page I posted... this is just incorrect.
I've known about Koko for years. It's a fascinating story, and well worth considering, for it reveals that primates at any rate are more capable than we once thought. I think that's important because if we underestimate animals, we can end up devaluing them and so doing them harm. I would still argue that this is an issue where a matter of degree becomes a difference in kind. No matter how hard Koko tries, she will always think like a toddler at best. No matter now many Kokos we teach ASL, they will not learn to build buildings or fly planes. Planet of the Apes is a nice bit of fiction, but it is fiction.
As are humans... and these things are not always "sufficient" for an animal, but they are much more widely accepted by them because they are more focused on survival and simply living than expanding and becoming "better" than what they naturally are.
Which rather goes to demonstrate my point, I think.
Why is it that animals do not strive to be "better" and we do? Could it be that they don't even *think* in terms of "good" and "bad" and "better"?
How do we know this? Like I said earlier... if dog's have a god... they ain't talkin... and we don't understand them well enough to know what they think about... that's a presumption created from ignorance... and religion is an invention of men... animals play follow the leader (pack/herd etc) just as humans do (God) and attempt to emulate them in like fashion.
It is a presumption based on thousands of years of observation, which should not be swept under the rug so lightly.
If you believe in ghosts and the supernatural... have you ever seen the way an animal reactes in an evireonment where they are said to occur? They appear much more attuned to it and aware than humans.
I do not define "supernatural" in terms of "ghosts." I don't believe in ghosts. Animals often respond to stimuli that humans do not, I expect because they don't have that nasty forebrain that keeps sending them distracting signals. They don't try to override their senses like we do. Which, uh, kind of goes to support yet another assertion I made that animals live in their sense, but we do more than that.
I'm sure you've seen a dog that really didn't like a person? And do you, like me, trust the dog's opinion more than your own? And then there are the usual stories about animals that sense earthquakes before humans do, and the elephants in Sri Lanka who tried to round up people and herd them into the hills before the tsunami hit. Animals don't waste time rationalizing -- they *act*. This can be a good thing in many cases, but not always.
The kingdom of god is a man-made invention to attempt to discover what happens after death... and power is an illusion. A man alone with only the same tools available in nature such as a stick versus a gorilla with the same weapon will lose almost every time.
Hm. The kingdom of God you don't believe in, I don't believe in either.
Your point about a man in nature alone is easily contradicted by any experienced hunter. The fact that we have so few left in our industrialized society doesn't change the ability of a trained hunter to outwit a gorilla. Ever hear of snares?
