Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can animals be caring and compassionate
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 16 of 22 (581428)
09-15-2010 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
09-15-2010 12:05 PM


Re: Intelligence and caring instincts
Modulous writes:
Once you realize that an individual human's reproductive success is contingent on their being other individual humans on his side in this dangerous world - it should seem less mysterious to you.
People die trying to save the lives of those they don't even know. They have no idea whether they are on their side or not. People risk their lives for their pets.
Modulous writes:
The reasons why animals and humans have similar emotions isn't because it is an advantage to animals to have similar emotions to humans but because humans, and other animals have inherited those emotions from their ancestors.
I'm more inclined to believe that it is a learned response. Just look at a nest of young birds fighting over every scrap of food. How about a litter of young pigs pushing aside siblings to get at one of the sow's teats.
There doesn't seem to be any altruism amongst the newly born, animal or human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 09-15-2010 12:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 09-15-2010 5:55 PM GDR has not replied

  
jasonlang
Member (Idle past 3403 days)
Posts: 51
From: Australia
Joined: 07-14-2005


Message 17 of 22 (581437)
09-15-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
09-14-2010 7:49 PM


You'll have to define "pure instinct" or even "instinct" before we can decide whether something can be beyond it or not.
Consider hunger - we consciously feels hungry, and learn that food fixes this problem. We also learn particular places, times to get food, and what is edible, what is not. I don't think there's any reason to suggest that a dog for example works on any different principles to this. If you move a dog's food bowl it'll learn the new location, but once or twice it may look for food in the old location, implying it's either forgotten the bowl was moved, or its hoping or expecting that you'll move it back. Words like learn, forget, hope, expect don't sit well with "instinct".
If you extend the concept of instinct to mean things which reward the animals consciousness for exhibiting 'approved' behaviours, so you can cover eating etc, then humans are pretty much instinct driven, and this includes altruism as researchers claim to have found just such pathways for altruistic behaviour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 09-14-2010 7:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 18 of 22 (581459)
09-15-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by GDR
09-15-2010 2:13 PM


Re: Intelligence and caring instincts
People die trying to save the lives of those they don't even know. They have no idea whether they are on their side or not. People risk their lives for their pets.
Indeed - but I fail to see how that is problematic to what I am saying. I'm not suggesting that in the heat of the moment, the brain does genetic or social calculus. It applies learned biases. If you have learned that all humans are one group - you might be as inclined to help an Indian as your next door neighbour. Most people show some biases - and some experiments indicate they may be more biased towards immediate siblings than cousins, for example.
This shortcut works because for primates one 'group' is almost always ones extended family or someone you need to exist in order to survive/mate.
Some people feel that pets are as deserving of respect as any other member of the family and so it is no surprise if they feel that way that they would risk their lives for them. Their genes bias them towards helping family and allies, and they have learned that their dog is family.
I'm more inclined to believe that it is a learned response. Just look at a nest of young birds fighting over every scrap of food. How about a litter of young pigs pushing aside siblings to get at one of the sow's teats.
There doesn't seem to be any altruism amongst the newly born, animal or human.
Or maybe childhood in some species is dangerous enough that risking your life for your siblings has negative expected evolutionary value?
Cooperation is a strategy that can have a net positive gain on all parties. Where that is the case, and where it is not dominated by other strategies - we might anticipate it can evolve. I do agree that learning certainly comes into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by GDR, posted 09-15-2010 2:13 PM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 22 (581462)
09-15-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by GDR
09-15-2010 1:56 PM


Re: Intelligence and caring instincts
I contend that our natural instinct is the survival instinct but that our natural instinct can be adjusted by influences in our lives so that it does become more or less instinctive to do the unselfish thing for the benefit of someone else.
I would agree that there were tensions between survival instinct, social approval instinct and social loyalty instinct etc. I wouldn't say that only survival instinct is natural, by which I assume mean 'hardwired'.
This can be shaped through learning and the influences. So if we believe we survive death might help us over-ride the survival instinct in some cases.
There does seem to be a great many people who do harm to their own and a great many people do good for those who are not of their own.
Of course - mixed strategies (cooperating with the community, and exploiting the community) are perfectly possible within an evolutionary framework. I have already explained why people do good things for others - if they consider 'all humans' as one group, they'd happily do it. This is a very modern view though - certainly not an evolved position.
It seems to me that if you are going to make the argument that it is about maintaining your blood line then the only ones that would be considered 'one of your own' would be those in your own gene pool.
And how do your genes successfully detect that someone is related to you? It's not like animals generally talk to each other, right? They rely on other clues, as do we on some level. Proximity is a good clue. The way other family members treat them is another good observable clue.
Of course, this convenient shortcut means that sometimes we treat bastard brothers as if they were full brothers, step fathers as if they were real fathers, adopted children as if they were our own and even think of our work colleagues as brothers (as in the army)...
Isn't that about being indoctrinated to overcome your natural instinct?
Yes. But you can't do that by actually overcoming your natural instincts which is impossible. You redirect them. There is some evidence that male coalitionary violence is a big part of being human.
Once again yes and no. I agree the paternal instinct can be strong but it also seems to end when the offspring mature and go off on their own. I know when we took our pup back to visit its mother there appeared to be zero recognition. This seems to be normal for all animals other than humans. If they lose the parental instinct for their own offspring then I'm inclined to think that there is more going on than just parental instinct in the case of the crow, although maybe less so for the gorilla.
What were expecting me to do: give you a full psychological account of what it is like to be that bird? If the bird thinks the kitten is a perma-child then all of what you said wouldn't apply for example. If the bird grows bored when the cat grows up that'd be something. There is also a 'play' instinct that is expressed in adults across species and that may also be coming into play.
Of course this is all just my opinion but it appears to me that animals, even wild ones, are capable of a degree of altruism that goes beyond their natural instinct.
It appears to me, that since there are so many examples of it happening - it is their natural instinct.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by GDR, posted 09-15-2010 1:56 PM GDR has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 20 of 22 (581463)
09-15-2010 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
09-15-2010 11:42 AM


Re: Intelligence and caring instincts
That makes no sense. In order for someone to have reproductive success it is necessary for them to survive in the first place. Obviously if someone altruistically gives up their life then their future reproductive success is zero.
You also have to look at human society. From the evidence we do have it appears that humans evolved as social animals, groups that worked together to hunt and gather food. We also need to raise our children to adulthood which can take quite a few years.
So what if we have a situation where both of us could die, or I can act in a certain way where I die but you live. Being that you are part of my tribe you are contributing food and shelter to my children. By saving you, even if it requires my death, I am increasing the likelyhood that my genes will make it into the next generation. If both of us die then my chances decrease.
I don't see any evolutionary advantage in what the crow, or the gorilla for that matter, have for displaying what appear to be similar emotional behaviour as humans.
The minor disadvantages that these instincts and behaviors cause is swamped by the advantages that they offer. Yes, our instinctual nurturing behavior may cause us to do some things that are maladaptive, but this ignores the huge advantages that these evolved instincts do afford.
As an analogy, you are arguing that our brains are maladaptive because they use up more of our total energy stores compared to other species. What you would be ignoring are the great advantages that our big, hungry brains do afford us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 09-15-2010 11:42 AM GDR has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 22 (581469)
09-15-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
09-14-2010 7:49 PM


Dog saves another dog
Guess it's not entirely a dog-eat-dog world... Yes, pun intended.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 09-14-2010 7:49 PM GDR has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 22 of 22 (581575)
09-16-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by GDR
09-15-2010 11:42 AM


Re: Intelligence and caring instincts
That makes no sense. In order for someone to have reproductive success it is necessary for them to survive in the first place. Obviously if someone altruistically gives up their life then their future reproductive success is zero.
It's true that, if you don't survive at least up until reproducing, then you can't directly pass on any genes. but surviving isn't sufficient for reproductive success. If you're a sexual animal, and your instincts lead you to survive at all costs, but not to have sex, then your survival is useless, evolutionarily speaking. You can survive as long as you want, but you'll never have any descendants.
In some species, this is particularly evident, like the honey bee I mentioned above. It's not possible for a male honey bee to survive reproduction, and yet their instincts still lead them to reproduce. There are plenty of less extreme examples of animals putting their survival at risk due to their urge to mate - male hippos attacking other male hippos to try and steal their harems at serious risk of injury and death, for example, or birds making noisy or visually stunning mating displays that attract observant predators.
If survival was the only concern of animals, most mating behaviour would go out the window. It's often risky and energetically costly. In a sense, a survival instinct is just a means to an end, the end being reproductive success.
I don't see any evolutionary advantage in what the crow, or the gorilla for that matter, have for displaying what appear to be similar emotional behaviour as humans.
The evolutionary advantages for the crow and the gorilla are the same as they are for humans. All three animals care for their young, so it's essential that parents are willing to put time and effort into this. All three live in social groups, usually closely related (not so much for humans any more - but for most of our time on earth we lived in much smaller societies). This means that the people around you often share many of your genes, and it can lead to indirect reproductive success for you if they succeed at the reproducing game too. Groups that work together cohesively and care for one another are also likely to do better than groups riven by internal division and self-serving behaviour.
All this means that the animals need some way to make them work together and look after their relatives. These are complex behaviours in complex environments, and involve dealing with far too many unpredictable situations. A simple, hard-wired set of strict behaviours, such as least some insects appear to possess, wouldn't suffice. What's needed is an emotional system that biases the animal towards certain behaviours over others, and the systems that get passed on are the ones that, on average, lead to the better outcomes.
So, there's no reproductive benefit to the crow in looking after a kitten. It's a waste of time and resources. The drives which made it do so, however, are the same as those that led the crows parents to survive and raise a healthy chick. It's not an instinct that's been risen above; merely one that's been misdirected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by GDR, posted 09-15-2010 11:42 AM GDR has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024