Can Animals Feel Emotions?

AegeriAegeri Join Date: 2003-02-13 Member: 13486Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Anthropomorphism or Emotions?</div> In the current **** thread, I made a reply to CForrester that mostly concerned if animals can or cannot feel emotions like love or similar 'human' emotions. It is important in beginning this sort of debate that attributing human emotions to animals is called 'anthropomorphism'. Generally this is looked down on in the scientific community and usually fairly so.

I really do not think that you can attribute human emotions to an animals responces to various stimuli. For example, ants do not build a hive because they are scared or cold, they do so because it enhances their ability to survive. They show no abstract though or similar however (individual ants do not paint or similar in their own spare time, if ants HAVE spare time that is).

In particular, this came about because people often try and use what happens in the 'natural' world to justify human actions. For example homosexuality is rarely observed in animals (only some), and is often used to try and prove that it shouldn't be right to do so in humans. By the same token, an animal defending it's young is seen as 'caring' or 'valiant', which really isn't the case in the end as it's simply protecting it's genes and energy investment.

My responce to CForrester from the previous thread is included both to start this discussion, and so that I can carry on debating this with him without cluttering the other thread. I replied to him when he replied to someone else incidently, his initial responce isn't to me.

CForrester.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're assuming that we're smarter than other animals and that all animals are stupid. Yes, they act on instinct, but they also reason and understand.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well... that depends, what are you going to qualify as 'reasoning and understanding'? When talking about animals, many behaviours, such as altruism for example, have direct consequences on their ability to reproduce. It isn't like they are truely demonstrating intelligence, feelings or whatever, it is usually due to the fact they are propagating their genes in the optimal way. For example, ants use a fungus that produces an antibiotic to keep mould from growing on their food fungus farm (or is it the other way around O_o...). Is this intelligence? No, probably not. It is unlikely that the ants deliberately discovered the antibiotic reistant fungus, and probably picked it up from natural fungus growing in their farms. Colonies that developed a symbiotic relationship did better than those that didn't and the rest is history. It isn't really the same thing as what we do with GE bacteria for example or with other biological controls we do.

As for a sponge, care to make any logical sounding argument that a sponge or jellyfish can reason or understand? Or are we going to conveniently confine the definition of 'animal' to higher vertebrates? Now that I think of it, care to provide an invertebrate example of reasoning and understanding?

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not saying that we're "no better" than  dogs when it comes to sex. I'm just saying that sex has more than one reason other than procreation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

But hold on, dogs only breed due to signals from a female at certain times of the year. This is all programmed in animals so that they breed at times where conditions are BEST to rear offspring. There isn't some sort of logic behind that other than it is the best time to do it. Animals don't have sex to affirm a relationship or bond, because most don't have that to begin with (including pack/herd animals like wolves and baboons), it's simply all about genes.

Humans are different in that respect and is why we shouldn't be comparing the likes of homosexual behaviours in humans to animals.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also for pleasure and expressing love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Love is a human emotion, and you really can't apply human emotions onto animals.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->(Saying that other animals don't love is just ignorant)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Or just good biological science.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Animals love, too.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I disagree and would bet that you'd have a massively difficult time giving a SINGLE example of an insect demonstrating 'love'. Every time you'd have to come up with far fetched vertebrate examples (which would boil back down to genes) or redefine animal to suit your premise.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, I've got a problem with beastiality (Having sex with another species purely for the sex, against the animal's will) but see nothing wrong with zoophilia. (Having sex with another species because you love the animal, and because it loves you)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would support neither, and the second one is just completely wrong on so many levels.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, saying that other animals do not love is just an ignorant statement. That's like saying that humans don't have a killing instinct, or a "Fight or Flight" instict.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hold on, no it isn't. You are comparing an undefined term to those that are in fact biologically built in (and we can see why). The flight or fight responce is actually based off hormonal levels and rapid physiological changes that occur over a very short period. Many chordates (such as mammals) express these kinds of systems. Trying to argue (as you are) that a lion loves it's cubs or a bird its chicks IS totally silly.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Homosexuality isn't a choice.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I would tend to agree, because I think there is a firm psychological or genetic basis in it somewhere. But this is not 100% known for certain, it could be a choice, we don't know yet. Of course, if you know the answer you could win a nobel prize in psychology for revealing it (scientifically).

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You're assuming that sex is ONLY for procreation (having children) but it's not. It's also for pleasure and to express love.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Exactly, in humans this is exactly true because we're not really like other animals in this respect. Whereas in most animals sex is simply a desire to spread genes, in us it's uniquely different partly because we can breed all year around. The only other animal that has sex for pleasure is in fact...dolphins. I suppose you could attempt to argue that certain kinds of monkeys (bonobos) do as well, but that is less conclusive.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you aren't saying that they shouldn't be allowed to have sex or be in love. I'm saying that it is normal, just like heterosexual sex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well it depends sorta on who you are wanting to talk to. Certainly attraction to members of your own sex occurs throughout many different animals, monkeys, apes, dogs and possibly dolphins engage in a bit of homosexual conduct. The difference comes down to the fact that homosexuality is death to ones particular genes in 'animal' populations and not really in human ones (Two words: Sperm Bank or Egg Donor). This makes the situation different on a biological level, especially considering that **** couples CAN have children via rather 'unnatural' means.

In addition, for **** men, going the anal route is usually very damagine to anal tissues and is why AIDs was so prevalent in **** male populations. No condoms, and massive tissue damage allows the virus to get in extremely easily. It doesn't take a lot of investigation to reveal that human anuses aren't designed for having a sausage stuck up them.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's obvious that I'm not going to convince you, but I want to get this clear in your head: Just because you think that it isn't normal doesn't make it true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Very true.

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no such thing as a "normal" animal, either. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Depends, according to vegetarians, animal rights activists etc I've ever argued with the only animals that exist are chordates :/ Insects are never considered, cephalopods unimportant and sponges don't exist. But yes, I'd agree there is no such thing as a normal animal, but there are normal biological behaviours observed right throughout the animal kingdom right up to humans.
«1

Comments

  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    I'm going to define animal, for this post at least, as a dog:

    One thing I'd like to point out is the relationship formed between a dog and its master(s), but I suppose that could also be explained biologically: the dog understands that the master provides, and thus wants him/her to keep on providing. But that means the dog can and does reason/understand. If it can reason and understand, then it maybe it knows that giving back affection would get it more affection in return.

    Isn't that what love is? A sacrifice of self in hopes of a return gesture? If we agree, then the dog is, in fact, loving in the hope of being loved in return.
  • EvisceratorEviscerator Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
    Well since we cannot understand what's really going on in the brains of other species, we can only observe their actions and make conclusions about what we think (as just another animal) how their actions relate to our own. Humans have come about through evolution. It seems logical that if we feel emotions, at least some other species should also feel emotions... in particular those that are most closely related to us. Perhaps not to the same degree, and most likely not as many as we do, but at least a few emotions. Proving this so all people would agree with it seems to be a daunting, if not impossible, task.

    The trouble is in understanding whether feeling emotions is a beneficial trait (one that survived because of natural selection) or whether feeling emotions is just a cool -but not beneficial- side-effect to something else... like a larger, self-aware brain. You could argue that humans only have emotions because of natural selection, therefore they are not a "gift" but rather a necessity for our gene survival. In today's society, a whole slew of biological traits have become essentially useless now that we dominate the planet and have grown fat on our own excesses. Perhaps this is why humans are so want to express their array of emotions every chance they can... they don't have a survival need for them anymore, so they use their emotions in other places, even those where they do not belong. Humans invent situations that cause false emotional reactions. One look at our entertainment industry will give you plenty of ammunition for this argument. Hollywood drafts stories that will very deliberately evoke an emotional response. People get so wrapped up in these "false" emotions that they sit their butt down in front of a television for hours on end every night just to watch a series of staged actors express their emotions on a little picture tube. This certainly isn't beneficial to our survival... it seems to me that emotions are a side effect and not something beneficial.

    So we're left with analyzing the experiments done on other animals, and our observations of animals in nature. Elephants have been observed in nature to partake in strange behavior following the death of a member of their herd. They shed tears. They attempt to bury the deceased by covering it with leaves and branches. They hover around the deceased for long durations, long after the animal actually died. This appears to be an act of mourning. Mourning is an emotional reaction to the death of another elephant. This implies that there are strong relationships between members of a herd. One could argue that a mother elephant mourning its recently deceased child for days on end is an act of a mother who loved its child and felt compassion for it. I don't think there is any benefit to the mother for mourning its dead child. The "gene survival" trait would have that mother going out and finding its mate so it could try again.

    Some animals are self-aware. Chimpanzees and orangutans exhibit this trait conclusively. Other animals, such as dolphins and monkeys, also exhibit self-awareness, although these have not been proven unambiguously. It seems logical to me that if chimpanzees and orangutans are self-aware, then they probably have other traits that humans have long thought were only attributable to themselves. Young chimpanzees play with each other much like human children play with each other. They run around chasing each other like kids at a playground. This does not appear to be a trait that is beneficial to the species; it appears to be chimps expressing a simple emotion: joy. They just want to have fun.

    I think a whole host of animals have, feel, and express emotions. They may not do it to the same degree as humans, nor are they capable of communicating what they feel to another species (IE humans,) however that does not mean they don't have them. We only look to compare ourselves to other animals. This is human arrogance. If another animal exhibits exactly the same responses to a given set of circumstances as a human, we could say they have the same feelings. This is trying to prove anthropomorphism, and going that route isn't a valid stance on the argument. Instead, we should look at actions that have no beneficial quality to them.
    I wonder if chimpanzees sit around and think about whether humans are capable of feeling emotions.
  • BeastBeast Armonkyi Join Date: 2003-04-21 Member: 15731Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
    I wonder if chimpanzees sit around and think about whether humans are capable of feeling emotions.
    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    That has to be one of the most intelligent things I have seen written on this subject, and it pretty much sums up exactly what I think.
  • VenmochVenmoch Join Date: 2002-08-07 Member: 1093Members
    Has any one of you seen an ill dog? They certainly don't look happy, in fact I'd go as far as they feel unhappy. Same as a dog can feel fear and happiness. Sure it may have been programmed to feel some feelings but hell as a dog owner I'd go as far as saying Dogs do fell emotion.
  • ZigZig ...I am Captain Planet&#33; Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
    for a second i thought this was gonna be a furry testimony.

    thank jesus it's otherwise.


    anyway. in regards to the locked wolf extermination topic, i do not see why ANY of you have problems with the improvement of the ecosystem.

    regardless of who F***ED IT UP (US, DUH, DON'T TELL ME THAT)


    it needs to be FIXED.

    thus, we're FIXING it.
  • Smoke_NovaSmoke_Nova Join Date: 2002-11-15 Member: 8697Members
    Well, on the Wolfrivals forum, I posted something about my cat's, which I will say here:

    I have three cat's, Bobby, Kitten and Smudge. Now, Bobby is the newcomer into the family, and thus the other cats are a little hostile. Now, i've had Kitten since pretty much the middle of 10th grade. She is a small stumpy cat, a kitten for her entire life. Now Smudge is a full-grown cat and also the mother of Kitten. Now, we had them both spayed/neutered (which ever goes for females), same with Bobby (boy was he **** at us). Now, Kitten and Smudge, being mother & daughter, sometimes share one of the big cat bed's we have lying around the house. They sleep wrapped up in each other. It is not neccesary for them to do that, because the house is heated and there are no dangers yet they still do it. Why? I think because they have some kind of emotional attachment that let's them feel close enough to do that.

    Now, Kitten was my little snuggly, as in she'd curl up behind my knee's when I went to sleep at night. She did this off and on for the better part of 2 years. Again, heated house, lots of sleeping space but she CHOSE to sleep in the human bed. Why? Because I feed her once a day every day? By the time she curls up it's long past her eating time. I think she formed some sort of emotional attachment. Now, I left for college a few months ago, and I come home every once in a while to find my bed covered in little gray Kitten & Smudge hairs. Since I got rid of my old bed and have a new one that I haven't used, they refused to sleep upstairs. Instead they sleep in the basement, on the bed-sheet-cover-thingy that was on my old bed. Kitten will follow me upstairs when I come home, eat, and then sleep near me, and if I leave the house she goes downstairs and sleeps on the cover-thingy. Why? I no longer feed her, I no longer protect her. I like to think that it is because she feels some sort of emotional attachment to me.
  • TrevelyanTrevelyan Join Date: 2003-03-23 Member: 14834Members
    I said it once... i will say it again... untill the animals complain about the testing done to them, TEST AWAY!!!
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    I'd like to offer something related to Smoke Nova's story, just to provide a little material for discussion:
    My father and a few mates of his were on a rowing trip. They'd maken landfall late in the afternoon near a house in the middle of nowhere, and had been given permission to camp on the lawn outside. In the middle of the night my dad awakes from a nightmare to find a cat sleeping on his stomach (he was in a sleeping bag, the cat was on top). He throws the cat out and doublechecks that the tent is properly zipped up, then goes back to sleep. Later, he wakes up from yet another nightmare to find the cat sleeping on his stomach <i>again</i>. He throws the cat out, then discovers the hole between outer tent and bottom that the cat used to get in through. He puts a backpack in front of the hole to block it, then goes back to sleep.
    Thing is, this cat didn't know my dad from anywhere, so it certainly couldn't have any emotional attachment to him. In my experience, cats will always choose the warmest place to sleep, and in this case, that was on top of my father's sleeping bag.
  • BaconTheoryBaconTheory Join Date: 2003-09-06 Member: 20615Members
    I think that Animals can feel emotions.

    We cannot and possibly might never be able to understand animal' thoughts and feelings. Even if we did, I wonder how much that would change people's perspective on animal treatment.

    However, (this may sound very childish) that through modern technology and pharmecutecals that animals could become very intelligent and eventually be able to speak like parrots. I know thats highly unlikey but at the rate our technology is going, anything seems possible.

    Reffering to my above argument, if the animals became just as smart as humans, our maltreatment of animals could lead them to negative thoughts on us, and the desire to hurt us. To make us pay for all of their sacrafices so to speak.

    So yes, I think animals can feel emotions and we should never underestimate what an animal is capable of (even the smallest ones).
  • SirusSirus Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    Just in relation to the question at hand... yes, I believe animals can feel emotions. I couldn't define them, maybe they're not similar to human emotions but regardless, I'm sure there are defined emotions that they feel.

    At least in reference to most animals, although probably not insects, but I honestly believe that mother's love their babies. If you have every observed at least a mammal and their offspring there is definetly some emotions that are less than primal.
  • CommunistWithAGunCommunistWithAGun Local Propaganda Guy Join Date: 2003-04-30 Member: 15953Members
    One would have to be pretty ignorant to think they don't...Why does a dog lick you and jump all over you after being without you for hours? Geez! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
  • ZigZig ...I am Captain Planet&#33; Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
    wow, i was so angry with the wolf thing that i forgot to answer the question of this post.

    well, very many animals do feel emotions. we all know that.


    my example: i live in CA now, lived in NY until '99.

    my best friend there has a really great dog, and i'm like, the dog's best best friend outside its little family. it's trained so frickin well it's crazy... consider: went to obedience school until it passed with high honors (for lil puppers) but, at about 4 years old now, she still hangs out there and acts as an authority figure for the puppies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->

    so, with all her supertraining, one thing she knows not to do is to pee anywhere but a small dirt plot in their backyard.

    she hadn't seen me in a year, and i visited my buddy's house..

    and she barked as she ran at me (infraction 1) peed across the whole hall (infraction 2) jumped on me (infraction 3) and continued her peeing (infraction 4).

    conclusion: emotions = yes.
  • SirusSirus Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8466Members, NS1 Playtester, Constellation
    In addition, at least from a Biblical perspective you surely have a tie between emotions of animals and humans. Humanity was to be the care takers of the animals. I think in many cases, especially Zigs, that it's evidence of that. Animals have a interesting bond with Humans. I don't think you could have domesticated animals if that wasn't true.
  • ZigZig ...I am Captain Planet&#33; Join Date: 2002-10-23 Member: 1576Members
    si.

    a horse doesn't draw a carriage obediently because of some sort of "hive mind" instinct..

    =P
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    edited November 2003
    Many behaviors of many species can be explained using instinct theories. For instance, many scientists believe that "Love" is designed, biologically, to get two humans together, breed, and to keep them together until the child is old enough to fend for itself. In the wild, it is assumed that a child can fend for itself (and we're talking, cavemen times) at about the age of five. Well, it can't take on a grizzly bear, but it can pull it's weight in the tribe, and it doesn't need to be carried every where. This is why, scientists believe, a lot of marriages split up at around this time, because the parents no longer have a "need" to stay together.

    The same thing can be said of the way dogs react when their "masters" (i hate that word, i don't think i "own" my dog, he is part of the family) come home. Dogs are domesticated wolves, and wolves roam in packs. Wolves have been observed displaying similar behaviour when they have been split from the pack, and have then rejoined it (bouncing around, yelping, wanting to run etc). To a wolf (or a dog), being alone is dangerous, but being in the pack is safe.

    That said, i have to say, my animals display things that i cannot easily explain. For instance, one of my cats (i have7) is very jealous of my dog, and vice versa. What i mean is, if you start to stroke either of them, the other one will come over and try to knock the other one away, so they can be stroked. They are very jealous of each other.

    My dog will sulk, if he knows he has done something wrong (i.e, **** in the house or something). he goes and sits in a corner, facing the wall, turns the puppy dog eyes on and looks at you all sad.

    One of my cats thinks it's a dog. It was taken from it's mother at a far too early age (not us, we took it from the person who had taken it from it's mother), and was then kept in a flat (about 14th story), so it had no interaction with other animals. When we bought it into my house, my dog (Shadow) seemed a bit suspicious of him, and started sniffing around. now, cats are generally scared of dogs, but this cat (Toby) actually attacked my dog, and to be frank, my dog is now terrified of this cat. If he needs to get out of the room, but Toby is sitting in the doorway, he waits until one of us comes and moves Toby. He will actively run away from him.
    Toby knows this, and he enjoys it. He will walk up to the dog (and the dog pretends that he's not there, literally, he'll look the other way and close his eyes), and Toby will tap him on the nose, and Shadow will run upstairs and hide on my bed.

    Gizmo (another cat) is....retarded. She is simply not mentally competant. She is slow witted, makes strange mistakes, is very clumsy, and reacts very strangely to being stroked (she sort of freezes, arches her back down, puts her tail out horizontally and purrs) and often forgets things (like who i am, for instance. some days she'll jump up on me, others she'll run at the sight of me). But she seems to know it too, she gets upset by the fact she can't keep up with the other cats, and seems embarrased when we laugh as she does something a big foolish (like gambole into a wall). She has had one litter of kittens, but because of her... mental capacity, they all died. And it was very, very sad, because she kept loking for them, and coming to me crying out, and then making me follow her to where she last left them.
    The same, in fact, goes to all my cats. Most of my cats have lost at least one kitten at some point, and they are very, very upset by the whole thing. They will come to us to try and help them find them, and cry for days when they know they're dead.

    On the other hand, my cats are very proud of any and all kittens they have. Cats, generally, try and keep their kittens hid away from the world. But our cats, once the kittens are about 2 weeks (EDIT: WEEKS! not years, weeks!) old, actually bought them to us, dropped them at our feet (or in our hand if we put it to the floor) and sat there, smiling and purring. Very, very strange. An animal acting on survival instincts would NOT place it's offspring in the hands of a much larger creature.

    When i was a baby, the dog my parents had at the time looked after me as if I was it's puppy. She didn't try to suckle me or anything, but she'd curl up next to me, let me lean on her, helped me learn to walk and so on (without so much as a bark or a whimper). If i started to cry, she'd start whimpering and act all sad, but try and cheer me up. I've seen pictures and videos of it too, very touching. She also met a very, very violent end for anyone who is interested. A pack of about 10 dogs tore her literally to pieces in my back garden. Luckily, i never saw it happen, but i know it did happen.

    Shadow is also strange in many other ways. He is, quite basically, a big coward. Unless it comes to defending me or others from attack. He will run off from a squeek toy (he'll pick it up, but once it squeeks, he runs off), yet he'll defend me from being attacked by anything. But, this can be explained by the fact dogs/wolves belong in a pack, and defend each other, and he sees our family as his pack, i suppose.

    Cats also enjoy being stroked. I don't think dogs do... i think dogs tolerate being stroked because they think it's what we, the leaders of the pack, want. They also roll over and show their stomachs, a sign of obedience and submission in a wolf pack (basically letting us know that he knows we're the boss). But cats.... cats let you know if they don't like something. Wild cats (not like, Lions or anything) tend to be individual creatures. yet a domestic cat will not only jump up onto your lap without being called, it will also demand to be "fussed" and stroked. I actually have a cat that, once you start stroking her, she won't let you move your hand away. She puts her paw on your hand and digs her claws in until you start stroking her again. This, to me, has to show that they are getting pleasure off this, which surely can't be a base instinct.

    Anyway, just a few things i've noticed from my pets.
  • DarkDudeDarkDude Join Date: 2003-08-06 Member: 19088Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Nov 24 2003, 10:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Nov 24 2003, 10:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Or just good biological science.
    <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Doesn't seem like good <i>practical</i> sense to me. Forget what the scientists tell you, most like to put the human race on a plateau of supremacy.

    I mean, come on. Dogs DO mourn for the deaths of other pack members. (I have seen videos of this, a dog whimpering over the body of its dead mate) Why do they do this, it gains nothing for them, yet they still do it, just like humans.

    While I agree that animals don't feel <i>human</i> emotions, saying they don't feel emotions at all is nonsense. The proof is there and so far no answer any of you skeptics have put forth has answered the REAL question, why? Why do dogs mourn over their fallen mates, why do elephants make sure predators don't defile they're dead friends, and most of all, why CAN'T animals have emotions, where is your proof? You've given all this science mumbo-jumbo but you have no real life situations that prove your point. (save the ants, which aren't mammals so why are you putting them into this conversation?)

    Last of all, stop putting humans above all of these other animals. Given the choice between an animals life and a humans, of course I would pick the human, but when you say that love is for enhancing the genes of an animal and is it not an emotion, then you're saying the same for humans; that love isn't an emotion.
  • ImmacolataImmacolata Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    edited November 2003
    I think animals (at least mammals but who knows for other species) and humans do not differ in whether they have emotions. You can see a dog become scared, become very happy, become angry. That is emotions. We have the same emotions. Love, also an emotion, can ofcourse be felt by a dog, if you by love mean affection for another dog. Do not mistake this as romantic love, but a more down-to-earth type of emotion that can be explained from a theory of a species survival. Nature has shown us that society is the strongest force of animals. Society is all about making a safe place for our offspring. In a dog pack it is divided by scientists into alpha couple, the rest and the omega dog. But total, the pack is a social unit, and their unity makes it safer for their puppies thus increasing the odds of keeping the genes flowing. Love is then a mechanical 'instrument" that fosters basic society building.

    You could view all of these emotions as mechanical, as a way of the dogs inbred mental patterns. Emotions are mental reactions to cognitive input. They are very fundamental to the way dogs operate. And so with us, we are also guided by emotions and they are as well mechanical to us, ie. they are part of our mental patterns of behaviour.

    Where I believe humans and dogs differ is on the level of rationality. We've managed to program our very programmable brains into thinking abstract thoughts and making strange calculations about immaterial things. As well as REFLECT upon our emotions. You cannot deny a feeling, but you can reflect upon it, ask yourself why you are having this feeling, and act counter to them or allow them to run their course. I am not sure if dogs can master that. That is where the big difference lies.

    This brings me to a point that I have seen made by scientists: that dogs do not have feelings for people, they have mechanically calculated reactions designed to optimize the benefit they can reap from being near humans. As if the dog is a calculating machine. And I believe it is bollocks. That is no more the case than a man and a woman being together for cynical, selfish purposes. It acts counter to the social unity, and if you have a dog, you can bet that it tries to fit you into it's own social unit "hardware", the pack. It treats you like a dog, one that it needs and likes, and we can treat dogs likewise because we both have the same fundamental emotions built in.

    Typically a human tries to fit the dog into a social unit defined by our own social configuration. I bet you've all seen ladies fuss over their pampered dogs - this is the dog fit in as a child that needs care as our children do - oblivious to what the dog R EALLY needs. Luckily, those needs are largely overlapping. Other times you see dogs treated as a brother, or loyal subordinate. This is typical of the hunting dog. A man has the dog for a purpose of utility. That does not mean he does not love his dog. But the roles are defined differently. And yet again, the dog tries to fit the human into it's own social configuration. This makes it possible to train the dog to do things for the human, since the dog will as best as it can do, contribute to the pack. The human focuses the dogs instincts for hunting, social conformity and protection into being a retriever of shot down birds, for instance.

    We cannot communicate with dogs as we communicate verbally with humans. But we can communicate on a, lets call it "hardware" level, ie. by speaking the language of basic emotions. Sometimes it's just a question of deciphering what signals the dog conveys to express it's emotions, and they should be no big secret to anyone. And sometimes we can see the limits of the dog's hardware. There are just things it cannot express or emotions we have, that we cannot convey meaningfully to the dog.

    So next time, if someone tries to tell you that your dog does not have human emotions and that if you treat them like humans it is a disgrace to the dog as well as to you - well, tell them that you beg to differ. In large parts our emotions and desire for being in well defines social units is working VERY well together. There are some differences, which you would do best to learn about and be able to notice, but overall, humans and dogs have gotten along so well for so long due to these compatibilities.
  • zoobyzooby Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
    edited November 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Doesn't seem like good practical sense to me. Forget what the scientists tell you, most like to put the human race on a plateau of supremacy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Practical Sense? Practical sense dictates that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, good job there.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I mean, come on. Dogs DO mourn for the deaths of other pack members. (I have seen videos of this, a dog whimpering over the body of its dead mate) Why do they do this, it gains nothing for them, yet they still do it, just like humans. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Dogs whimper over the body of a dead pack member. Whether is a 'programmed' reaction or a true reaction to grief is NOT clear. Just because you <i>conclude</i> something from inconclusive evidence does NOT mean that you are correct. E.G. are you sure that this pack member has been around for the entire life of the mourning dog? No. Therefore, what you concluded is wrong.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Last of all, stop putting humans above all of these other animals. Given the choice between an animals life and a humans, of course I would pick the human, but when you say that love is for enhancing the genes of an animal and is it not an emotion, then you're saying the same for humans; that love isn't an emotion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Anyway a reaction to any stimulus (appearing sad, etc) is simply a state of being that has a human-created word associated with it. Love is simply a feeling you think you feel for the perservation of the genes that are close to you. Whether that be a erotic or brotherly, it's essentially all the same. Emotion? Ha! it don't exist.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You've given all this science mumbo-jumbo but you have no real life situations that prove your point.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Neither do you, I tend to believe what aegeri said here (logical) as opposed to what you say (speculative in essence)

    Certain birds will roll their eggs back to their nest. But if you put a soccer ball there, the bird will roll that back to. According to your argument, the bird loves the soccer ball as a child!

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Last of all, stop putting humans above all of these other animals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Why not? We're the ones here speculating, we're the ones who adapted the world to ourselves, we can think, we can make things, we can improve <i>without</i> any kind of evolutionary force.

    [edit]friggin tags[/edit]
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--zooby+Nov 24 2003, 11:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (zooby @ Nov 24 2003, 11:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why not? We're the ones here speculating, we're the ones who adapted the world to ourselves, we can think, we can make things, we can improve <i>without</i> any kind of evolutionary force.

    [edit]friggin tags[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Yeah, but we're also the ones who have to worry about the way we're changing the world, the way that, unless we change our ways <b>now</b>, there probably won't even be a world in another 100 years, and we're the ones who find it necessary to get into arguments/discussions about whether we are superior to other creatures. They live their lives, fitting in with the environment, rather than making the environment fit us. That is true evolution. Not making it so we can live a good life, but only for a few hundred years before it all goes **** up, but evolving so we are in a perfect equilibrium with our environment.

    You countered almost every point with "You have no proof", but the fact is, neither do you.

    When you get down into the grit of it, we are animals. Not humans, we are animals. As animals, it is our biological duty to pass on our genes by mating. Emotions help us survive long enough to actually do so. Fear gets us away from trouble, anger gives us an edge in a life threatening situation, love makes us attracted to a partner so we can actually reproduce in the first place... All emotions are designed to keep us alive so we can reproduce. The fact that being in love makes you happy? Irrelevant, that's the whole point of it: To make you want to reproduce. It's also why sex is pleasurable, to make us want to do it more often. Again, the fact that we as a species have evolved to the point where we can have sex for pleasure is irrelevant.

    If all these hormonal and chemical "emotions" exist in our body just to make us survive and reproduce, i think it's a safe bet that they exist in other creatures do.
  • zoobyzooby Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--X_Stickman+Nov 24 2003, 07:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X_Stickman @ Nov 24 2003, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yeah, but we're also the ones who have to worry about the way we're changing the world, the way that, unless we change our ways <b>now</b>, there probably won't even be a world in another 100 years, and we're the ones who find it necessary to get into arguments/discussions about whether we are superior to other creatures. They live their lives, fitting in with the environment, rather than making the environment fit us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    One word: natural selection. We (and they) either find a way to survive or die. That's really it.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is true evolution. Not making it so we can live a good life, but only for a few hundred years before it all goes **** up, but evolving so we are in a perfect equilibrium with our environment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    lol name ONE species that has ever been in perfect equilibrium with the environment, cuz there isn't one and there won't be one.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You countered almost every point with "You have no proof", but the fact is, neither do you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The thing is, that's all I need to do.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If all these hormonal and chemical "emotions" exist in our body just to make us survive and reproduce, i think it's a safe bet that they exist in other creatures do.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Yup. That's where i disagree w/ the creator of this thread.
    Aegeri you're wrong. No one really has emotions! EMOTIONS ARE A LIE!!! A LIE!
  • DarkDudeDarkDude Join Date: 2003-08-06 Member: 19088Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--zooby+Nov 24 2003, 06:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (zooby @ Nov 24 2003, 06:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Practical Sense? Practical sense dictates that heavy objects fall faster than lighter objects, good job there.

    <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    That's <i>physical</i> sense you're talking about, not practical. I don't know if you don't understand exactly what practical means ( <a href='http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Practical' target='_blank'>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Practical</a> ) or if you just mistook it for physical but whatever.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Dogs whimper over the body of a dead pack member. Whether is a 'programmed' reaction or a true reaction to grief is NOT clear. Just because you conclude something from inconclusive evidence does NOT mean that you are correct. E.G. are you sure that this pack member has been around for the entire life of the mourning dog? No. Therefore, what you concluded is wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    What I concluded was wrong? No, in fact, I never made any conclusion at all in that paragraph. I simply stated that dogs mourn over the deaths of fellow pack members, which is a proven fact. Whether they are feeling despair, loss, and loneliness, <i>I don't know</i>, but I think evidence would point that way because they are getting no personal gain out of mourning, why would that be programed into their brains?

    Also, what difference would it make if the dogs haven't been around each other for that long? That is probably the most nonsensical conclusion (yes conclusion, you took that non-important piece of information and somehow turned it into your own conclusion, wow, the irony) I have heard yet. I can love a person I've only known for a couple days, who are you to say that a dog can't, I'm not saying they can, but you're breaking your own rules there.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway a reaction to any stimulus (appearing sad, etc) is simply a state of being that has a human-created word associated with it. Love is simply a feeling you think you feel for the perservation of the genes that are close to you. Whether that be a erotic or brotherly, it's essentially all the same. Emotion? Ha! it don't exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I have to agree with you here, we can't define the emotions we feel with words.

    I love my dog, and IMO, she loves me back. Some may say she loves me for the food, but here's an example. I leave my dog with somebody I trust because I will be gone, I tell them to feed her wet food and human food instead of dry food because she is on vacation. I come back in a week, enter the door, my dog sees me and comes running right up to me. Why would she do that if I give her food she doesn't like and my friend feeds her well? This has happened and I think it shows not only that dogs can label a with b but that they also have some form of love in their minds, maybe it shouldn't be called love, but it's there.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Neither do you, I tend to believe what aegeri said here (logical) as opposed to what you say (speculative in essence)

    Certain birds will roll their eggs back to their nest. But if you put a soccer ball there, the bird will roll that back to. According to your argument, the bird loves the soccer ball as a child!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Didn't I mention that I was talking about <i>mammals</i>? I don't really give birds as much credit as I do mammals because I still think that they DO live off of instict, I only believe higher level mammals have emotions.

    Maybe you should read back thorugh my post also, I gave two examples of my theories and I could provide more if that's needed? All I have heard from the other side is non-proven science. My theories may be non-proven but that doesn't mean that they are wrong, does it? You seem to think that way though, who are you to say what I concluded is wrong after you flame me for making a conclusion period. Hypocrisy is a bad thing and it really ticks me off sometimes.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why not? We're the ones here speculating, we're the ones who adapted the world to ourselves, we can think, we can make things, we can improve without any kind of evolutionary force.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I don't think you understood what I meant there, I'm talking about emotions, not about how we think. I'm talking about how you science guys want to boil everything down to "Bah! That's just some programed response!" Well, if you do boil it down to that, then how can we say that what we feel ARE emotions and not just some programed responses? Yes we can think, and so can animals, animals can make things, can adapt the world to themselves, maybe on a lesser scale, but they can.
  • X_StickmanX_Stickman Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--zooby+Nov 25 2003, 12:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (zooby @ Nov 25 2003, 12:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That is true evolution. Not making it so we can live a good life, but only for a few hundred years before it all goes **** up, but evolving so we are in a perfect equilibrium with our environment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    lol name ONE species that has ever been in perfect equilibrium with the environment, cuz there isn't one and there won't be one. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    I didn't mean there was one.... I was just stating, that evolving to the point where we can modify the environment is NOT the highest thing we can become. once a species is truly one with the environment, THEN they have evolved to their limits.


    Anyway, on the point of emotions... you're right. Emotions don't exist in the sense we think they are. Emotions are chemical and hormonal things in our bodies, designed to make us do one thing or another. but since we, in all our glory, have decided to call these things "Emotions", and the fact that we are mammals, and other mammals live on the same planet, put up with the same risks etc... we can pretty much safely say that, they DO have the same kind of chemicals and hormomes that we do. We call these "Emotions" in ourselves. If they exist in other animals/mammals, then they must be "Emotions" too, correct?
  • DarkDudeDarkDude Join Date: 2003-08-06 Member: 19088Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--zooby+Nov 24 2003, 07:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (zooby @ Nov 24 2003, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> lol name ONE species that has ever been in perfect equilibrium with the environment, cuz there isn't one and there won't be one.

    <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Sorry for the double post if it happens...

    Name one? I can name a thousand. Before humans arrived things were in almost perfect balence. The only mass extinctions to occur were NOT caused by egological imbalance but were caused by natural disasters. Things may not have been perfect, species might've been killed off, but trust me, the human race HAS caused one of the biggest mass extinctions recently, and at the rate we're going, it'll only get worse.
  • zoobyzooby Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Name one? I can name a thousand. Before humans arrived things were in almost perfect balence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    If your definition of perfect balance is a set of extreme values oscillating back and forth between overpopulation and extinction, then I guess you're right.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the human race HAS caused one of the biggest mass extinctions recently, and at the rate we're going, it'll only get worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    yup. well, what can you do about it? I can only think of one solution: death to all humans.
  • DarkDudeDarkDude Join Date: 2003-08-06 Member: 19088Members
    edited November 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--zooby+Nov 24 2003, 08:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (zooby @ Nov 24 2003, 08:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If your definition of perfect balance is a set of extreme values oscillating back and forth between overpopulation and extinction, then I guess you're right.

    <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Well no, but you forget that that never happened unless something caused it to. Example: A comet hits the Earth or a massive volcanic erruptions blots out the sun. Things were pretty balanced in between these mass extinctions, when the ecology got back on its feet, then another blow would come, knocking it back down. Never at any point has the balance of the Earth been throw out wildy on a long term scale because of "ecological-imbalance".


    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->yup. well, what can you do about it? I can only think of one solution: death to all humans.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    If it must be done. *grabs a gun*

    But seriously, no that's not the only solution. As we advance in technology we are going to have to blend in with the enviroment (I know that sounds insane to some of you) instead of being abnormal. It could work, we'd just have to put our minds to it NOW (which we are to some extent) and accept that it may not help things in this century or maybe even eon, but it will help the human race, the planet, and all of the animals in the long run.

    *Edit* God, I sound like a hippy, oh shiz. *Edit*
  • zoobyzooby Join Date: 2003-08-26 Member: 20236Members
    Populations <i>do</i> oscillate from near-extinction to near over population. For example, say one year the spring is great. So lots of rabbits survive and are running around eating grass (or whatever they eat) Thus, the fox population will increase in response to the sudden abundance of rabbits. As the fox population becomes too great, the rabbit population sharply declines due to their being eaten. As the rabbit population almost hits zero, the fox population also goes down due to starvation, disease, etc.

    Another example is when a population of deer were introduced to an island. There were about twenty deer at the start, after twenty years, the population hit around 600 and then the next few years, the population dropped down to six.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It could work, we'd just have to put our minds to it NOW (which we are to some extent) and accept that it may not help things in this century or maybe even eon, but it will help the human race, the planet, and all of the animals in the long run.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    What if it were too expensive, and moving to Mars or something was a lot cheaper by the time we had the technology to do as you described?

    Ok wow total hijacking there. Feel free to disregard this post.
  • DarkDudeDarkDude Join Date: 2003-08-06 Member: 19088Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--zooby+Nov 24 2003, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (zooby @ Nov 24 2003, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Populations <i>do</i> oscillate from near-extinction to near over population. For example, say one year the spring is great. So lots of rabbits survive and are running around eating grass (or whatever they eat) Thus, the fox population will increase in response to the sudden abundance of rabbits. As the fox population becomes too great, the rabbit population sharply declines due to their being eaten. As the rabbit population almost hits zero, the fox population also goes down due to starvation, disease, etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    That's a great example but I'm really talking about long-term stuff. Like 1,000 year cycles. That's what balance really IS though in the ecosystem. Populations oscillate and and change but in the end things tend to balance out. Of course some things are different, some animals might die out in this natural cycle, but overall, things are very balanced. (if they weren't, we would have an ecological disaster on our hands) What's happening is that humans are effecting this greatly, we are changing the cycles and not making them as regualar as they used to be, and this is where the extinctions will come into play. The direct reason the extinctions will be happening is because of the imbalance, but the cause of that imbalance is a human effect.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What if it were too expensive, and moving to Mars or something was a lot cheaper by the time we had the technology to do as you described?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Then I guess we could all go to Mars! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Sounds like fun, thought it will probably never happen in our lifetimes, it would be a hell of an adventure. There are many ways to save Earth from doom. (I really don't think we're going to doom though, things <i>will</i> change) Of course then after a couple hundred years there the complaints would start about all of the pollution, drilling for some mineral in the icecaps blah, blah blah. Wonder where we would move onto then...

    <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok wow total hijacking there. Feel free to disregard this post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    I don't think we should disregard it, but we should get back on topic. I wont post again for a little because I know I'll just take it over again with some other crazy topic. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
  • BeastBeast Armonkyi Join Date: 2003-04-21 Member: 15731Members, Constellation
    edited November 2003
    Thought I'd add some "evidence" here from my own three cats.
    I have three cats, Tashe, Amber and Ruby. All of them are very different.

    Tashe is a longhair mixed breed - she is getting on 8 years now (56 in cat years if you must know ;P). She is pretty much a "couch potato" and is not particularly "athletic". I'll cut through the usual babble on how wonderful she is, and get straight to the "evidence". When you offer her food, she will just NOT take it from your hand. She refuses. She moves her head down as if to say "put it here". She will only eat food if it is on the floor/on a plate, and then only if the peices are small enough. From a survial standpoint, this makes no sense, why does she do it?

    Amber is around 3-4 now, she is a hunter and we can guess she suppliments her food from our house with various creatures she catches from our garden. To most people, she appears to be a normal cat, however get a cardboard box, and she will jump into it and just "melt", rolling around and rubbing up against it. Why? Our best guess is it reminds her of her mother, in which case, as this not love? She does a really cute thing also when she wants something from the fridge, she "reaches out" towards what she wants. Then, when you offer it, she will -calmly- take it from your hand, trying not to hurt you. Why?

    Ruby is the youngest, at around 2 years old. She will always cry for attention if there is little going on. She has much to learn about the world it seems, and looks like she has a few screws loose. But why does she crave attention? Why does she purr when you give her attention?

    Conclusion: emotions in non-humans = Yes <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
  • That_Annoying_KidThat_Annoying_Kid Sire of Titles Join Date: 2003-03-01 Member: 14175Members, Constellation
    Sure, animals can feel emotions

    why couldnt' they
  • ImmacolataImmacolata Join Date: 2002-11-01 Member: 2140Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    We're having a discussion here, TAK, if that's all you have to contribute, then you migt tas well just be bumping posts in the Off-topic forums. Express an opinion, make an argument! Let us know the REAL annoying kid <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sign In or Register to comment.