:lol:

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

Actually, I have another thought to add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't stay away...

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

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

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

- Chad

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Agreed and well put!

Thanks Albert.

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

- Chad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Chad

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

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

Steve

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

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

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

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

greed, i think, is just another form of survival. While animals wouldn't know what to do with a bmw, food is definitly high on the list of things to horde. A dog in the manger is a good example, the dog doesn't want the grain but won't let the horse eat it either. territories are as big as can be monitered, regardless of whether the animal needs that much room or not.
And the reason predatory animals don't kill more, is because the best way to protect the food is to eat it, and the stomach can only hold so much.

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

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

Well, allow me to explain a bit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your friend

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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