Great video Paul. I've been trying to upload one of my own.
Sadistic Seagull
- Thread starter Monocrom
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
jtr1962
Flashaholic
That's exactly what I meant. Killing for self-defense has nothing to do with losing our moral compass as eating a fellow human being might, and in fact society as a rule has generally chosen to accept such killing as justified.
I tend to think this aversion to killing fellow human beings for food is something hard-wired into us, perhaps because eating certain parts of a person, notably the brain, can transmit fatal illnesses such as Kuru.
I've been reading a lot lately about simian and cetacean intelligence. Frankly, the more I read the less I feel separates us from so-called "animals". We're limited to thinking of morals and intelligence in human terms. Do we ever consider that many of our moral and intellectual constructs would be of no use whatsoever in, say, the vast water world which cetaceans inhabit (and theirs would be of little use on land)? What use would writing be in such a world? Probably none, but a vast memory which stores generations of knowledge passed on from ancestors verbally might be of great use. What use would counting be? Probably not much beyond telling if all members of a pod are accounted for. What use would a whale have for tools or technology? None as their body is already ideally suited to their environment. In short, other beings on our planet may well be as intelligent and moral for their own environment as human beings are in theirs. We just can't know one way or the other without a common frame of reference (perhaps some way to read a dolphin or whale's thoughts, or experience life in their body). Humans need science and technology and even morals (to keep the species from self-destructing over petty battles) for the simple reason that as an animal adapted to the environment we find ourselves in we're pretty pathethic. We're not particularly strong or fast or adapt at killing without tools. We can't even deal with climate extremes as well as most animals. As for good examples, a strong 10 pound housecat is more than a match for many grown men, a chimpanzee can easily defeat an olympic wrestler. But our technology and our cooperation allow us to overcome obstacles collectively which one human being could never hope to overcome alone.
It is the technology which is an outgrowth of our brain and our hands which allow us to dominate the Earth. But humans better in any way than other species? No, we're just different. Some humans, certainly not all or even a majority, ponder questions like you listed simply because technology has given them a whole lot of free time to do so (me personally I have no time or use to worry about my overall place in the scheme of things or if deities exist-it's a fruitless exercise). Maybe some animals have the ability to ask such questions as well. As I said earlier, we just have no way of knowing. I could make a good case that the planet as a whole would be better off with us gone, at least at our present state of development. If the time comes we could maybe deflect incoming asteroids or do something positive to save the planet from mass extinctions then I'll feel otherwise.
I sometimes wonder if flocks of seagulls might see us and mockingly quack "human-brain".
Diesel_Bomber
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,772
Interesting points. I did, however, cover most of them with:
Picture me shrugging. There's a lot of variability in any life form, and humans are by far the most complex. Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:
"[FONT=COMIC SANS MS,PALATINO,BOOKMAN OLD STYLE,HELVETICA,ARIAL,TIMES]It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."
:buddies:
[/FONT]
Picture me shrugging. There's a lot of variability in any life form, and humans are by far the most complex. Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote:
"[FONT=COMIC SANS MS,PALATINO,BOOKMAN OLD STYLE,HELVETICA,ARIAL,TIMES]It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."
:buddies:
[/FONT]
I find it interesting to view animal behavior and ponder if some of what I see is to some extent present in man's primal or "hardwired" behavioral tendencies or propensities. I've watched young children behave in manners more akin to animals but this is be for they learn, but what do they learn?
I mentioned the Java Finches earlier and I have had a chance to view them often and close. I do see pairs and there are obvious pairs involved with feeding chicks; theirs presumably! I have seen adults attack chicks which I assume are not of their "feather".
One day there were a number of the Java's down on the lawn. I saw one mount another and stay mounted for more than just a moment. The female got pushed down into the grass head first. When the male took flight, the female was still partially stuck in the grass. Another bird proceed to mount her, kept contact for a bit and then took off and then a third bird mounted her! When it took off, I couldn't see the female's head as it was driven down into the grass and she was almost upside down. She was wiggling her feet and legs and flapping her wings but danged if she wasn't stuck! She had no means of righting herself or getting up out of the grass. I walked down towards her and all of the other Java's took flight leaving her behind, literally. I closed my hand around here wings and legs and then pulled her out of the grass. I righted my hand and opened it and she took off.
Did the second and third bird exploit an atypical situation where the female was helpless or is this behavior more common? Do some of the Java's pair up where as others don't? The dang things all look alike which certainly doesn't help. I wonder if actual paternity is incidental to the bond of the pairs and their rearing of the chicks. I recently saw a documentary on people and their sex relationships and there were some theories being put forth on a similar line but not relating to any animal examples. What makes us tick seems still open to significant debate. That we can determine what makes other animals tick may be quite presumptuous of us!
I realize these comments are off on a tangent but yet this thread has evolved into discussion of man's behavior and attributes relative to animals.
Man's intelligence may or may not be overrated but it is really nothing more than a man contrived and defined attribute and based on our ability to communicate with each other as well as carry on thought processes beyond the here and now. We relate knowledge and learning to intelligence and yet animals possess great knowledge and an ability to learn yet may lack what we consider to be intelligence. I watch birds and lizards every day in the process of making decisions. I say this with reasonable confidence yet is intelligence required in making a decision? When I say they make decisions, by this I mean that they process information and situations around them and then choose a course of action; or not. It does seem that there is a choice for them to make and to assume that their ultimate action is inevitable without a choice being made just doesn't seem to be the case.
I would guess the psychologists and any psychiatrists among us might have some better explanations and words to consider these issues with; whether therein lies any real truth is still debatable. I seem to recall in Freud's modeling we have an Id, Ego and Super Ego. Maybe a Super Id too? At any rate, perhaps the birds and other critters don't have all of these aspects to their psyche or maybe they simply lack a psyche and we don't.
I mentioned the Java Finches earlier and I have had a chance to view them often and close. I do see pairs and there are obvious pairs involved with feeding chicks; theirs presumably! I have seen adults attack chicks which I assume are not of their "feather".
One day there were a number of the Java's down on the lawn. I saw one mount another and stay mounted for more than just a moment. The female got pushed down into the grass head first. When the male took flight, the female was still partially stuck in the grass. Another bird proceed to mount her, kept contact for a bit and then took off and then a third bird mounted her! When it took off, I couldn't see the female's head as it was driven down into the grass and she was almost upside down. She was wiggling her feet and legs and flapping her wings but danged if she wasn't stuck! She had no means of righting herself or getting up out of the grass. I walked down towards her and all of the other Java's took flight leaving her behind, literally. I closed my hand around here wings and legs and then pulled her out of the grass. I righted my hand and opened it and she took off.
Did the second and third bird exploit an atypical situation where the female was helpless or is this behavior more common? Do some of the Java's pair up where as others don't? The dang things all look alike which certainly doesn't help. I wonder if actual paternity is incidental to the bond of the pairs and their rearing of the chicks. I recently saw a documentary on people and their sex relationships and there were some theories being put forth on a similar line but not relating to any animal examples. What makes us tick seems still open to significant debate. That we can determine what makes other animals tick may be quite presumptuous of us!
I realize these comments are off on a tangent but yet this thread has evolved into discussion of man's behavior and attributes relative to animals.
Man's intelligence may or may not be overrated but it is really nothing more than a man contrived and defined attribute and based on our ability to communicate with each other as well as carry on thought processes beyond the here and now. We relate knowledge and learning to intelligence and yet animals possess great knowledge and an ability to learn yet may lack what we consider to be intelligence. I watch birds and lizards every day in the process of making decisions. I say this with reasonable confidence yet is intelligence required in making a decision? When I say they make decisions, by this I mean that they process information and situations around them and then choose a course of action; or not. It does seem that there is a choice for them to make and to assume that their ultimate action is inevitable without a choice being made just doesn't seem to be the case.
I would guess the psychologists and any psychiatrists among us might have some better explanations and words to consider these issues with; whether therein lies any real truth is still debatable. I seem to recall in Freud's modeling we have an Id, Ego and Super Ego. Maybe a Super Id too? At any rate, perhaps the birds and other critters don't have all of these aspects to their psyche or maybe they simply lack a psyche and we don't.
I don't think the idea that being hard wired against eating other humans due to the threat of contracting a disease lines up logically, simple because it's just too easy a hurdle to bypass. Certainly enough generations would have passed and enough knowledge shared, that at some point they would link that particular illness (Kuru) to eating specific portions such as the brain, therefore, you just don't eat the brain. Most cultures become very in tune with their particular diets and what parts of which things help or effect them.. For example they would learn that eating muscle tended to grow muscle, or that eating the heart, liver or eyes produced certain health benefits from a survival standpoint. The same goes for plants and specific portions of plants. The root of this tree has such and such effect, the leaves of this plant produces another effect, while the seeds in this fruit accomplish yet another needed benefit.
I would agree that the aversion to needlessly killing other human beings is hard-wired though. As someone who believes the universe was created and not just a product of physical matter, time and random chance, you can probably imagine that I strongly profess that we're hard-wired.
If we sift this discussion down to the common denominator we're eventually going to arrive at the moral argument. I happen to believe in absolute moral truths, such as, it's never morally right to torture babies. It's never morally right to buy, sell, and trade human beings. It's never morally right to kill Jews, simply because they're Jews. These moral truths exist even if no one else believes them. In other words, even if the entire human race partakes in baby torture it would still be morally wrong. Based on that premise, if some things are always wrong regardless how many people believe it's right it means that moral relativism or "society says" relativism is false and that absolute moral truth exists. That of course brings us to the question then, who is the moral lawgiver? If we in fact have a moral law written on our heart then it stands to reason that something capable of thought placed it there.
That statement itself has a problem because animals don't have morals. We don't hold them responsible for wrong actions. When an animal mauls a child and has to be euthanized, we're not doing it because it committed a crime. Likewise we don't prosecute lions for killing hyenas or even killing their own kind. We only hold human beings responsible for braking moral laws because we realize that moral law applies only to us. There is no way to think of morals in animal terms since there is no moral code they must obey.
I think all this line of thought serves to point out is that we as humans are indeed different and unique. In this case we don't need to look at the example of ocean inhabitants because we have equally intelligent land dwelling creatures with similar body structure to compare ourselves with. Primates and humans have many things in common both physically and environmentally, so why aren't primates creating objects or methods to improve the survivability of their species? Why don't they create weapons or use spears? One could almost argue that chimps have remained essentially the same for as long as they've existed. Even though outside forces are present which should be a motivating factor for change, change still doesn't happen. If our most closely related land dwelling relative, the chimp, had the same capacities as humans, it would follow that eventually we'd see other social advancements, which would positively impact their circumstances.
I think I've already diffused the written language challenge but let's assume a world without writing where all knowledge was stored only in the minds of men. It doesn't take long to reach the conclusion that the limited capacity of memory isn't sufficient for the ongoing accumulation of additional information. At some point we'd have to give up some of the old information in order to retain new information. Written language and a system of words and symbols is the only way of storing old information while at the same time gaining new. We are the only creatures who store masses of information, which can be compiled and passed to the next generation, regardless of whether it gets used or not.
I would disagree that humans "need" science or technology to prevent the species from self-destructing, either from battles or for some other unpredictable reason. I don't think that science is "needed" for our survival at any level. A person could after all survive a typical lifespan in an advantageous geographical location by eating fruit and killing lizards with nothing more than flight of foot and fingernails. You could make the communitive argument but I think it's best if we break it down to its most simple question. Can a man survive without technology? I say yes, he could indeed live like an orangutan and survive. I'm also unconvinced that morals prevent man's ultimate destruction. Actually I'm fairly sure man's poor moral choices lead to his destruction. I'm convinced that if there were only a couple of humans left on earth one could potentially kill the other if they got angry enough. This example is described in the bible when one of the only two brothers in existence managed to murder the other. This of course would be against the moral code written on their hearts but humans transgress ethical boundaries continuously.
I agree with your first sentence and the reasons that we dominate the earth. Keep in mind that hands alone couldn't do this without the mechanical intelligence of the brain, neither could the brain alone accomplish this without the hands. Neither could any of this occur without an imagination or vision to achieve. You seem to reinforce my argument (that we're indeed much different than the rest of the animals) by pointing out the uniqueness of our qualities, which allow us to dominate the earth. This is a bit hard for me to mentally track since your initial argument was that animals and humans are viturally the same. You said, "Frankly, the more I read the less I feel separates us from so-called "animals" but now near the end of your post you say, "But humans better in any way than other species? No, we're just different." It seems that you do acknowledge that we're different. In any case that's my over riding case is that we're not only different, we're much different.
From there you lead into the word "better" and state that we're no "better" than another species. I'd have to then know what you're definition of better is. Does better mean more brain capacity, the proper appendages to form tools and the imagination to move forth? If so then I'd say we're clearly better. Maybe by better you just mean inherent worth? If so, I would argue that human life is inherently far more valuable and thus "better" than other animals. To demonstrate that I believe most people already hold this position to be true regardless of their worldview, I'll simply ask what animal are you comparing us to? Let's start with a dolphin, are you no better than a dolphin? Perhaps we're still no better than a shark then? Maybe we're better than a dog but if not, how about a pig? So, finally we wind down to the lizard and lobster, seahorse and scallop until we find ourselves at the protozoan level. At what point does one finally have to let go of the idea that we're not any better? I think people automatically know that human life is precious and special regardless of what developmental mark or life stage we're at. An infant human is no less valuable than a great king who has brought peace and prosperity to his whole region of the world.
This can be historically proven as false. The people chronicled in ancient cultures have been asking the questions as I described long before so-called technology came about. The Romans and Greeks pondered the same philosophical questions that Jacob did thousands of years before and we're still asking the same one's today. You claim that "certainly not even the majority" entertains these questions. If that's so, what person reading this hasn't at least one time wondered what happens when we die? Which person hasn't looked up and wondered about the stars or the origins of the universe, what is it, or how long it's been there? What person hasn't wondered if they have a greater purpose in life? Very few, I suspect.
I never suggested that anyone "worried" about their overall place in the scheme of things but I did point out that humans naturally ask these sorts of questions about life, in the context that we're different from other animals. Whether young, old, or somewhere in between, these questions arise.
[FONT="]Do you really think so? How high do you think the probability of that is and at what species level do you think that quality is present or non-present? Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and we say that a dog ponders the idea of whether it's simply physical matter or if it's a soul-ish being, what level of animal no longer wonders about such things? I ask this because it's your claim that we're better than none of them. Ultimately, there is no evidence for the idea and animals ponder complex questions and I don't think any serious scholars are concluding that animals dwell upon the same philosophical quandries as human beings?
Sheesh buddy, I just woke up and you've already got be half worn out....lol. :nana:
[/FONT]
Last edited:
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Interesting thought. One way to prove or disprove your theory would be to bring up human beings in the complete absence of teaching or morals, religion, language, or anything else which might influence their behavoir. In essence, the idea here is to raise feral humans. Now if this group of humans does indeed retain an aversion to eating each other, to slavery, to torture, etc. then it's convincing evidence that these things are hard-wired into our nature, that there is indeed a moral law of sorts written into our DNA. On the other hand, if we act same as any other wild animal, then I tend to think it proves the opposite.
Here's the rub-I personally have HUGE problems with the idea of "punishing" another human being for their actions. In fact, I would refuse to serve on jury for that very reason. Punishing another human being is not something I feel I have a right to do, ever. I imagine I'm not the only one. Many reasons for this. First off, many of society's laws are willy nilly. They have little to do with morals and everything to do with outlawing whatever the majority finds distasteful at the moment. In many cases people are being punished doing everyday actions which harm nobody (i.e. jaywalking, sidewalk cycling). Second, even if some of the laws do indeed have a basis in morality (i.e. laws against homicide or rape), I don't necessarily agree with the idea of punishment. Rather, I see a person who commits these acts as a broken machine which must be either fixed, destroyed, or removed from society if all attempts to fix them fail. As such, the current ideas of determinant sentencing to prison for x years are ridiculous. My idea would be to attempt to fix the deviant, and then release them back into society once they are fixed, whether it takes one week or ten years. And if their actions caused monetary losses, then make them give financial restitution. Warehousing them in cells for decades as "punishment" serves no purpose. It's cruel and frankly immoral. And if a deviant can't be reformed because we don't yet know how, then release them to an isolated colony far from society where they can live out their lives with others of their kind. I know the idea of justice and an eye for eye goes way back. Somehow I won't consider humanity "better" until we finally get past this idea.
Here's something to consider. Some chimps did indeed evolve into humans some millions of years ago. And those who are chimps today may well have been something more primitive millions of years ago, so they evolved also, and may become human in some millions of years while humans in turn become something else (probably something resembling Roswell aliens with no hair, huge brains, and tiny frail bodies). Not all species are going to evolve to intelligence or technology in the same time frame. Some may never do so unless their bodies also evolve. Take cetaceans, for example. I personally think (although can't prove) that they possess the brain power to have evolved an advanced water-based technology. Unfortunately, whatever is going on in their minds can't be translated into reality due to the limitations of their physical bodies. But in some 10 or 100 million years, who knows? I've at times even conjectured that man wasn't the first or only technological species on Earth. There may have been others, but 100 million years of time would have wiped out every trace of their existence.
Agreed here mainly because living on land limits the size of our brains. But whales have huge brains, with only a small percentage needed to control their autonomic functions (equally large sauropods made due with a brain the size of a walnut). So what is the rest of their huge brains being used for. I'd imagine (but again can't prove) that it is for the same purpose we use writing-to store vast amounts of information, way more than a human brain ever could. Of course, I know what a sperm whale can store in its huge brain would still pale by comparison to what humans have done with writing by a few orders of magnitude.
I'll grant you this with the caveat that it is true only in certain environments. I'd like to see a person survive without technology (that includes clothing and spears) in a colder climate, or in a large desert. And yet with technology man can thrive literally anywhere, even in outer space. It really is our technology which makes us different from other terrestrial species. But in time I suspect we will encounter nonterrestrial species equally adapt at using technology, if in fact we haven't already done so.
Obviously human life is precious-especially to other humans. And so it is with many other species who take care of their own. This isn't something unique to humans. But to get to the heart of the matter, I say humans are not better because that implies a judgement call, and I don't feel I'm qualified on any level to judge one species better than another. What criteria do you use to make such a judgement? Is better to mean essential for the ecosystem? If so then many bateria and plants play essential roles, in fact pivotal roles, as they are at the bottom of the food chain. If they go, all other life follows. Does better mean protectors of other species? Sure, humans are now protecting many other species, ironically mostly from themselves. Does better mean protectors of the planet? Well, I see humans ultimately headed that way if we don't self-destruct first, but we're not there yet. Fact is our lives are intertwined with so many other species with so much interdependency it's really difficult to say one species is better than another, or more essential than another. I know I'm skirting around the question a bit, but honestly I just can't think of a good criteria for better against which to evaluate humans versus other species. But we sure are different and as far as I know unique on the Earth, no arguing with that.
Many have casually thought of those things I'm sure, but very few have actively seeked out the answers in a systematic way. That's really what I was driving at. A lot of people may be religious. Do most even have a clue at how to go about finding answers to the questions they're asking? I doubt it. From what I've seen, for most religion is simple a ritual. And for those who have been actively seeking answers for centuries, has one ever been forthcoming? At some point the pragmatist in me says that pondering the same questions over and over with no answers is fruitless. Maybe we haven't found the answers because there are none, or they're buried at a level beyond our comprehension (i.e. would an ant understand a computer?).
Interesting question. I think it's fairly safe to say a bacteria doesn't ponder such questions. An insect probably doesn't either as it's brain is just too physically small to do much beyond basic hard-wired functions. Truth is I don't know at what level animal minds become capable of pondering more than just their immediate surroundings. It doesn't necessarily correlate with brain size. But I suspect we're not the only one. Why do elephants hover around the bones of their ancestors? Are they pondering an afterlife? Not only do we not know, we're probably unable to know without a common frame of reference. We can observe all we want, and draw plausible conclusions, but those conclusions will inevitably be biased by our human perspective.
Yeah, maybe we should take a break next few days. I'm worn out now too.Sheesh buddy, I just woke up and you've already got be half worn out....lol. :nana:
[/FONT]
But interesting discussion nonetheless even if somewhat OT from the original post.I like them too. They're very intelligent. A learned that some testing places them higher at certain tasks than even chimpanzees. With entrapped food most untrained chimps are able to get and then use a tool to get to the food container. Crows and Ravens are able to get and use a tool, which allows them to retrieve and use a second tool when them lets them into the container of food. Chimps are only able to do something like this with years of training while it seems to be pretty easy for Ravens. So much for the term "bird brain" ... lol.
You'll like this video Bob.
http://www.slide.com/r/hD6DvyAOxD9ClUhvUpVcUMABW9QzpGnQ
Crows, ravens, and other members of the corvidae family (black-birds, jays, etc.) are very good problem-solvers and seem to think creatively. One story I heard from some folks in Juneau, Alaska involved ravens stealing bread from a dumpster behind a hotel. Pretty soon they got tired of eating just the bread so they started dropping pieces in a nearby stream and catching the fish as they came up to eat the bread! I would have loved to see that.
Diesel_Bomber
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2006
- Messages
- 1,772
You two have far too much time on your hands. I suppose I do too, since I actually read all that you wrote.
You've both put more thought into these matters than I. I tend to think more along the lines of survival and that the greater actions from there on out, the so-called hardwired moral code, is just an extension of the most basic survival instincts. When you're trying to propagate your species, OF COURSE it makes sense not to kill other members of your species. Why do you think cheating is so common among couples? Species are supposed to spread their genetic material as widely as possible to help keep diversity and their species alive, and the pairing of two humans for life goes against spreading genetic material widely.
These next two points might be moral code related, and I think these are yet another point that separates us from animals. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't cheat, not because some hard wired moral code tells me it's bad, but because I promised my wife I wouldn't. THAT is a moral decision and is contradictory to survival of humanity.
Point two: my wife and I don't have kids of our own, but we have Loco Parentis daughters, the daughters of two very very good friends. We spend a lot of time with them and if both of their parents should be killed then we get custody. I would cheerfully step in front of a speeding bus to save the lives of my LP daughters, knowing full well that it would end my life. The smart survival of the species choice would be to let the bus kill my daughters and then go make more kids. I know a good many things that I haven't taught them yet, and I could make more kids and teach them tese things but if I'm dead then that's not possible. If they were older and I'd taught them more then it might be different from a survival standpoint, they could continue on with what I'd taught them and learn more, adding to the knowledge and resources of the species. However, that wouldn't happen, I would make the mental choice to bypass evolution and save my girls at the expense of my life. That is also a moral choice.
Humans can make choices that don't make sense from a species survival standpoint, animals can't do that. The healthy seagull picking on the sick one was culling the flock, much the way wolves cull the herd of buffalo, by killing the slowest and most infirm. If the healthy seagull can get a meal out of it by eating his former flockmate and he's hungry then he's unlikely to pass that opportunity up.
Interesting discussion. :buddies:
You've both put more thought into these matters than I. I tend to think more along the lines of survival and that the greater actions from there on out, the so-called hardwired moral code, is just an extension of the most basic survival instincts. When you're trying to propagate your species, OF COURSE it makes sense not to kill other members of your species. Why do you think cheating is so common among couples? Species are supposed to spread their genetic material as widely as possible to help keep diversity and their species alive, and the pairing of two humans for life goes against spreading genetic material widely.
These next two points might be moral code related, and I think these are yet another point that separates us from animals. I don't cheat on my wife. I don't cheat, not because some hard wired moral code tells me it's bad, but because I promised my wife I wouldn't. THAT is a moral decision and is contradictory to survival of humanity.
Point two: my wife and I don't have kids of our own, but we have Loco Parentis daughters, the daughters of two very very good friends. We spend a lot of time with them and if both of their parents should be killed then we get custody. I would cheerfully step in front of a speeding bus to save the lives of my LP daughters, knowing full well that it would end my life. The smart survival of the species choice would be to let the bus kill my daughters and then go make more kids. I know a good many things that I haven't taught them yet, and I could make more kids and teach them tese things but if I'm dead then that's not possible. If they were older and I'd taught them more then it might be different from a survival standpoint, they could continue on with what I'd taught them and learn more, adding to the knowledge and resources of the species. However, that wouldn't happen, I would make the mental choice to bypass evolution and save my girls at the expense of my life. That is also a moral choice.
Humans can make choices that don't make sense from a species survival standpoint, animals can't do that. The healthy seagull picking on the sick one was culling the flock, much the way wolves cull the herd of buffalo, by killing the slowest and most infirm. If the healthy seagull can get a meal out of it by eating his former flockmate and he's hungry then he's unlikely to pass that opportunity up.
Interesting discussion. :buddies:
I don't agree with this statement and question how you can know about animal decision making when we have no means of communicating with them? Off the bat, one example of an animal's choice that is contrary to survival is the risk of being trapped going after food. Taking unnecessary risks would seem to be contrary to survival. A dog that goes in harms way attempting to rescue a person is contrary to its survival.
It doesn't come as a surprise really but morals have been brought into the discussion here and of course what and where is the foundation for these morals. Are they a man made concept or were there some stones carved with some rules sent down from the almighty? My point being that religion and spirituality provide a foundation for much or our notions of right and wrong.
Assuming a higher being, a god, is there any reason or evidence that the animals aren't in the know of this being or entity? Would there be a distinction based on free will; we have it and the animal kingdom doesn't?
For me, the god I suspect is manifest in nature and it is in viewing nature that I feel I have the best chance of perceiving god's presence. To suggest that that animal's behave as a result of god's will may be a tautology; especially if one isn't willing to grant them free will.
While composing this response, I have stepped away from the laptop numerous times to offer lawn roaches to 6 different anole lizards who are familiar with me and me with them. I don't know what terms apply or how to reasonably describe their actions and interaction with me but clearly, these lizards are not hard wired to trust man or seek him out for a free meal. Have they learned something? Have they opted to take a risk at that first feeding with the motivation of food simply greater than the risk of capture? Is there any sense of intelligence or process of decision making here? I can watch the eye contact go from me to the bug and then back again. I almost feel that I can sense that they are going to come in for the bug prior to their movement. Is it possible that we are communicating at some level that I certainly can't identify or articulate? What prompted me to take my eyes off the display here and look over at a particular bush and find one of these lizards looking right at me? Do the anoles sense that I mean them no harm? Do they simply come for the bug because they were successful the last time? These lizards are territorial and I have seen males fight with what could only be termed mortal combat or intent. There was one male about a month ago that was either sick or just old. It would not move out of the way and kept closing its eyes. Another male came upon it and treated it much as the gull story above. The sick or old one didn't put up any fight and ultimately I stepped down and the healthy one broke off and ran away. A while later, a mynah bird was attacking the sick/ old lizard and feeding off it.
In the story of the two gulls above, it would seem that the one has its days or even hours numbered. It has been suggested that one solution would be for intervention and euthanasia. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the attacking gull might not have been attempting to shorten the period of suffering for the unhealthy bird? Granted the attack would not seem to be painless but our interpretation of the event presumes a notion of pain and probably more significant time. We are aware of time but I do wonder if animals have a similar sense of time. It may be that the biggest difference between man and animal is the perception of time and how it relates to our existence and activities and decisions.
DB suggests that some of us have too much time on our hands. Is this the key right there? Do other animals have time on their hands, paws flippers or snouts? Are they aware of it? Animals function well with incredible timing! It may take fast shutter speeds and extreme slow motion for us to even view what they have done. They are masters of the time space continuum we live in but does that suggest they are cognitive of it or do they even need to be. I suspect our intelligence has evolved out of need and since we are self aware (possibly also an aspect of evolution and need), we place great significance on it. The whales may pity us for our lack of tails and inability to swim very well. They may place major significance on the ability to hold one's breath and control one's physiology. They may look down upon us because we have an autonomic system that is our of our control but for the very few yogis and masters.
I believe that there are an infinite number of mysteries about us and that many are simply beyond our ability to understand or fathom. I also believe that intelligence often stands in the way of knowledge and understanding. That is not to say that we can't catch glimpses and even learn more about our world or become more aware of it; perhaps on levels we can't communicate well or verbalize. :shrug:
At least the waste of time is typically no burden on land fills or a green house gas. :nana:
jtr1962
Flashaholic
Ironically, I've entered this discussion exactly because I haven't had much free time on my hands. I just needed to take a break from the tedium of building 500 regulator boards by focusing on something more interesting.
My thoughts on that are actually two fold. I do in fact feel morals are a largely man-made concept which in turn is based on the (IMO) man-made construct of religion. I've reached the latter conclusion years ago by thinking about how the human mind works. Look at our science, our technology, even to some extent our legal system. A common theme of all has been to make order or sense of apparent chaos. So too with religion. We ponder the types of questions regarding our purpose, our existence, what happens when we die, and we invent a construct to bring order to this apparent chaos. That's all I've ever thought religion was, a tool to help us understand the otherwise unfathomable, much as science helps us understand how our sun emits energy. So do animals do this? Do they have their own gods they pray to? Do they believe in an afterlife? Are their gods as real to them as ours are to us? Perhaps this is the case. As you said, we can't know without being able to communicate with them.McGizmo said:
There is no universal right or wrong, good or bad. Everything is simply as it is, ultimately insignificant. Morals, sadism, sympathy, they are all just constructs that we have created or have evolved into us to allow us to form societies, which are also but temporary. Does it matter what the atoms in my body were doing when they were in the plants and animals that I consumed? How about when they were in dinosaurs? How about when the carbon in my body was being created by fusion in stars that existed billions of years ago? When the sun eventually swallows the earth will my sins or good deeds matter? The universe will reclaim everything it has given us. It follows no moral laws.
A long time ago, I was feeding some baby duckings when a seagull swooped down, snatched one up, perched on a tree, and proceeded to peck its eyes out eventually leaving it for dead. It made one little boy sad for a brief moment in time.
A long time ago, I was feeding some baby duckings when a seagull swooped down, snatched one up, perched on a tree, and proceeded to peck its eyes out eventually leaving it for dead. It made one little boy sad for a brief moment in time.
If that were true, then why bother to go on living? Why even bother to help others who are less fortunate? Does it matter that I and my co-workers feed the stray cats on the job-site?
Perhaps it doesn't matter to the Universe or to any person working at any other place. But it matters to us. And, even if they don't realize it, it matters to the cats and kittens. All they know, at the very least, is that if they return to one particular spot near where they live... There will be food there for them to eat. I know they know at least that much because they keep coming back to the same spot. Do they know who feeds them? Do they care? Do they consider it magic that food keeps re-appearing? I don't know. But I do know it matters to them, whether they know it or not.
Seeing that sick seagull get attacked like that, it mattered to me. I'm sorry that as a young boy you weren't able to save that baby duckling. And I'm glad that as an adult, I was able to save that seagull from a brutal death.
Some things just bother me. They get under my skin. Sometimes I can't do anything about it. Sometimes I can. When I can, I do. I know my Life likely won't matter in the Grand Scheme of things. But that's not what's important. What's important is what I do while I'm here in this world. And if I don't do much, at least I can live a life that doesn't contribute to making this world a more miserable place than when I entered it.
Sgt. LED
Flashaholic
jzmtl
Flashlight Enthusiast
Just stop thinking about it. There are so much crap going on around the world if you do you'll drive yourself nuts.
That's funny jtr Well, I didn't come to this one for a break but I do find these types of discussions ridiculously interesting and not simply for the discussion itself, as if just to visit. Most of my pleasure comes from reading your thoughts, applying my own world view and then drawing out conclusions. It's one of the few time that I get to challenge my brain.
I really appreciate everyone's thoughts by the way I really like your last post Jtr but then McGizmo comes in and says all kinds of intensely fascinating things and I end up wanted to reply to everyone at the same time. I sort of hit overload I guess....lol. I only regret being late to the party tonight.
Well, here it goes....
On the surface, that might be one way, assuming that the humans (it takes more than one) lived in isolation. The moment we put people together they begin teaching one another so we'd have to ensure they all started with the same base knowledge and without any presuppositions. Either they'd have to be kept in boxes until they were of a certain common age, or the group lives in isolation together from a very young age. The problems with living together from a young age are that strong bonds can form and could completely skew the data. The problem with the box isolation method is that humans are relational creatures and would suffer psychological issues from years of separation. When you finally put all of these isolationists together I think that initial fear and chaos might reign in which case, how is accurate data be attained during such a scenario? Even if some of them were able to relate with one another, I don't think the test overall would be nearly representative of "normal" human interaction. I think attempting to draw out any conclusions about morality in this type of zoo might not help us with the answers we're looking for.
Assuming a healthy group of mature individuals after years of isolation, it would only require one of them to share a "spiritual" experience with the others to potentially effect the morals of everyone. Looking at things historically from our oldest text reveals that it's likely just this sort of thing happened. A very few number of people have a "supernatural" experience that in turn gets passed down to families and communities. The law that says we shall not murder is ancient so how does the naturalistic evolutionist explain its origin? If it simply existed as a way of surviving enough humans to ensure the propagation of the species, at some point we'd have a safe margin of humans that murder could safely be reinstated. After all, if a human being has no transcendental worth and his existence does nothing to benefit the species, why not just kill them out of practicality. As you can see we've arrived at the topic of eugenics, which has been historically and societal-ly proven to be an atrocity.
Here is an objective moral truth claim few would argue with "It is wrong to kill our sick and handicapped just because they're of no obvious use to society and only consume resources." Early 20th century American scientific establishments argued that Eugenics was a viable policy. The Nazi party also thought it was a good idea, but I say it's morally wrong regardless of their logical or even practical justifications. Therefore if a person is going to stand by the notion that morals evolved out of purpose and necessity they have to first reconcile problem of eugenics, which I don't think is possible. Either eugenics has to be embraced or we need remove the possibility morals evolved out culture.
You mentioned that the experiment could prove that we have a moral law written on our "DNA." That assumes that we're only physical beings and that moral's are only stored informational data, which exists in strands of proteins. While our physical information resides in DNA, our capacity for moral behavior does not. Science cannot explain where our source of morality is generated but Christianity for example says that we're comprised of body, soul and spirit, and that morals reside in the realm of spirit.
You may be at odds with the idea or definition of punishment, but the law is clearly set up to act in that method. It's why the death sentence is sometimes carried out when the condemned could actually be simply removed from society or placed in solitary. You might say, "yeah, but I'm against that anyway!" Ok let's look at "punishment" in the case of a speeding ticket. After being caught and ticketed, we wouldn't in normal circumstances say that the speeder is a "broken machine" that needs rehabilitating. We instead understand that in most cases the speeder knew the law and made the choice to transgress it to suit their own purposes. (I speak as an occasional speeder btw) Now, you may not agree with speeding tickets and could even argue that it's just another form of revenue today but if we track speeding tickets back to their beginnings they came about out of necessity to protect early motorists. The possibility of being punished by financial set-back is the type of persuasion the government uses to deter speeding. Another example would be lie about your taxes. When a person lies about their taxes we don't say they need rehabilitating. When it's determined that if they did indeed lie, they can be punished with interest, fines and even jail time. How about an 18 year old, who understands the difference between right and wrong, stares at a new Ipod at the store. He likes them a lot but doesn't have the money to pay for one. Believing that the risk with worth the reward he steals it and gets caught. Do we think the young man who's perfectly capable of making his own weighed decisions is "broken?" No we don't try to fix him we punish him the law, which might be a few days in jail or fines.
On one hand you say, "I personally have HUGE problems with the idea of "punishing" another human being for their actions"and right after that you say, "I see a person who commits these acts as a broken machine which must be either fixed, destroyed, or removed from society if all attempts to fix them fail."
The phrase "all attempts" is an infinite so I'll take it that you just mean many attempts. In any case, how exactly does that work? A thief steals but instead of punishing them by temporarily suspending their freedom, we send them to a specialist in an attempt to fix them. They then commit another act of theft and in the spirit of making "all attempts to repair an obvious behavioral issue them" we send to a countless number of professionals who want to teach the thief something that they already know, that is, stealing is wrong. Since there are no serious ramifications to stealing thus far, no fines paid, no jail time spent, the thief thinks to him self, "I'm going to continue to play the odds. Since I could score big, but it's worth the risk of getting caught and have to talk to a behaviorist down at the police station." Finally one day, after a dozen times society says, no more! From that point on it's ok to "remove" or "destroy" them if everything else fails, but at the same time we're not going to acknowledge it as or use the term "punishment" even though that's exactly what it is. Boy, I can't imagine that working. Imagine if we apply that system's logic to a sociopathic murderer. We'd have to make many attempts to fix them before we "removed" or "destroyed" them. Eeek.
I don't know if we'll be able to touch much on this thought just because our worldviews are 180 degrees from each other. See, I don't believe that some chimps turned into humans millions of years ago, so we have a fundamental problem. For me there just isn't a reasonable about of good evidence for that hypothesis. I don't care if it's the established educational doctrine in our teaching institutions and I actually find it hard to believe the idea is perpetuated in light of new evidence. To convince me of such an idea, that Darwinistic macro evolution explains were we came from science would have to find thousands of transitional forms just between human and apes. Then they'd have to show me thousands of transitional fossils between monkeys and lemurs. They'd have to show me thousands of transitional forms between each species at every level. Remember the actual claim isn't that we evolved from monkeys; the claim is really that we evolved from the protozoa which eventually changed into the monkey through macroevolution. It's interesting to note that science has been studying fruit flies for many decades. Far more generations of laboratory fruit flies have now existed than generations of human beings. No matter how hard they push the species to change or to become something else, they only ever reproduce fruit flies. Some exist for a short time as mutations but mutations are only ever detrimental to survival and aren't considered a benefit for obvious reasons. If macroevolution existed, I think we'd eventually have a break through in a rapidly reproducing species given the number of bred generations but we don't. What we see today are animals reproducing after their own kind, which is exactly what the Christian worldview supports. Because of recent scientific discoveries in the construction of the cell and imbedded information and regulation of these systems, the science community is in a bit of a scramble right now. They're finding that the cell is so complex that it virtually makes the idea naturalistic evolution preposterous. Conventional biologists are no longer able to deal with the sheer amount of data associated with the cell and a new field called systems biology has sprung forth under necessity. These guys work a lot with mathematics since the old methods of reductions have become obsolete. The more we learn about the cell the less likely the idea that life came to exist by random chance firings.
As to the differences in chimp and human genes these guys discuss some recent discoveries:
http://www.reasons.org/yet-another-genetic-difference-between-humans-and-chimpanzees
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/1...n-chimpanzee-genetic-comparisons-part-1-of-2/
http://www.reasons.org/tnrtb/2007/1...n-chimpanzee-genetic-comparisons-part-2-of-2/
I think that's a reasonable observation and could point to something that we don't understand but lets focus on what we do understand. If we look at the ratio between brain mass and body size, human beings are more than double the next creature. A typical human brain makes up about 2.1% of our weight. A sperm whale with a 8000 gram brain is only .02 percent of its body weight. So, while you're looking at how big whale brains are compared to our own, I sitting here wondering why it's so tiny (200X smaller) compared to their relative weight. The brains of men are typically larger than a women's but there is no difference in what we would call intelligence. (Stop giggling guys) Likewise, scientific greats like Einstein and others have been shown to have average size brains. There does seem to be a direct correlation between body weight and brain size though but I'm not sure where this leads us in the overall discussion.
Well, understandably human survival is geographically and resource based. We wouldn't do to well without clothing or shelter in the cold and shade in the desert. I think that's a rather isolated way of looking at the overall picture since neither would polar bears survive in the desert or desert tortoises survive in the Arctic Circle. Most animals are only able to survive in the appropriate climate they were designed for. I understand you would say, "evolve."
I would say that human life is only precious to other humans and to our creator. I don't believe that animals have the ability to cherish, esteem or honor so I don't think they're able to think of human life as precious? Taking care of our own kind isn't unique but we've been discussing many of the things that are hugely different. I was looking for a better site to tie in all of these ideas together but look here:
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html
As I theist so I don't say that I'm "better" because of a judgment call of my own account.. I say that I'm more valuable than the rest of creation because the creator says I am. I'm completely known by God and he seeks after me. (Psalm139:1-3) I'm made in the image of God. (Genisis 1:27) I'm an amazing creation. (Psalm139:13-15) I'm not a mistake. (Psalm 71:6) God picked me. (Ephesians 1:4-5) I am God's child. (John 3:1-2) God lives in me. (1 John 4:16) God is waiting for me. (Luke 15:20) He choose to forgive me. (Colossians 2:13) ….. and many more.
The way you worded the question depends on your worldview and what the ultimate goal of your existence is. If the ultimate goal for your existence is to glorify the earth then everything you do negatively impacts it in one form or another. The simple answer to solving this problem is to remove your living body from it and you've made the ultimate sacrifice. My worldview says that I'm to love and glorify the Creator above all things, love others, and where the earth is concerned, "to be a good steward."
Look at these ideas in a practical sense. If it's like you say it is and we're heading for mass specie's loss or extinction it's likely it won't even happen in your lifetime. If you're gone and nothing happens to you after you die and you don't have to give an account for your life, then nothing after your death matters. If you have no spirit and you simply cease to exist when you die, then why have an overriding concern for the continued existence of the earth? If you're gone you no longer need it. The "earth first" argument is at its core self defeating. In fact, my worldview explains the reasons why we should care of the earth better than any secular answer. I'm instructed to be a good steward and if I'm a poor steward I'll probably have to answer for that when I die. How does the naturalist justify his efforts in minimizing damage on earth? What incentive does a 70-year-old atheist have to recycle when he's not even going to exist soon, at which time nothing matters? Why should a young person who's dying soon from a disease still not empty his used motor oil in the vacant lot behind his house? The answer is that there is no reason if you're a secular humanist.
[FONT="]No, I didn't see that as skirting at all. These are hard questions and you were simply working through it. And yes, we are sure different and unique on the earth! [/FONT]
Last edited:
That's exactly right Monocrom. It wouldn't matter if that is his worldview. It would also be a good reason to stop learning or growing in knowledge, or even sharing your thoughts with others in the world.
Brucec, it's not a matter of the universe adhering to moral laws or "following" moral laws as you say. It's a matter of free thinking agents having the opportunity to choose between what we know is right and what we know is wrong. You can say that objective truths are not real but I don't know how a person could go through life without them. You say that there is no right or wrong yet if a dirt bag harmed your family you'd surely object to it because of the wrong that was committed.
I'm a bit tired tonight to articulate anything else, but here are some links you might find interesting. They state things far better than I can anyhow.
Here is a read about the nature of truth:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/There_Is_No_Absolute_Truth
relativism
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5539
http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Do_Moral_Absolutes_Exist_in_Our_World
morality as a clue to God
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5457
Okay, Sarge.... That made me smile. I don't think I've seen any of those at the job-site.
Hi guys,
I strongly suspect that we presently hold dear, notions of the world around us, that are akin to the once held belief that the earth was flat. I think there are still very significant discoveries to be made. I see no reason to believe that the human mind is capable of grasping and understanding any big picture or many of the little ones that are there before us on a daily basis. That is not to say that we can't fathom many of the pictures and continue to learn and grasp a better understanding of the world around us.
A young child asks us why? Sometimes we can answer other times we can't. In some cases we know there is no answer. As we become adults, we still come up with questions that can't be answered or may not have an answer that we would understand.
There may be an answer as to why the gull attacked the ill one. Within that answer there may be reason we can understand. Could the gull itself answer this question? Did either of the gulls involved wonder or question the action? Were they both resigned to simply "the way it is"?
I would guess that some might include in their definition of intelligence, the ability to question and then find answers. Well animals can't talk to us but any of you who have spent time with animals will likely agree with me that animals do question. We sense this in their facial expressions and when they **** their head from one side to another as if changing their view a bit will enlighten them. In human terms, their questions might be such as:
"Is that food for me?"
"Can I get away with this?"
"Is that thing going to attack me?"
"Are you going to get off your butt and take me for a walk?"
I am convinced that animals ask questions and sometimes they get answers and sometimes they don't. I think they can enjoy frustration just like we do.
IMHO, both science and religion seek to ask questions and find answers. I view both as man made and defined constructs but that is not to say either or neither aren't based on reality both perceived as well as suspected. They both suffer the limitations of their creators though and I am confident their creator has real and significant limitations.
Why did the gull attack the ill gull? Perhaps simply because it could. Why did Monocrom intervene? Well because he could. But there was some reason and motivation behind his action. Some might say let nature take its course but aren't we part of nature and capable of navigating along?
I strongly suspect that we presently hold dear, notions of the world around us, that are akin to the once held belief that the earth was flat. I think there are still very significant discoveries to be made. I see no reason to believe that the human mind is capable of grasping and understanding any big picture or many of the little ones that are there before us on a daily basis. That is not to say that we can't fathom many of the pictures and continue to learn and grasp a better understanding of the world around us.
A young child asks us why? Sometimes we can answer other times we can't. In some cases we know there is no answer. As we become adults, we still come up with questions that can't be answered or may not have an answer that we would understand.
There may be an answer as to why the gull attacked the ill one. Within that answer there may be reason we can understand. Could the gull itself answer this question? Did either of the gulls involved wonder or question the action? Were they both resigned to simply "the way it is"?
I would guess that some might include in their definition of intelligence, the ability to question and then find answers. Well animals can't talk to us but any of you who have spent time with animals will likely agree with me that animals do question. We sense this in their facial expressions and when they **** their head from one side to another as if changing their view a bit will enlighten them. In human terms, their questions might be such as:
"Is that food for me?"
"Can I get away with this?"
"Is that thing going to attack me?"
"Are you going to get off your butt and take me for a walk?"
I am convinced that animals ask questions and sometimes they get answers and sometimes they don't. I think they can enjoy frustration just like we do.
IMHO, both science and religion seek to ask questions and find answers. I view both as man made and defined constructs but that is not to say either or neither aren't based on reality both perceived as well as suspected. They both suffer the limitations of their creators though and I am confident their creator has real and significant limitations.
Why did the gull attack the ill gull? Perhaps simply because it could. Why did Monocrom intervene? Well because he could. But there was some reason and motivation behind his action. Some might say let nature take its course but aren't we part of nature and capable of navigating along?
Well, in the end, everything is insignificant on the grand scale of things. But that doesn't mean it's pointless. I don't harbor any illusions that life has any meaning or purpose, I simply accept it at face value. We exist and therefore we might as well have some fun while we are here. And try to make it fun for others around us. That means that we humans typically need to abide by some common set of moral codes, the ultimate goal of which is to create a lasting happy harmonious society. For humans. It doesn't make any sense to me why animals or anything else for that matter are subject to our understanding of right or wrong. It's possible that there may be some similarities between animal behavior and ours, but there is no greater set of rules in play here.
Before we judge how animals maim and rape each other, perhaps we should examine the quirks of our own morality. I wonder how the seagull would interpret a football game. Boxing match? The poultry industry? Catch and release fishing? Executions? Wars over forcing communism on other countries? Wars over forcing democracy? Wars period?
I also save animals or insects every now and then. Perhaps it gives me joy to reaffirm and impose my own set of morals on some other creature. But I wouldn't assume I'm doing any real favors for that animal's society just because it's the nice thing to do in my society.
Before we judge how animals maim and rape each other, perhaps we should examine the quirks of our own morality. I wonder how the seagull would interpret a football game. Boxing match? The poultry industry? Catch and release fishing? Executions? Wars over forcing communism on other countries? Wars over forcing democracy? Wars period?
I also save animals or insects every now and then. Perhaps it gives me joy to reaffirm and impose my own set of morals on some other creature. But I wouldn't assume I'm doing any real favors for that animal's society just because it's the nice thing to do in my society.
Well, at least I can resolve one portion of that incident.
Reason would be, I saw a living creature cry out in pain and agony. There was real fear & terror from the ill seagull. It was actually the first time in days it showed awareness of what was going on around it. Before the attack, it wandered around or laid down on its belly. Reminded me of a drunk stumbling home, not making it; and falling asleep on his neighbor's front yard. After the attack, it went back to acting like it was back to being in a drunken stupor. Whatever is wrong with it, that fear & terror was strong enough to at least temporarily cause the seagull to "snap out of it."
Motivation... I guess it has to do with the fact that somewhere, out there, right now, and every minute of the day; at least one human being who is weak or helpless is being physically brutalized. The sheer number of people in the world, combined with time zones, factor in law of probability... Yup, every time you look at your watch, someone physically weaker is being brutalized out there in the world. And there's nothing you can do about it. And, it bothers me. Whenever I stop to think about it, it bothers me. Being an amateur Writer, with a Writer's imagination; definitely doesn't help. But like most people, I try not to think of that horrific side of reality. And I'm usually successful in not thinking about it... Just like most people.
However, when I saw a sick, weak, creature being mounted... being dominated, and screaming in pain and sheer terror... It bothered me. I didn't associate what was happening to the seagull, to what happens to weaker human beings out in the world. Didn't make that connection at all. Call it a moral motivation, I got angry at the obscenity that was playing out in front of me. And I didn't think it was right for a living creature to be killed in such a way... Slow and painfully. So I put an end to it.
