Evolution Forced

[aitm]

We have all seen them. Dozens...maybe a hundred, perhaps more. Animals supposedly "enemies" living together "seemingly" happily and playful with otherwise....dinner or the hunter. We have seen animals introduced at a young age having absolutely(?) no/or very little aggressive behavior towards their "friend". Obviously this brings to question...forgetting about the scale of the experiment...can we, could we, should we...forget about the concept of leaving animals in "the wild" and help them overcome "instinct" and learn to co-habituate peacefully?

Why not? What "lesson" is there learned to watch animals terrorize and kill other animals? For our enjoyment? What if we could eliminate all that and in the process perhaps change the culture of life? Granted, we have monumental issues with feeding carnivorous animals with the hope that enough animals die of age or other natural means that we could satisfy the need. But, if we could also put aside the concept that humans are special we could add their ample and continuous supply. I for one would not be adverse to the idea. Hopefully being dead first of course.

Animals have evolved for millennia...including us animals....why can't we force evolution into more peaceful world? Now I know there are some that enjoy watching animals or humans bring terrorized and killed......don't particularly understand the position but I know there are many that do enjoy the sport. Of course, set aside the more obvious fact that we fence, terrorize and kill plenty to eat.......so a bit of a grand piece of hypocrisy but hey.....one step at a time.

But we have seen first hand....albeit somewhat controlled environments that show animals can to a degree live quite peacefully and seemingly happily with their otherwise dinner sleeping next to them as friend and as them being their protector.

Accept.....for this argument.... that all creatures have equal status if such universe understood and considered the peace...In a world full of such misery and if such grand notions of karma actually existing.....right......what if?

[Minimalist]

When I look at what humans have accomplished I am inclined to say "leave the animals alone."

[aitm]

When I look at what humans have accomplished I am inclined to say "leave the animals alone."

I know you're being a little facetious and glib on purpose and rightfully somewhat so...however humanity has made pretty good strides to be less barbaric day to day. No doubt the seemingly endless history of wars may be used as an argument but humanity...person to person... has gotten beyond the kill at sight that we were as little as 500 years ago.

And perhaps you say that realizing how our attempts as a national entity, being governed and pressed by less than noble interests, in the spirit of national security, has undoubtedly reigned more hell on earth that the animals could ever imagine....and as well have no interest in animals unless there is a dollar to me made or a billion to be made. None-the-less...humans as a whole seem to be more encouraged by the idea that we may be able to lessen the carnage on the earth if we can perhaps lessen the carnage of the "lesser" animal species. If successful could insects be next?

[Baruch]

Optimists always ignore tragedy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Too many cliches out there. "Fighting like cats and dogs" isn't automatic.

[aitm]

Too many cliches out there. "Fighting like cats and dogs" isn't automatic.

Correct...raised together dogs and cats are quite fond of each other

[Mike Cl]

Do you suppose the hierarchy of needs fits in here?
Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up. From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization.

Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others. Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what motivates us, and so on.

1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.

If these needs are not satisfied the human body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered physiological needs the most important as all the other needs become secondary until these needs are met.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for interpersonal relationships motivates behavior

Examples include friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige).

Maslow indicated that the need for respect or reputation is most important for children and adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or dignity.

5. Self-actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. A desire “to become everything one is capable of becoming”(Maslow, 1987, p. 64).

I would suspect it would be much the same of animals.  If their physical needs are met and they feel they can count on it to be so, they would be more likely to live and let live. 

[Hydra009]

can we, could we, should we...forget about the concept of leaving animals in "the wild" and help them overcome "instinct" and learn to co-habituate peacefully?

We can raise certain individual animals of domesticated species to live together in peaceable ways.  That happens.  Hell, even wild animals do that from time to time.  But to try to engender all-peaceable behavior among animals at large is well beyond our ability, perhaps not even possible at all.

Obligate predators have obvious instinctive hurtles, but even herbivores are known to be rather aggressive and ruthless at times, even to animals that aren't a threat to them (rhinos and hippos come to mind).  And of course, most animals are not domesticable - not changeable - in ways that humans would like.

It's also unclear what the consequences would be from this massive alteration of nature.  Removing the pressure of predation has had some consequences among domesticated species.  Extending that to all animals would be a hell of a shift.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I read an end-of-the-world story about a man, a dog, and a cat in an apartment. There was enough information via the TV to assure us that no help was coming for anyone. The man was dead and the cat was on top of the bookcases. The dog was faced with a choice.

[Cavebear]

I read an end-of-the-world story about a man, a dog, and a cat in an apartment. There was enough information via the TV to assure us that no help was coming for anyone. The man was dead and the cat was on top of the bookcases. The dog was faced with a choice.

I've always assumed my cats would eat me out of desperation if I died.  Not like I'D know..  Or care.

[Cavebear]

Do you suppose the hierarchy of needs fits in here?
Needs lower down in the hierarchy must be satisfied before individuals can attend to needs higher up. From the bottom of the hierarchy upwards, the needs are: physiological, safety, love and belonging, esteem and self-actualization.

Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others. Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what motivates us, and so on.

1. Physiological needs - these are biological requirements for human survival, e.g. air, food, drink, shelter, clothing, warmth, sex, sleep.

If these needs are not satisfied the human body cannot function optimally. Maslow considered physiological needs the most important as all the other needs become secondary until these needs are met.

2. Safety needs - protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear.

3. Love and belongingness needs - after physiological and safety needs have been fulfilled, the third level of human needs is social and involves feelings of belongingness. The need for interpersonal relationships motivates behavior

Examples include friendship, intimacy, trust, and acceptance, receiving and giving affection and love. Affiliating, being part of a group (family, friends, work).

4. Esteem needs - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige).

Maslow indicated that the need for respect or reputation is most important for children and adolescents and precedes real self-esteem or dignity.

5. Self-actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. A desire “to become everything one is capable of becoming”(Maslow, 1987, p. 64).

I would suspect it would be much the same of animals.  If their physical needs are met and they feel they can count on it to be so, they would be more likely to live and let live.

Don't be too intellectually formal.  The need is food and water.  For domesticated animals. the water would be self-fulfilling in the toilet.  So the meat the pets need would be trash and me. 

Has anyone watched 'Life After People'?

[Cavebear]

We have all seen them. Dozens...maybe a hundred, perhaps more. Animals supposedly "enemies" living together "seemingly" happily and playful with otherwise....dinner or the hunter. We have seen animals introduced at a young age having absolutely(?) no/or very little aggressive behavior towards their "friend". Obviously this brings to question...forgetting about the scale of the experiment...can we, could we, should we...forget about the concept of leaving animals in "the wild" and help them overcome "instinct" and learn to co-habituate peacefully?

Why not? What "lesson" is there learned to watch animals terrorize and kill other animals? For our enjoyment? What if we could eliminate all that and in the process perhaps change the culture of life? Granted, we have monumental issues with feeding carnivorous animals with the hope that enough animals die of age or other natural means that we could satisfy the need. But, if we could also put aside the concept that humans are special we could add their ample and continuous supply. I for one would not be adverse to the idea. Hopefully being dead first of course.

Animals have evolved for millennia...including us animals....why can't we force evolution into more peaceful world? Now I know there are some that enjoy watching animals or humans bring terrorized and killed......don't particularly understand the position but I know there are many that do enjoy the sport. Of course, set aside the more obvious fact that we fence, terrorize and kill plenty to eat.......so a bit of a grand piece of hypocrisy but hey.....one step at a time.

But we have seen first hand....albeit somewhat controlled environments that show animals can to a degree live quite peacefully and seemingly happily with their otherwise dinner sleeping next to them as friend and as them being their protector.

Accept.....for this argument.... that all creatures have equal status if such universe understood and considered the peace...In a world full of such misery and if such grand notions of karma actually existing.....right......what if?

Are you talking about predators and prey living together?  That doesn't happen beyond what the predators need for food daily.

But yes, dogs and cats can live together in a house so long as adequate food is provided by humans.  But that only lasts so long as the dogs are fed.  A hungry dog would eat its best cat friend.

[aileron]

Humans have already profoundly impacted the course of evolution for many if not most non-microscopic plants and animals. In general, the bigger the animal, the greater the effects.

Life among large animals has never been so tame. Humans eradicated large predators from wide swaths of land on every continent. Even in the oceans we've decimated some predators such as sharks. The large land herbivores that show aggression toward humans haven't done particularly well either.

Right now the greatest evolutionary pressure on large animals is being liked by humans. So in a sense, aitm, life -- at least large life -- is trending in the direction you describe. Although some animals will continue to be used for livestock, perhaps we will get to the point where they are treated humanely for a good life followed by one very bad day. It wasn't that long ago (1950's) that countries like the US had no protections for how we slaughtered livestock (we still don't for some animals though). Eisenhower once remarked that if he had to guess the nation's priorities by the mail he received, he would have to conclude that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was the nation's top priority in 1958.

[Cavebear]

Humans have already profoundly impacted the course of evolution for many if not most non-microscopic plants and animals. In general, the bigger the animal, the greater the effects.

Life among large animals has never been so tame. Humans eradicated large predators from wide swaths of land on every continent. Even in the oceans we've decimated some predators such as sharks. The large land herbivores that show aggression toward humans haven't done particularly well either.

Right now the greatest evolutionary pressure on large animals is being liked by humans. So in a sense, aitm, life -- at least large life -- is trending in the direction you describe. Although some animals will continue to be used for livestock, perhaps we will get to the point where they are treated humanely for a good life followed by one very bad day. It wasn't that long ago (1950's) that countries like the US had no protections for how we slaughtered livestock (we still don't for some animals though). Eisenhower once remarked that if he had to guess the nation's priorities by the mail he received, he would have to conclude that the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act was the nation's top priority in 1958.

I'm impressed.  So many human migration experts REFUSE to say that human contact with most large prey mammals is the cause of their extinction.  And while I agree that correlation is not proof, it seems pretty obvious from the timing of human migrations that "good food animals" pretty much disappear after human contact if they can't be domesticated.

In Africa, prey animals evolved with us, so learned to survive.  And Africa wasn't the best place for human population explosion.

Elsewhere, where large mammals encountered humans, humans either ate them all or killed off the threats because they wern't accustomed to the threat WE presented.  A moose is fast, but it can't outrun us in the long term.  And we are sneakier...

[Baruch]

I'm impressed.  So many human migration experts REFUSE to say that human contact with most large prey mammals is the cause of their extinction.  And while I agree that correlation is not proof, it seems pretty obvious from the timing of human migrations that "good food animals" pretty much disappear after human contact if they can't be domesticated.

In Africa, prey animals evolved with us, so learned to survive.  And Africa wasn't the best place for human population explosion.

Elsewhere, where large mammals encountered humans, humans either ate them all or killed off the threats because they wern't accustomed to the threat WE presented.  A moose is fast, but it can't outrun us in the long term.  And we are sneakier...

What about squirrel? - Boris and Natasha.