"We" are also aware of (some / most of) our feelings, on a conscious
level, and we discuss them and moralize about them. Some feelings
(instincts?) are "nicer" than others, etc.
When we do that, we also tend to "justify" human instinctive behaviour into=
social / culture terms. We might very well claim that a human behaviour is=
intelligent, (high value in society, ) while in fact it is instinctive (low=
value). This way, we make ourselves "better than we are".
We can learn from nature, but then we have to see nature for what it is -
not a copy of humanity!
WE have evolved from nature! - not the opposite!
Okay if an animal can have about the same chemistry as a mourning human,
but we cannot mirror ourselves, in social and cultural terms, in such a
chemistry.
We can say: Our mourning chemistry is natural, see, also barn-swallows have=
it.
But we cannot say: Look at barn-swallows, how nice they are, they are
almost like us.
A dog may start barking and save a family in a burning house. Something is=
happening (flames, smoke) and he reacts instinctively.
But he is no hero!! and should not be described as such, next morning in
the local paper.
Or we do not justify: A feminist said a few days ago (on the radio) that it=
was "typically patriarchic" that a male lion would kill the puppets of a
single female. But the behaviour of a male lion has nothing to do with any=
human social structure, "good" or "bad" or "typical" male behaviour.
We can make parallels over animal and human feelings / behaviour, but we
cannot apply human values on animal behaviour:
Here, animal-right activists recently opened fences holding geese. The
fence was a serious attempt to save the geese in question. (They were about=
to be released within a month or so, which the activists didn't know).
Okay, it was a good intention. Some good ideas behind it.
But some of the geese which not voluntarily went back to the fence were
killed by traffic and one of the activists said: "At least they died in
freedom...."
Klas.
, which At 09:03 2004-04-28, you wrote:
>At 02:56 AM 4/28/04 +0200, Klas Strandberg wrote:
>
> >However, I think it is possible for a bird to "mourn" in some instinctiv=
e
> >way, but it has little to do with what humans do.
> >We just love being romantic about it.
>
> It would be logical to assume that the same physical symptoms
> that occur in humans and vertebrates (fluctuations in blood pressure,
> hormonal levels, etc.) which *we* interpret as anger, lust, grief, and so=
> on, are physically felt by animals too. For instance, mothers of new born=
> mammals generate oxytocin (sp?) which in humans is generally held to be
> the cause of motherly feelings. Those without don't make good mothers.
> The difference between men and animals is that *we* romanticize
> *our* physical feelings into books, paintings, and domestic disputes. We=
> cannot *mistakenly* ascribe human feelings to animals, because we do in
> fact share those feelings. Animals just don't write emails about them.
>
> Our guide on the Galapagos told us not to 'anthromorphize'. I
> eventually realized that what he meant was that we should not treat wild=
> animals as though they were pets - don't touch them, don't feed them,
> don't get too close. This is equally good advice for tourists in NY City.
>
> -- Chuck
>
>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>Chuck Bragg, Pacific Palisades, CA
>Membership Chair
>Newsletter Editor
>Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society:
>www.smbas.org
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
>
>
>"Microphones are not ears,
>Loudspeakers are not birds,
>A listening room is not nature."
>Klas Strandberg
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01
email:
=20
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
|