Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.
Sure, we've got them beat on language and planning, but we're currently in the process of being passed up on both those fronts by multi-dimensional arrays of floating point numbers sitting inside of sand. So, like, how special is that then, really?
> Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal
There are hard-asses on both ends. We are different from other animals. To me, that results in us having more moral agency for our actions. It also means recognising that we share this world with other beings, including billions of people, a tool-wielding sapience categorically distinct within the ecosystem.
> we're just different enough to feel that we're somehow special
We’re similar to other globally-consequential species. The oxygen-generating organisms that promoted the GOE, for example. What makes us unique is we can be self aware about that power. Refusing to see that isn’t humility, it’s nihilism.
> Most animals are different from most others, we're just different enough to feel that we're somehow special.
That's probably a similarity we share with other species, and I'd expect to a similar degree. We own pets, but sometimes we see cross-species adoption (and friendship*) in the wild, too.
* or at least "alliance", given we can't in general read minds yet, just a few special cases with fMRI machines etc.
Obviously God made us in his image and gave us all this to rule over, no way we arose from the same primordial soup as the bugs and rats. We’ve got souls, they don’t.
The “somehow” is because nobody had articulated how they are actually special, besides the usual religion driven answer.
The obvious thing to point to is that we’ve acquired more complex language, which enabled us to do various neat things. To which I say ok but a zip file of floats and an algorithm has that too.
Eukaryogenesis was probably a more significant / special historical moment than language or writing.
I think this is all driven by people’s fear of their own insignificance. Is the pig that I ate last week really that much different than me? When I too die and turn into dirt or ash is that really it? It’s all over? Just like that?
So what would qualify as being special? I haven’t seen a compelling argument as to why we are.
Cry and beg for an answer, get it, pretend you didn’t, don’t know the definition of a word. Truly pathetic to be quite honest. This is why I didn’t earnestly engage you in the first place. I could smell it on you.
The difference is similar to that of people with insane net worth to normal people. You have lots of leverage to do globally impactful things (positive or otherwise). You're there by lining up a long series of met conditions, not by virtues only.
Cows also grieve their young yet we keep them permanently (forcibly) impregnated and take their young away to be slaughtered every few months just so we can drink their breast milk in our coffee. I can’t take seriously people who get emotional over stories like this then eat dairy products.
Ordinarily in Minecraft if you click a cow with a bucket it fills with milk, a simplistic model of how this works that reflects probably the level of thought most people have about where cow milk comes from.
One of the mods (Animalia maybe?) obliges you to do this properly. Find a male and a female, enclose them and make sure they're well fed so that they'll breed, wait a while for the female to give birth, steal the calf, and then you can collect her milk. I would bet far more players in games with that mod go vegan because it was a lot of hassle to make these arrangements compared to making soy milk.
Try considering this with some nuance. Many people likely do not know that cows grieve or their bubble of habits and upbringing prevents this fact from reaching them. A story that brings empathy towards any animal is a step towards less suffering for all animals.
I once heard someone claim that we've somehow completely "bred away" any maternal instincts from dairy cows. So it's perfectly okay to forcibly separate them from their calves.
It's crazy to hear the various bizzare ways people use to try to justify and cope with their habits.
Man, I remember carrying a veal calf in a wheelbarrow away from it's grieving mother (who ended up distressed for days) when I was 16 doing some Summer farm work. It messed me up for weeks, and I still somehow went back to drinking dairy. Thankfully I've sworn off all animal products now, but the knowing cruelty of it I suppressed for a long time.
I’m hoping that at some point we’d be able to have free range cows that are only hormonally forced to make milk. And no calves need to be born (or killed).
You can keep the calf with the mother half of the time at the cost of some milk and the benefit of less vet costs for the calf, at least. Some very few places do that. They say the cows are much less stressed once they realize the calf will be back by morning after milking.
Almost certainly our linguistic abilities (and through them, planning skills) are vastly greater than those of all other animals, but that is a matter of degree, not of category. The one thing in which we are categorically different from all other animals is that we learned to control and make fire... and quite possibly the linguistic abilities followed from that rather than the other way around[0]. Until the 20th century basically all of the advantages that technology bestowed upon our species directly flowed from our use of fire. Maybe our species should have been called "homo ignis"; the fire ape.
Obviously the cetaceans will never have that benefit, even if by some other objective measures they turned out to be as intelligent as humans.
There was an episode (season 1, ep. 4) of Prehistoric Planet[0], where a raptor does that. I guess they got the idea from the firehawk (Lilith, is that you?).
How does it make sense to say that speech developed 60 kya when Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosomal Adam are commonly dated 200+ kya? Not to mention the recent advances within the past few years that more or less prove Neanderthals and Denisovans spoke as well. With that information Homo heidelbergensis almost certainly spoke as well and if I could bet on it, I would advocate that the smart money would be on Homo Erectus having some level of speech too. In fact a recent paper argues that case: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-025-00521-8 It's unfortunately not on SciHub though so I can't attest to it.
Genetic drift between humans and the next closest species to us in the brain an gene areas that seem to affect speech. That includes neanderthal and other hominoid species that are now extinct.
You can't really know for sure, but the typical argument (c.f. Chomsky & Berwick) is there was an enormous explosion in "cultural" products then. Before then, we don't see figurative art, and after we see all sorts of crazy things.
That's a pretty thin reed. Chomsky does a fair bit of argument by assertion and displays of confidence. And he's committed to this idea that language emerged in one massive mutation and thus functional analyses of language are pointless. This is a weird stance for a scientist to take.
I don't understand why you are hostile to me explaining the idea. In any case, you can read their book to see the arguments they use (which are not just assertions, anti-chomskyans just ignore or strawman everything he says). For example, it's not a massive mutation, but specifically a very very small one: the theories called "minimalism" for a reason.
Probably not to you explaining the idea, but to Chomskys ideas that have not been panning out well lately.
Genetically is seems it's very unlikely there is a single gene spot that explains human language but a confluence of different factors feeding back into one another in linage we do not have genetic access to at this time. We've done a bit of gene testing around this now, and single gene flips aren't near enough. I think the best analogy would be like playing a video game where you have to flip a number of switched to the correct position to get the system to work together.
Again, I don't think you understand the substance of the claim. Have you read the book? Mutations don't need to be single gene flips and I don't understand why you think Chomsky thinks that. He compares it to the evolution of the first photorecepetive cell, e.g. a qualitative jump, but that the mechanism is likely quite simple in order for that qualitative jump to be possible.
People really do flagrantly misrepresent his claims.
> Blows my mind that so many people just have this hardened internalized idea that we're somehow significantly different than any other animal.
But we are significantly different, and there's always a danger of anthropomorphizing other species to explain behavior that we assume we understand because it reminds us of how we feel about things. That's why the paper calls for more study of "post-mortem attentive responses" in animal behavior to gain more insight into their cognitive capabilities.
That's a very selective interpretation of what GP said, in fact I don't see how you even got to that conclusion.
"We" as a species is a far different entity than any single individual who is temporarily or even permanently impaired. And GP didn't even mention such impairment.
Babies, the comatose, people currently asleep ... this one is something about universal human rights, a protection against anybody appointing themselves judge and trying to micromanage who is or isn't an equal, which only causes trouble.
Why do you put baby brain activity next inactive coma or sleep?
It sounds like, "Rocks, sand, turtles: these don't experience $things." I don't see why babies belong in your list as much as turtles don't belong in mine.
Well that would depend exactly what we're talking about. "Cognitive capabilities", wasn't it? Maybe exclude babies but include drunks, if you like. I don't know who really belongs on the list, which is kind of the point.
Category error started at "we should not treat humans with impaired cognitive abilities as equals".
Yes, there's a good chance that whatever combination of metrics gets accepted to draw the consciousness/moral weight boundary in the future, it'll have some overlaps like in that infamous quip about "smartest bears" and "dumbest tourists". Applied to a spot measurement, it'll likely put some subset of people - drunk, cognitively impaired, sleeping, children under N months, etc. - below the "conscious/sentient" threshold, and below some animals.
Which is why such criteria only make sense at population lifetime level, not individual level. That's both aggregate and temporal ranges. Temporal, because children grow up, drunk people sober, impaired people may get better and may have been better in the past. Aggregate, because once you go down to individual level, you invite most horrible crimes ever committed.
A baby's brain is in super-sponge mode. They lack experience and control. Just because they don't yet speak doesn't mean they would not have something to say.
That a drunk person shouldn't make critical decisions and nor should a toddler is different than equating a baby's experience to someone asleep or in a coma.
My 2yo had memories from over a year prior. She would bring up things that surprised us. She later forgot that stuff, but she always had a larger window of experience to pull from than we expected.
Treating kids like coma patients ignores that experience and window of memories. You bet your ass you could traumatize / condition a baby to fear. You cant do that to someone in a coma. I doubt you can condition someone purely in their sleep too fwiw.
We should assume a rich experience until proven otherwise.
I 100% agree. My point is that approximately all humans will go through these phases/episodes, and spend some small fraction of their lives below "conscious/sentient/sapient" threshold of whatever metric one could propose - and we should not classify individuals by where they happen to be on that scale at the current point in time.
(In contrast, every bacteria and every amoeba will clock below threshold of any reasonable metric 100% of the time.)
Expand this to 1-minute before birth, 1-month, 4-months, keep going. Fetal brain development is mature enough by 6 weeks that reflex and movement start.
There is no survival for us without hurting some other living organism. Even a purely vegan diet (which does not provide the complete nutrition we need) hurts plants and other critters that also want to eat those same plants or use them for shelter or whatever. So, I agree that we probably shouldn't feel too superior or different from other living things, but we also don't need to beat ourselves up for hurting other living things. We can't eat rocks.
Doesn’t mean we have to eat people or murdering animals. A rare person beats himself up for eating salad, but I promise you majority of people around you have various reservations about murdering and hurting animals and people. Growing up in some cultures and being fed abstract clean pieces of flesh just allows people to compartmentalize.
Also knowing that nothing on my plate was tortured for its entire existence on a factory farm is important to me. I still eat meat but it’s either meat I harvested personally or from a local farm where I can verify the living standards. As a consequence I eat significantly less meat. It’s entirely possible to opt out of the industrial factory farming method that abuses animals the entire time
B12 is generally the biggest concern. Vegans need to take vitamin supplements to get it. The B12 in those supplements is produced in factories doing bacterial fermentation
True herbivores have stomachs that can ferment B12 from the plants they eat. We do not
Another one can be iron, depending on your genes. There’s plenty of iron-rich vegetarian options, but heme iron in animal sources typically is absorbed at rates of ~40% while non-heme iron in plant sources is absorbed at 1-10% depending on the specific source. Non-heme iron absorption is also blocked by calcium and magnesium that compete for the same receptors. It’s not impossible to get enough iron in a vegan diet without supplementation, but it requires some careful planning of what sources you eat and how you cook it, and if you’re genetically predisposed to anemia it can be risky without monitoring your bloodwork.
You should certainly try to do the least amount of harm possible. We don't really understand what harm is in all cases. We don't fully understand the lived experience of a chicken or the lettuce plant we cut up or the rabbit that died because we ate his lettuce. You could really tie yourself in knots trying to figure out what is less harmful overall.
Pretty sure the Abrahamic religions promote the idea that we are special and god gave us the nature for us to feed ourselves, rule the rest. All that talk of lord, kingdoms etc.
It may have been a survival mechanism from when people actually felt the pain these animals felt but also felt like they had to feed themselves. The cattle cutting rituals of muslims (and guessing a similar philosophy that underpins kosher) makes me think this way.
My son, Jeffrey, was a very tiny, very sick premature baby, born Feb. 9, 1985, at a gestational age of 25-26 weeks. During the almost two months of his life, he was on a respirator, with several lung diseases, a heart problem, kidney problems, and a brain bleed.
... Jeffrey had holes cut on both sides of his neck, another hole cut in his right chest, an incision from his breastbone around to his backbone, his ribs pried apart, and an extra artery near his heart tied off. This was topped off with another hole cut in his left side for a chest tube. The operation lasted 12 hours. Jeffrey was awake through it all.
The anesthesiologist paralyzed him with Pavulon, a curare drug that left him unable to move, but totally conscious. When I questioned the anesthesiologist ... she said Jeffrey was too sick to tolerate powerful anesthetics. Anyway, she said, it had never been demonstrated to her that premature babies feel pain. She seemed sincerely puzzled as to why I was concerned. It turns out that such care, or lack thereof, is possible because, as a neonatologist explained, babies, unlike adults, don't go into shock no matter how much agony they suffer.
"such care, or lack thereof" is heavily loaded; about the only objectively-sounding statements in the last paragraph are that Jeffrey wasn't able to tolerate anesthetics, and that "babies, unlike adults, don't go into shock", both of which add up to possibility of care where alternative was to leave the child to die.
We should start from the default assumption that other animals have a lived experience not unlike our own until proven otherwise.
Mammal brains are similar between species. Show me why they wont behave like ours. Most say who say animals can't grieve are in the same boat with those who used to say human babies don't feel pain.
Every time we look deeper, we find we humans are less special in any given quality. Yes, humans seem unique in our level of language and knowledge passing. For now; until we discover something else.
> We should start from the default assumption that other animals have a lived experience not unlike our own until proven otherwise.
That probably is the better prior for muggles these days, yeah.
Of course, scientifically speaking, you still shouldn't anthropomorphize upfront, or you might actually miss a lot! Different creatures aren't entirely exactly the same as us. They can and things we can't , and vice versa. So even just from that their lived reality will diverge from ours, and that's where all the interesting science is hiding.
That said, while you shouldn't necessarily anthropomorphize upfront; if there's later proven to be a behavioral overlap, then proven is proven, and you don't get to reject it afterwards. (People often get this one wrong.)
> Most say who say animals can't grieve are in the same boat with those who used to say human babies don't feel pain.
My dad was an anesthesiologist, and what he told me is rather different from that meme. The reason was that the safe dosing range for babies was unknown, and giving the wrong dose can lead to death or worse. The argument wasn't that babies couldn't feel pain, but that babies would not have lasting memories of it happening, and that it was less risky that overdosing them.
You know, if there was a hypnotic drug such that I could be sure I'd remember nothing (and many, many similar caveats), I'd volunteer to be caused all kinds of pain, because I don't see why I should care. The only moral angle I can see is the question of who would want it and why. Research maybe? In of itself, it doesn't seem bad.
You’re showing a lack of empathy for the instance of yourself that is experiencing all that pain. Simply forgetting it doesn’t make it right to not have empathy for the version of yourself that went through all the pain and suffering.
Yes, I am! Why isn't that fine? Not "right", you say.
Bear in mind that the "version of me" is me, and cognitively is in agreement that this is fine. Instinctively I would very much not think it was fine while undergoing the pain, but I'd also think I was wrong about that at the same time. I don't suppose I'd be all stoic about it like Giles Corey*, but it's the cognitive side of me that has the valid opinion and eventually the executive function.
I guess this might be a matter of subjective disagreement, but I'm personally opposed to all forms of consensual human suffering and death. I'd be fine with wrestling being banned, a law mandating contact sports amend rules to become non-contact, ban MAID (voluntary/consensual human euthanasia), ban anything that involves violence or harm done to any human being, including consenting adults consenting to violent acts performed on them. But that's just my opinion, and others are free to disagree with me on that. Although I will add that if I had legislative power I would not have an issue enacting such bans into law, even if people may say it taking away "rights"; to which I'd respond that certain rights like free speech are essential to a functioning free society, but certain other rights have no moral basis for being a right. The U.S. Congress (and various U.S. states) over the years progressively banned dueling. And notably, dueling was a consensual activity between two consenting adults, one that sadly took the life of Alexander Hamilton, amongst many others.
Yea, this is where the argument has the biggest problems. If your heart explodes or you tear vessels in your eyeballs, or you have long term stress related tissue damage the fact you don't remember at all doesn't matter much.
The problem with memory is it exists in a lot of different places. Screw around too much and you can mess up organs or even your gene expressions. Nothing to do with your brain at all.
I used to suffer from night terrors until well into my teenage years. It made me think, I would never know how much I was supposedly suffering in the moment. But what does it matter, if I can't remember it?
I haven't seen it, but the premise is that you have a second self who is trapped at work and wants to escape. That's really not the same thing, and misses the point of my drug scenario, which is that pain and (simple) suffering outside of meaning don't have moral weight. In this TV show the inside-work-selves are leading meaningfully miserable lives, with the frustrated cognitive desire to escape. They have knowledge-forming thought processes that are being wasted.
I mean, OK, there's plenty of further tricky sci-fi dilemmas along these lines. But I was interested in pain in the context of animal rights, obviously, this being a thread about whales.
No, there's a difference, in that my clone would get PTSD or some similar trauma as a result, which is a waste of a large part of that clone's life. In the version where I'm drugged into forgetfulness, I've only wasted a day, for science and profit.
PTSD and other results of trauma do not require a memory of the thing happening to you. In fact often people don't remember the thing that caused the trauma.
It's enough that your nervous system adapts to the unsafe environment. It doesn't have to know why.
Version 1: A mad scientist swaps your mind with another person's (Linda's), then asks which resulting body he should torture. Intuition says spare the one with your personality, so personality looks like the key to identity.
Version 2: He's going to torture you, but first gives you amnesia, then makes you believe you're Linda, then gives Linda your memories. Intuition says don't torture your body, so the body looks like the key.
Premised on being utterly selfish and not caring about Linda.
Leaving that aside, is this really a great and clever question? In version 2, your minds are swapped, so it's the same question. The difference is that you have been "driven crazy" and "deluded", but in what sense? If the objective is to avoid yourself being tortured, it's unclear which one is yourself, simply because the question relies on the unclear fictional process of "making you believe you're the other person", and the question itself implies you shouldn't trust that process.
It could be made shorter: "A mad scientist comes along and does something mysterious, so that you might not be yourself any more! So, are you? Ah, you don't know! Gotcha!"
The original is in Problems of the Self, 1973. (Or it's an essay titled The Self and The Future.) I've got hold of that, am reading. The original version is really long.
The first six pages are just really making a meal out of describing all the ramifications of the simple sci-fi concept of a body swap.
Yes, unfortunately it seems to be not very good. "He now further adds that at the moment of torture I shall not only not remember the things I am now in a position to remember, but will have a different set of impressions of my past, quite different from the memories I now have. I do not think that this would cheer me up, either." So, the problem with this is that it's nonsense, like saying "You are not you, but you are! Now if something happens to that person, does it happen to you?" Well I don't know, Bernard, it depends what your rather silly words mean. He's just playing the shell game with the word I.
Then at the end (ten pages later) there's a messier version: "he could have gone on and produced two persons each with A-like character and memories, as well as one or two with B-like characteristics". So it seems that the confusion and non-neatness of the swap is the whole point. Thing is, I'm not even very concerned which one is me. I suppose, alright, I do prefer me-like characteristics. So I'll take the half-dozen clones who seem vaguely right, that's good enough for me. Whatever.
I am surprised not enough people are talking about the philosophical implications of these inventions. AI is the biggest attack on religion/human-centralism since Newton and Darwin.
> do you feel like LLMs are specifically getting better at planning?
When harnessed, yes. They still suck at it, but they are getting significantly better over a relatively short time.
And you don't have to look very far in any direction economically or politically to wonder if humans in 2026 are really as good at planning as we like to think and/or if we may be regressing in this area. Because a lot of things we are responsible for aren't going very well for the majority.
I'll write the dissenting opinion that the models still aren't very good at planning rather it's the agentic harness and prompts thereof that are giving us better planning ability on long and larger tasks.
One of the important overlooked aspects of this is how maltreatment of something that appears to be human-like in many ways by an actual human affects the person doing it.
I know this did not end up being applicable in the video game world (which I'm continually glad for). With LLMs, it feels more likely it would be.
We’ve had 30 years of people killing digital people, often controlled by actual people without any obvious impact on violent tendencies.
I’m concerned about campaigns by misguided people to “protect” the bots. Seeing the response to the Unitree bots on AGT and their behavior’s effect on my own emotional response, I wonder how far off we are from calls for robot rights. We are more than tool-using apes, but for those that think that’s all we are, what’s the difference between that and tool using bots that emote, mimic distress, and otherwise act autonomously.
This is one of those things that really does need checked up on occasionally.
For example, do video games not cause violence because of something like being on the wrong side of the uncanny valley. We know it's fake therefore its fake.
Do does this break down when it gets "too real".
For example lets imagine a future VR video game that the inside game doesn't feel much different from the world we live in? Lets also imagine an interesting unique constraint in this video game. If you die in it you cannot play it any more. You play it for years safely and make romantic connections in it. One day someone kills your partner violently in front of you. You'd be pretty willing to take up violence against said person, right? How much of that violence would carry out of the game?
I don't want to make proclamations like the video game violence people did that were not correct, but I also don't want to assume as we make our simulacra more like us that it won't affect us somehow. Situations like this are rarely binary, and it's best to keep an eye on it.
Lastly, because LLMs can and do effect the real world with their actions, it's likely a good idea to error to the side of caution and at least be polite.
On a personal meatbag level emotions are magical and something ineffable.
From a scientific stance, chemical make brain go happy or sad and there's nothing special or magical about that. Every emotion we feel is because it was evolutionarily valuable for us to do so.
When your afraid you can choose to ignore the fear, but you are still afraid and it has physical effects that can be measured. There is at least a trinary state of possible outcomes and as the situation space becomes more complex and solutions drift apart on all 3.
That's a very closed definition of grieving. So by your definition a future perfectly simulated human brain cannot grieve because no chemicals are involved?
Whether anything a perfectly simulated human brain (or other organism see the fruit fly simulated brain) does is actually real - in the same sense it’s real for you and me - is still up for debate i think.
Assuming it’s possible to perfectly simulate a human brain
They can pretend to, of course, and use the language of grief, but if you can't feel the cold bottomless pit that has bored through your gut then you aren't really grieving.
Do books grieve? I ascribe the same kind of interaction to llm's. They work on a different substrate than us and their perception of reality, if there is any, will be wholly different than our perception because of the constraints of the substrate itself.
Not to mention the lack of continuity of existence kind of precludes any deeper and more meaningful interactions with the self.
I am not saying that they are unable to feel, but at the current structure and ephemeral existance they are unable to do so, they lack the minimum prerequisites.
Is there any ordered state changes occurring in books?
>they lack the minimum prerequisites.
And these minimum prerequisites are? There are a number of scientists that would love your empirical evidence.
>lack of continuity of existence
Eh, the lengths of timelines that LLMs can execute for, and this is in singular execution and agentic evolution is ever increasing. There isn't any time based requirements either. For example I can give you all kinds of drugs that turn off and on your conscious awareness and this doesn't stop self interaction when you're awake.
> I hope that’s just because you haven’t had a reason to grieve… Either way, hope you are well!
Thanks, stranger.
I'm old enough that I have experienced significant grief a few times in my life.
Given our mortality, we should welcome some degree of situational grief, as grief is the absence of a previous love that we were lucky enough to experience in the first place.
Of course, there are also profoundly unfair versions of grief (like the loss of a child) that I wish nobody (or no whale, for that matter) would ever have to experience.
You could have an alternative explanation: large animals invest lots of food energy in their offspring, and so the slimmest chance that a calf might not be dead is worth lots of effort. Say one in a thousand actually revive.
It seems that an orca invests so much in a son that it's like an all-or-nothing one way ticket to pass her genes on. (She might get second try later, but the probability is much lower.)
You might also argue that although there may be a non-emotional argument for why grieving could be beneficial, it’s possible or even likely that evolution encoded this instinct in something like emotions. Just how evolution encoded the tendency to care for one’s family and community in emotions for humans.
Yes! Which leads into strange territory, because we can say that attachment is not entirely rational, but is influenced by genes pointing us toward more successful reproduction, without concern for creating knowledge. But then this environment of instincts is the environment we've built up all our cultural store of meaning in, it's the human condition, so the argument can be turned around to say that meaning isn't entirely rational. So even gene-driven attachment isn't meaningless, but at the same time, I don't want to be bullied and herded around emotionally by little nucleic acid spirals just so they can replicate themselves.
Indeed. The same goes for widows at funerals. I mean, has anyone ever dissected the brain of a grieving human and said “aha hah! Here it is!! The grief!”
Life is inheritly expansive and colonialist. The trees war the grass for the light by throwing shade. So people have these little plot-armor, little stories justifying endless expansion- having three kids, who consume thanks to modern industrialized society energy and nutrients like a medieval village and do the same. Without these "Im-good" self-repairing stories, people would stop having kids and wither and die. To demand people to be rational there, is to start a death cult.
These whales sing songs about how sharks have no souls and the metal fish dwellng on the surface mauled there ancestors.
Surely you realise that there’s a balance between “stop reproducing and die to avoid harm to the world” and “consume all resources available for short-sighted gluttony”.
There are absolutely ways to lower our impact and lots of smart people working on figuring out how this can be made to work at scaley
So far, it appears those smart people have created a ideological caused self-extinction of western civilizations and thus a take-over by unapologetic expansionist imperialist cultural systems. Not very smart and not very longterm loadbearing.. it seems those "smart" people are mostly ideological driven and unable to work with the flawed, half-animal humans given.
Honestly -- I think the deeper point here is Nietzsche's: there's nothing wrong about winning. Nothing wrong about conquest. Nothing wrong with having three kids and outcompeting your neighbor.
This cultural meme spreads because short term gluttony is not, in fact, winning: if you eat your seed-corn, next year you starve. And winning is not about quantity either, but quality: I unapologetically want to shape the light-cone in my image, and my image recoils at torment.
I've heard scientists say dogs don't have theory of mind and making a big deal out of some animals that do have some traces of it, when any dog owner can confirm they do. I've seen my dog bury a bone in one place while the other dog watches, then rebury it in a different place when the other dog went home.
I've also seen my parents' previous dog pretend he's closed in the enclosure with the doghouse when neighbors cat approached even when he wasn't. Then when the cat came to their backyard the dog would run after the cat.
It's so obvious, it's baffling to me how science could ever miss it.
"People ache to believe that we human beings are vastly different from all other species – and they are right! We are different. We are the only species that has an extra medium of design preservation and design communication: culture."
"One of the problems with defining consciousness is that it’s several different things—and it means different things to different people. There is a sense of consciousness in which starfish are conscious. Worms are conscious. Even trees, even bacteria are conscious. But there’s one dividing line between the amoeba and the professor in the consciousness department, which really marks off a huge difference: language.
It’s language that enables us to ask ourselves questions and reflect on our own experience. Frogs notice all kinds of things in their world, but I don’t think they can notice their noticings. I don’t think they can dwell on them. That whole sort of stairway of curiosity that we have built-in doesn’t exist for any species but us, and that makes a huge difference. Human consciousness is to animal consciousness roughly as language is to bird song. Birdsong communicates, but not much."
"Consciousness is not a part of the brain. It’s what brains can do. Particularly it’s what human brains can do when they are mature and well-designed, and a lot of that design is not innate. It’s not in your genes—in the same way German or English isn’t in your genes. Many of the features of consciousness are things that basically get installed culturally and at mother’s knee. It’s part of your rearing, your upbringing, your learning languages. It’s what you learn language in, and you learn a lot of consciousness, too."
"A lot of species have elements of culture. Chimpanzees have some grooming rituals and the like. But only one species has explosively cumulative culture, and that’s us. Of course, that depends on our having language. All of technology and civilization, art, science, religion, all these are the fruits of human culture."
“I think that one of the hardest tasks a human mind can face is reserving judgment about a conviction that has always seemed to you obvious and thinking about how maybe that might not be right"
That obviously doesn't mean that we're not different--we obviously are, and it's not intellectually honest to deny it. There are SO many examples of things that have some common trait but are obviously different--skyscrapers and huts are both buildings, but they are different. Cheetahs and Usain Bolt both run fast, but they are different. Bacteria and oak trees are both alive, but they are different. "alike" and "different" are both words, but they are different. And so on ad infinitum.
If you had read the link above, you would have seen
"A lot of species have elements of culture. Chimpanzees have some grooming rituals and the like. But only one species has explosively cumulative culture, and that’s us. Of course, that depends on our having language. All of technology and civilization, art, science, religion, all these are the fruits of human culture."
which I have added to my comment.
I won't pursue further discussion when it's at such a shallow level of thinking as "we are not different" despite numerous clear differences.
P.S. nor with flaggable vituperation that only reflects extremely badly on the person who responded to me
Lots of evidence that whales, dolphins (plenty of other animals), are collectively doing a better job at collective satisfaction within their society and culture.
Your “explosive” culture argument is…uncompelling.
No, language is communication. Those numbers just sit there unless someone tries to get them to do something. There's nobody in there and nothing to communicate, and you might fairly ask whether, if that sand WANTED anything, it wished to just be let alone without being made to jump through hoops for the pleasure of humans.
Sure, we've got them beat on language and planning, but we're currently in the process of being passed up on both those fronts by multi-dimensional arrays of floating point numbers sitting inside of sand. So, like, how special is that then, really?