News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition. Parent comment

Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by bunderbunder on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @04:37PM (#19157297)
Though, interestingly, animism seems to be more popular among cultures that live closer to the "I need to put this spear into this boar" end of the lifestyle spectrum. Meanwhile Rene Descartes, who probably wouldn't have had much trouble surviving as a vegetarian, was the one who was doing. . . interesting. . . things to dogs in order to prove a point.

Not sure exactly what that implies, but it would seem to suggest that it's hard to wrap these sorts things up with a bow.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by hirundo on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @04:44PM (#19157365)
True, in a hunter-gatherer recognition of animal cognition would improve their chances of success. "I'm getting thirsty, maybe the boar is too, let's lay for it near the water hole." Maybe labeling it "other" is enough without labeling it "inferior".
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by ddingus on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @07:10PM (#19158441)
Bingo.

There is also the simple, brutal reality of the food chain.

Being most aware and capable, also means seeing all of that, where the lesser beings are, and treating the world with respect.

Should anyway. Our nature easily demonstrates otherwise.

Animals are a lot like us. Simpler mostly.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by henriquemaia on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @07:48PM (#19158685)
Though I understand what you mean by simpler, I would remind you that every living creature is adapted to its ecological niche, and that entails a baffling complexity that we, humans, can hardly grasp.

Animals are a lot like us.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by cmrdporcupine on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @10:34PM (#19159410)
They have different trade-offs. We're physically weak and fragile for our size. Long life and decent endurance and stupid smart, but crappy high infant mortality rates (before modern medicine), prone to food borne illnesses, sensitive to climate, have to cook our food, etc. My dog and cat and chickens are made of tougher stuff than me.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by goldenkey on Thursday February 14, 2019 @04:14AM (#19160636)
People are soft as hell these days. Humans are not sensitive to climate any more than most animals are. We dont need to cook our food either. Physically we are not weak, we are the only animal that can throw a stone and also climb a tree. I agree with you about the infant mortality though.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by ddingus on Friday February 15, 2019 @02:23AM (#19169105)
It can be amazing to watch them exercize peak form.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by ddingus on Friday February 15, 2019 @02:22AM (#19169100)
Right on. Agreed.
[ Parent | on HN ]
[dead]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by rosser on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @05:05PM (#19157555)
It's not a "cult", it's a religion with some 4-5 million adherents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

But please, continue dismissing millions of people's beliefs as "paranoia".

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by int_19h on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @06:05PM (#19158033)
It's not paranoia, but given the number of small organisms that die inside and on your body every day, it doesn't really make much sense, either.

OTOH, large numbers of people can absolutely exhibit collective paranoia. How many subscribe to Alex Jones?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by bunderbunder on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @06:59PM (#19158385)
If you take, for the sake of argument, that the cycle of samsara is a real thing, then it makes plenty of sense: Suffering may be inescapable, but a virtuous person would still seek to avoid causing it to others as much as possible. The more you avoid causing, the more virtuous you are.

It frankly seems no more or less odd to me than any other form of religious asceticism. From a purely practical perspective, sweeping the ground in front of you is probably not any more of a nuisance than the vow of silence that some Christian monks and nuns take. I'd personally find it to be less of one.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by goldenkey on Thursday February 14, 2019 @04:17AM (#19160649)
I find this whole argument entirely specious. If one causes suffering to others merely by existing, clearly suicide or donation of ones body as food to the hungry predators is the quickest way to salvation..
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by sneakernets on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @05:15PM (#19157645)
Wait..So it's confirmed? I swear I had no idea, and had no clue on what I was supposed to Google to find it.

Interesting.

But I'm not budging on the paranoia statement. If your beliefs make you worry about killing random things you can't even see, say "bye" to any semblance of good mental health.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by PavlovsCat on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @08:30PM (#19158915)
Too many people who aren't "paranoid" about killing little insects even sweep the murder of humans under the rug. We also have no real answer to the fact that in a century, there might be no more insects, with all the further extinction of other species that'll entail. e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19129378

Even when we're extremely selfish and petty, if we take too much effort to take care of ourselves, that's generally fine, as long as it's legal and not too annoying -- but when others worry "too much" about yet others, and change their own behaviour accordingly, they can't possibly have "any semblance of good mental health"? Come on..

The insects at least actually exist, what of caring about random people that don't even exist yet, wouldn't that be even crazier?

> Well, suppose that we believe what we are taught. It follows that if there are dollars to be made, you destroy the environment. The reason is elementary. The people who are going to be harmed by this are your grandchildren, and they don't have any votes in the market. Their interests are worth zero. Anybody that pays attention to their grandchildren's interests is being irrational, because what you're supposed to do is maximize your own interests, measured by wealth, right now. Nothing else matters. So destroying the environment and militarizing outer space are rational policies, but within a framework of institutional lunacy. If you accept the institutional lunacy, then the policies are rational.

-- Noam Chomsky

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by DFHippie on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @05:19PM (#19157675)
The Jains are discussed early in the Atlantic article under discussion.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Scientists Are Rethinking Animal Cognition by sneakernets on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @05:30PM (#19157776)
Didn't see that, even though I read it.

In fact looks like my browser scrolled right past 3-4 paragraphs.

Now that I look, there was a stupid advert that pushed the content up and out of the way. Way to make a site, guys.

[ Parent | on HN ]