Originally posted by 753Humans are the only species on Earth that can stop Asteroid Dotty from killing us all. ahah
True, but so is the value you place in human lives. Objectivelly, there is nothing different between your argument and "I would personally destroy every human if it meant the remainder of the extant bio-diversity would live".
Originally posted by 753
True, but so is the value you place in human lives. Objectivelly, there is nothing different between your argument and "I would personally destroy every human if it meant the remainder of the extant bio-diversity would live".
objectively: sure there is, I can give you objective, measureable reasons why I place human life above that of animals
absolutely, in terms of universal morals: no, of course not, but that is moot.
The statement was hyperbole, for one, and fairly clearly an opinion.
Originally posted by 753
Well, bacteria, plants and bugs 'need' to live just the same. The reasons not to destroy any other species or populations for the sake of your own are the same as the reasons not to destroy any other human culture or population for the sake of your own, and they are not because they are pretty.
well, yes, but that is nearly as poor of an interpretation of what I said as Parmaniac made. Its probably my fault if more than one person can't understand me, but still, I would never say "gee, corn is pretty, therefore we should destroy one of the most needed staple food sources on the planet".
The reason to save plants and animals that can objectively be shown as necessary to human survival, is well, tautological if I put it like that.
Its like polar bears. I'm really not bothered that they will be extinct in my life, nor do I think our government should go about saving them for the specific reasons that saving them adds to 'bio-diversity'. Tax dollars would be much better spent on infrastructure in our poor and native communities. However, if we can find a way to save polar bears that also accomidates the human issues, perfect, that is the optimal path.
Originally posted by 753
Besides, even this feeling of pertinence to a 'humanity' is a cultural construct.
even if I agreed with this, and I do to an extent, it is moot. Yes, my opinion, as part of the culture I have come from or whatever, is that human life is far more important than that of animals.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How about a trillion? Or maybe a few hundred million?A study by the UN concluded that there is no consensus at all about the planet's carrying capacity.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf (page 39)
Not only is there an enormous range of values, but there is no tendency of the values to converge over time; indeed, the estimates made since 1950 exhibit greater variability than those made earlier.
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird...
so basically we have no idea...
EDIT: this line too:
Around two thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion persons
a range of predictions in which the lower bound is the root of the higher bound is probably not very helpful. You could fly a jet through that range... This gives us a std dev = 6 billion people, pretty non-trivial...
It would be close to saying that 2/3 of people fall between 5' and 25'.
Originally posted by inimalist
This gives us a std dev = 6 billion people, pretty non-trivial...
lol, and just to geek out on these stats for another second, this would mean, that if we plotted the probability of different population estimates, a little more than 7% of the possible values would indicate that the Earth could only support negative human populations 🙂
EDIT: sorry about the spree posting
Originally posted by inimalistYou can list objective characteristics on which you place value, but the placement of value itself - judging that somethings have value and others don't - is inherently subjective.
[B]objectively: sure there is, I can give you objective, measureable reasons why I place human life above that of animalsabsolutely, in terms of universal morals: no, of course not, but that is moot.
It was indeed clearly hyperbole, but that isn't what I was geting at. When you said biodiversity only has aesthetical value that is atributed by humans, I took it you implied human life has objective value that isn't just affective or aesthetic value atributed by someone.
Of course, you could claim every human values his/her own life, but so do algae for that matter and both are manifest through self-preservation behaviors.
well, yes, but that is nearly as poor of an interpretation of what I said as Parmaniac made. Its probably my fault if more than one person can't understand me, but still, I would never say "gee, corn is pretty, therefore we should destroy one of the most needed staple food sources on the planet".The reason to save plants and animals that can objectively be shown as necessary to human survival, is well, tautological if I put it like that.
Its like polar bears. I'm really not bothered that they will be extinct in my life, nor do I think our government should go about saving them for the specific reasons that saving them adds to 'bio-diversity'. Tax dollars would be much better spent on infrastructure in our poor and native communities. However, if we can find a way to save polar bears that also accomidates the human issues, perfect, that is the optimal path.
Right, I get it, and it makes perfect sense from the moral perspective you've described. What I meant is that just like the reasons you take the survival and needs of humans that aren't usefull for your own survival into consideration are moral, so are the ones for taking non-human life forms into consideration (for those who do so).
even if I agreed with this, and I do to an extent, it is moot. Yes, my opinion, as part of the culture I have come from or whatever, is that human life is far more important than that of animals.
No doubt there, I was simply pointing out the 'artificial' nature of any comunity of beings worth of moral consideration for any given system of morality and taking a jab at the idea that we share a sense of pertinence to humanity - or even a common ontology of what 'humanity' is - by default. One can feel such a sense of belonging to a 'race', the whole ecossystem or a group composed of his immediate family and seahorses.
Originally posted by 753
Of course, you could claim every human values his/her own life, but so do algae for that matter and both are manifest through self-preservation behaviors....
One can feel such a sense of belonging to a 'race', the whole ecossystem or a group composed of his immediate family and seahorses.
we don't really disagree on anything significant, but there is a pile of psych on both of these issues that sort of call what you are saying into question.
Least of all, few people would confuse the nearly "domino" like growth of plants given the proper nutrients to behaviours exibited by organisms with a developed CNS. Further, humans exibit many behaviours that are directly opposed to self-preservation in many instances, altruism and substance abuse being the first 2 that pop into my head. But no, unless I totally don't understand algae, it wouldn't be said to demonstrate any behaviour, at all. errr, idk, unless biologists define cellular division as a "behaviour", but that is of a markedly different type than is behaviour generated through sensory organs, which is again, of a nature entirely different from behaviour displayed by humans.
The last part is way tougher to explain, but involves cognitive schemas and the fact that the nature/nurture dichotomy is 100% false. Simply, while it might be true that, were I raised specifically by seahorses, I could come to identify with that, schematic similarity between humans exploits what are biological mechanisms that work toward species stabalization and survival.
Originally posted by inimalist
errr, idk, unless biologists define cellular division as a "behaviour", but that is of a markedly different type than is behaviour generated through sensory organs, which is again, of a nature entirely different from behaviour displayed by humans.
I'm taking bio right now, the behaviors they have are probably at the cellular level. Some of them react to environmental stimuli as well, definitely a behavior.
Originally posted by inimalist
we don't really disagree on anything significant, but there is a pile of psych on both of these issues that sort of call what you are saying into question.Least of all, few people would confuse the nearly "domino" like growth of plants given the proper nutrients to behaviours exibited by organisms with a developed CNS. Further, humans exibit many behaviours that are directly opposed to self-preservation in many instances, altruism and substance abuse being the first 2 that pop into my head. But no, unless I totally don't understand algae, it wouldn't be said to demonstrate any behaviour, at all. errr, idk, unless biologists define cellular division as a "behaviour", but that is of a markedly different type than is behaviour generated through sensory organs, which is again, of a nature entirely different from behaviour displayed by humans.
The last part is way tougher to explain, but involves cognitive schemas and the fact that the nature/nurture dichotomy is 100% false. Simply, while it might be true that, were I raised specifically by seahorses, I could come to identify with that, schematic similarity between humans exploits what are biological mechanisms that work toward species stabalization and survival.
We do speak of behavior when referring to the responses of all organisms to stimuli even those that don't have CNSs like plants. While each kind of perception interpretation and response to sitimulus is different, I don't think it takes anything away from the aplicability of the term. Words like behavior, cognition, memory, learning and sometimes even inteligence (although this one is far more controversial) are used to describe even cell level biological processes as well as much more complex behaviors manifested by multicellulars like plants. There are qualitative differences between this and what vertebrates humans do at the neurological level of course, but the functional analogies (sometimes even developmental homologies) are solid enough to justify the use of the terms. I personally think biosemiotics and related fields should be even more bold in the use of such terms.
I would, however, point out that the level of complexity of plant behavior (growth included) and response to stimulus is far above what lay people usually assume. There is even a self-proclaimed plant neurobiology field emerging in botany (actual serious science concerned with plant physiology, signaling and communication, no hollistic mambojambo). If tou're interested, this page from the university of firenze has neatly compiled selection of articles (click on 'papers'😉 some of them are too high end botany but some simpler ones giving general notions of the field are also available: http://www.linv.org/
Sure humans can suffer from depression, self-harming addiction and commit suicide, but you got the point. Self-preservation drive is basic and universal enough to warrant the generalization. Bacteria can go into their own kinds of systemic failure and self-destructive behavior like apoptosis, but it's safe to say bacteria and living systems in general seek self-preservation.
Agreed the dicotomy is false and that identification and emotional bonding with kin carries survival advantages and these is tied to the evolutive roots of social behavior, but the potentiality for bonding and identifying with almost anything (even if they weren't your primary cargivers) exists in humans, regardless of whether or not its fixation in primates is the product of kin selection. Feeling pertinence to the whole human species, for instance, isn't exactly identification with kin.
I could add that the argument that biofilia and the emotional apreciation of non-human life carries survival advantages also has a solid biological backing. Survival benefits of such relations include: better resource management and preservation, maintenance of diversity of foodstuff, greater efficiency in hunting and gathering, etc.
Bands of humans who domesticated or almost domesticated animals that help them hunt and later developed into pet ownership, for instance, are usually extremely attached to them and this is different from the possesive attachment a shepard might have for his cattle. Likewise, a sense of belonging and deep emotional connection, sometimes in the form of religious worship, with other non-human nature, like plants, forests and even the landscape can also be found across a variety of cultures.
Originally posted by inimalist
what do you mean by react?
They produce spores when things become harsh and can group up into protective macroscopic balls (slightly icky). When starved of nitrogen a few types will form specialized cells called heterocysts.
Obviously they don't react psychologically but biologists are super concerned with that.
Originally posted by inimalistThey perceive stimulus with sensorial apparatus (chemical receptors, fotorecpetors, etc.), that triggers cascades of events in the cell level and the affetced cells respond to it, as in, they manifest physiological or morphological changes. These changes can include signaling to other cells spreading the information to a different part of the plant's body that can manifest some other response.
what do you mean by react?
Plants can even be said to communicate with each other through secretion of chemically active molecules on the air and ground. One example is that some plants can identify kin by "smelling" molecules secreted by them in the ground - these molecules are sort of unique to the individual and similar among kin, this allows lineage identification and differentiation from others - and actually curb their own root growth because of it, effectively protecting their offspring from competition over resources. They grow more agressively when in the company of non-related or different species.
Another examples is that trees attacked by herbivores will increase the secretion rate of chemicals (kinda like pheromones) that are picked up by their neighboors and trigger hyperexpression of defensive mechanisms like toxins, adhesive secretions, thorns, etc.
ok, regardless of how terms are used, we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between "behaviour" as describing single celled, primitive or simple organisms, versus the way "behaviour" is used when describing the actions of complex mammals, specifically humans?
Like, if you want, we can talk about the difference between algae sensory apparatuses versus the human occipital cortex/optic tactum, but you would agree that the difference is not only one of complexity (ie - Why Skinnerian behaviourism isn't an adequate description of human behaviour, though it does explain much of animal behaviour). Similarily, the presence of a motor cortex and efference copy would, almost alone, indicate that the nature of human behaviour is much different than the "behaviour" of simpler organisms (and though this might be pedantic, as a psychologist, I wouldn't consider most of what was described as "behaviour"😉.
(don't get me wrong, as with all things in biology, there will be a gradation rather than strict demarcation of what would be "behaviour". I personally just don't consider the stress response of a plant to be such)
Originally posted by 753
There is even a self-proclaimed plant neurobiology field emerging in botany (actual serious science concerned with plant physiology, signaling and communication, no hollistic mambojambo). If tou're interested, this page from the university of firenze has neatly compiled selection of articles (click on 'papers'😉 some of them are too high end botany but some simpler ones giving general notions of the field are also available: http://www.linv.org/
well, here would be the big question:
do plants have neurons, or do they just have cells that sort of do things analogous to neurons? (I guess, even then, if they are close enough there would be no reason not to call them neurons)
neurobiology is strictly studying the biological properties of neurons, if plants have them, awesome. I don't personally think neurons = behaviour, and it is certainly possible that a system could be built that is said to "behave" with no need of them. I'd just be concerned there may be too much zeal behind trying to say something "profound" like "omfg, plant neurobiology, zomg!", rather than anything solid, but I will check it out.
Originally posted by 753
Agreed the dicotomy is false and that identification and emotional bonding with kin carries survival advantages and these is tied to the evolutive roots of social behavior, but the potentiality for bonding and identifying with almost anything (even if they weren't your primary cargivers) exists in humans, regardless of whether or not its fixation in primates is the product of kin selection. Feeling pertinence to the whole human species, for instance, isn't exactly identification with kin.
It is a little deeper than that even. Including things as low level and fundamental to our perception as "horizontal lines", our brain develops through use. Stimuli comes in, activates genes which them express themselves and form connections to other neurons.
Nature develops based on nurture based on what parameters nature put in depending on what nurture was applied.... etc. It is easier to see nature and genes as a single system that interact to produce your brain.
Its called "neuroplasticity", probably one of the most interesting topics in psych
Originally posted by 753
I could add that the argument that biofilia and the emotional apreciation of non-human life carries survival advantages also has a solid biological backing. Survival benefits of such relations include: better resource management and preservation, maintenance of diversity of foodstuff, greater efficiency in hunting and gathering, etc.Bands of humans who domesticated or almost domesticated animals that help them hunt and later developed into pet ownership, for instance, are usually extremely attached to them and this is different from the possesive attachment a shepard might have for his cattle. Likewise, a sense of belonging and deep emotional connection, sometimes in the form of religious worship, with other non-human nature, like plants, forests and even the landscape can also be found across a variety of cultures.
I wrote a paper that suggested that urbanization and the removal of people from their food sources has driven the rise in vegetarianism, because the only exemplars of animals that people get are from Disney cartoons. LOL, it was for a lab, so I'm sure it doesn't hold.
All I am saying is that there are biological "parameters" that are most easily exploited by humans, that give us a sense of belonging to the species. Not that other things can't trigger this, but that the physical properties of humans make them most likey to.
Originally posted by inimalistVertebrate and human behavior and its underlying physiological mechanisms have evolutive properties that are exclusive to them , of course. This is true of the behavior of anything really. all groups have their exclusive properties.
ok, regardless of how terms are used, we can all agree that there is a fundamental difference between "behaviour" as describing single celled, primitive or simple organisms, versus the way "behaviour" is used when describing the actions of complex mammals, specifically humans?
Actually I think it might be exactly a matter of complexity, organization and tissue specialization, of course this does entail the emergent properties unique to the mammal brain you are refering to. Never did think much of skinner's crap though, not even for describing non-human behavior. He ignores too much stuff.
Like, if you want, we can talk about the difference between algae sensory apparatuses versus the human occipital cortex/optic tactum, but you would agree that the difference is not only one of complexity (ie - Why Skinnerian behaviourism isn't an adequate description of human behaviour, though it does explain much of animal behaviour).
Hum... This I'm not too sure about, we'd have to go into more detail over it. If we take a very simple unconscious reflex arc, is it fundamentally different from a much slower cell by cell signaling within algae that leads to a physiological reaction to stimulus? Also, would you say an immune or endocrine response ammounts to behavior? My main concern is that behavior is often defined in terms of a response triggered by a stimulus envolving movement which ignores the responses sessile organisms display. Would you say these single-celled little guys are behaving? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_Vhb0vBVw&feature=related
Similarily, the presence of a motor cortex and efference copy would, almost alone, indicate that the nature of human behaviour is much different than the "behaviour" of simpler organisms (and though this might be pedantic, as a psychologist, I wouldn't consider most of what was described as "behaviour"😉.
(don't get me wrong, as with all things in biology, there will be a gradation rather than strict demarcation of what would be "behaviour". I personally just don't consider the stress response of a plant to be such) [/B]
Originally posted by inimalist
well, here would be the big question:do plants have neurons, or do they just have cells that sort of do things analogous to neurons? (I guess, even then, if they are close enough there would be no reason not to call them neurons)
neurobiology is strictly studying the biological properties of neurons, if plants have them, awesome. I don't personally think neurons = behaviour, and it is certainly possible that a system could be built that is said to "behave" with no need of them. I'd just be concerned there may be too much zeal behind trying to say something "profound" like "omfg, plant neurobiology, zomg!", rather than anything solid, but I will check it out.
They don't have neurons. They do have, cells, tissues and organs fulfilling analogous roles and this is one of the why the term was adopted - similarity in mechanisms. Just how close these cells are to neurons to justify employing the term is still a matter of some controversy. The second reason is an analogy of function, not mechanism: how do plants receive, process, interpret and react to stimuli and how do they coordinate responses and integrate the functioning of the whole organism? How do they communicate?
I personally don't really care much about the use the neuro prefix either way as I am more concerned with the second reason and not with whether or not plants can be said to have neurons.
We agree that neurons do not equate behavior then.
I wrote a paper that suggested that urbanization and the removal of people from their food sources has driven the rise in vegetarianism, because the only exemplars of animals that people get are from Disney cartoons. LOL, it was for a lab, so I'm sure it doesn't hold.All I am saying is that there are biological "parameters" that are most easily exploited by humans, that give us a sense of belonging to the species. Not that other things can't trigger this, but that the physical properties of humans make them most likey to.
People's sensitivities are indeed molded by what they are exposed to.(although, vegetarianism has been arround for a really long time among forest dwellers as well). I've actually made a similar claim in a paper that because urban dwellers aren't in contact with wild nature they don't develop emotional bonds with it.
You mean recognition of the basic plan of the human face and things like that? Sure, but we're also pre-programmed to find puppies cute. The thing is that I don't think recognition of potential mates, offspring, parents and kin are the cornerstone of this sense of belonging to a collective entity of humanity and this affection towards it - which is too recent an emergency - although they might contribute to the identification process.
Originally posted by 753
Actually I think it might be exactly a matter of complexity, organization and tissue specialization, of course this does entail the emergent properties unique to the mammal brain you are refering to. Never did think much of skinner's crap though, not even for describing non-human behavior. He ignores too much stuff.
I'm not just refering to the emergent properties though.
Like, explain to me the process of a photoreceptive protein signaling a behaviour in a single celled organism. I don't mean to be presumptive, but I think that would be analogous to protein chains in rods and cones in the retina signaling a response from the ganglion cells immediatly in the eye and even to the optic nerve (where it might be a matter of complexity), but as soon as you get to the LGN (lateral geniculate nucleus), vision has nothing to do with single cell information transmition. Even here, vision is based upon the contextual pattern of neuronal firing, in such a way that (while a single neuron does carry some "information"😉 no single action potential will give "vision" any real information, and certainly will NOT produce behaviour.
This would be true of most visual animals (I don't know how far back the LGN goes, but there are analogs in mice and cats), but in humans there are even greater complexities. Maybe not for low level vision that I just described, but certainly when that information is split into the dorsal and ventral streams. At that point, social-contextual issues will come up, which would probably be, if not unique, only present in humans, primates and maybe a handful of other highly social animals.
I wont even bring up language... (for my own sanity as well)
(also, while Skinner was way off on some things, he wasn't on others, especially when it comes to reinforcement, even in humans. His work on the futility of prisons is still relevant, imho. LOL, I guess I was called a "Behaviorist" in class once, because I said that "top-down" behaviour might just be the second stage of "bottom-up", but I don't think I am)
Originally posted by 753
Hum... This I'm not too sure about, we'd have to go into more detail over it. If we take a very simple unconscious reflex arc, is it fundamentally different from a much slower cell by cell signaling within algae that leads to a physiological reaction to stimulus? Also, would you say an immune or endocrine response ammounts to behavior? My main concern is that behavior is often defined in terms of a response triggered by a stimulus envolving movement which ignores the responses sessile organisms display.
In terms of psychology, those aren't generally considered "overt" behaviours. Stuff like the reflex of moving your hand away from pain, or orienting to a sound, while I suppose they are studied under "psychology", I suspect even people doing that research (from a psych perspective) would draw a very clear distinction between a reflex-arc and motor commands which go through the pre-motor areas, are simulated, predicted, have continuous feedback from other sensory modalities.. etc.
iirc, many reflexes don't even require any information processing. Like, with removing your hand from a hot stove, I don't think it requires your somatosensory cortex to process the "hot" stimuli before you move... That is done in the spinal cord is it not?
Originally posted by 753
Would you say these single-celled little guys are behaving? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c_Vhb0vBVw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAm6hMysTA&feature=related
Some are algae by the way.
lol, that is awesome. I didn't realize algae were so mobile 🙂
I suppose that is behaviour
Originally posted by 753
Sure. But still, I actually do think it's behavior. Maybe it's the way we're used to looking at things through different lenses because of our fields of expertise.
that is probably exactly the case. It is strange, because I can totally see where you are coming from, and at that level, hell, any time a neuron fires a person is "behaving". They are "behaving" as they age, or whatever.
But man, from where I'm coming from, that is so weird. LOL! way to go man, this is a crazy discussion
Originally posted by 753
They don't have neurons. They do have, cells, tissues and organs fulfilling analogous roles and this is one of the why the term was adopted - similarity in mechanisms. Just how close these cells are to neurons to justify employing the term is still a matter of some controversy. The second reason is an analogy of function, not mechanism: how do plants receive, process, interpret and react to stimuli and how do they coordinate responses and integrate the functioning of the whole organism? How do they communicate?
I personally don't really care much about the use the neuro prefix either way as I am more concerned with the second reason and not with whether or not plants can be said to have neurons.
being pedantic, I'd probably compare that more to plants having a CNS (central nervous system) as opposed to them having a "neurobiology", but I don't see a huge problem with that.
Originally posted by 753
We agree that neurons do not equate behavior then.
I think you might be getting the wrong impression. I'm not saying humans are better because they have "behviour" or anything like that, all I'm saying is that, from the psychological point of view, plants don't really "behave", any more than individual neurons "behave" (meaning that they probably do in some sense that is trivial in my field)
Originally posted by 753
People's sensitivities are indeed molded by what they are exposed to.(although, vegetarianism has been arround for a really long time among forest dwellers as well). I've actually made a similar claim in a paper that because urban dwellers aren't in contact with wild nature they don't develop emotional bonds with it.
interesting. Its probably different in other parts of the world, as sort of fundamental to my argument was the Christian distinction of the world of man and the world of animals. Because Christians defined animals as different, they could be killed and eaten with little need to justify it, as the animal is not the same as the person doing the killing.
However, once removed from the need to kill one's own food, or really develop any opinion about animals, people are subjected more to images of highly anthropized animals, making any representation they develop of them much more like humans than they really are.
You are probably right though, I could see opposite effects coming from cultures that origionally saw themselves as part of nature moving away from it.
Originally posted by 753
You mean recognition of the basic plan of the human face and things like that? Sure, but we're also pre-programmed to find puppies cute. The thing is that I don't think recognition of potential mates, offspring, parents and kin are the cornerstone of this sense of belonging to a collective entity of humanity and this affection towards it - which is too recent an emergency - although they might contribute to the identification process.
it goes way deeper, but yes, think the human face recognition (which, to be fair, is actually "familiarity" recognition [the same region, the FFA (fuisiform face area), is known to activate to pictures of cars in people who are car buffs, and other such things]) only applied to anything that could possibly be exploited. Again, language being the biggest and probably most complex example.
Though, my point about species survival was more of a nod to Gould... which actually makes your point a weird critique of punctuated equilibrium. It might be better termed as "in-group" survival.
