@God Yeah bruh shit is wild. Animals are capable of some truly fucked up things, the human animal included. We're also capable of caring for each other, our children and infants, the sick and elderly with compassion, healing each other mind and body with a depth and nuance of awareness, creativity, and analysis given to us at birth by millions of years of evolved responses that have enhanced our ability to survive. In as much as we can kill and destroy with unrivaled brutality, we can build and nurture to the point of discovering the deepest secrets of the universe of which we are an emergent, changing, growing property. The point is not that we aren't cruel, the point is we, by virtue of our ability to perceive and self analyze, have a choice in which impulses we pursue.

Uh… have you observed nature? Something must die in order for the other to eat and live.

It is cruel and unforgiving but it is also full of love and compassion as well. Without one there wouldn’t be the other.

@God yes, you can watch a "BBC Wildlife : Violent chimpanzee attack " group of chimp hunting and savagely killing a small monkeys as prey

@@1970joedub You gonna ask that when it sounds like you have literally never heard of the concept of agriculture?

Absolutely! Morality is evolutionary and certainly not dictated by a God. Morality, as a sense of Good vs. Evil, or Right vs. Wrong stems from the basis of Pain vs. Pleasure. Anything that causes any level of physical or mental pain or anguish is "Good" or "Right". Anything causing pain or discomfort is 'Evil" or "Wrong". A multitude of animals, outside of humans and primates will take actions to avoid pain and proactively seek experiences that are pleasurable. Early humans soon realized that they were smarter, stronger, more efficient and more likely to survive if they could rely upon others by building a community or tribe. As with all communities, they found that rules concerning the conduct of individuals could avoid many of the conflicts that arise in a community environment. The rules resulted in rewards for good behavior an punishment for bad behavior.

Exactly. In highly social species (us, whales, wolves, etc) individual survival and reproductive fitness are highly dependent on other group members. Most of what is deemed “morality” is concerned with reinforcing the social rules of the given group. To suggest that it’s wrong to say that everything in nature involves competition and maximizing self-interest “because morality” is to fail to understand the basic operation of selection.

And yet many religions and all three of the Abrahamic religions have hijacked the concept of morality and claim it for themselves and thus proceed to arbitrate the rules to their liking. It's time they are exposed.

Absolutely. People become very hostile when they are not surviving anymore. Even worse there is an irrational reaction to care niceness/support in some humans who are so dysfunctional that they bite the hand that feeds. This in turn can threaten the nice human who is inevitably dependent on the other. We see this in marriages, roommates, crime organizations targeting people and all sorts of “friendships”. Even colleagues sabotage positive people.

Altruism though has been observed between different species that have no correlation to survival, or at least any we are aware of. Ducks feeding fish is the latest one I have observed. A couple of ducks were pulling berries off a bush and feeding them to the fish. Maybe there is some symbiotic drive there, who knows, but it was interesting.

the 3 are surviving instincts. without that, us and other monkeys wouldnt have survived. depending which ancestors u mean, they were far from ignorant. as a matter of fact, we reached the peak of our intelligence around 10 000 years ago. since then, we dumbed down apparently.

Hey man. We are trying

Can you suggest where to know more about the impassive dominance?

I think animals in the wild eat when they are hungry but stop when they've had enough. Humans do this too but if we are stressed enough, we lose the ability to judge our appetite and we consume compulsively.

Regarding endless fear, we humans have a combination of fear to warn us about danger but we also are adventurous and are motivated to explore. Other animals also show a balance of caution and curiosity and courage. Individuals who are mistreated may lose their courage.

The issue at hand is trying to destroy the notion that nature is hostile and anti human that has been peddled by industry leaders, out of touch anthropopologists (Hobbes with his "nasty, brutish and short life", Dawkins with his Selfish Gene) and politicians to push the agenda of survival of the fittest and creating mistrust and resentment amongst the masses.

Nature isn't benovelent or cruel. Those are human projections. The only thing that can be said with certainty is the existence of suffering in each and every life

Have you read "Neither Wolf nor Dog" by Kent Nerburn? If not, you will find human beings who lived in the world with a different set of values and beliefs before it was overrun by land-hungry Europeans. For example, four virtues of the Lakota people were bravery, generosity, respect and wisdom. Far different than greed is good, money and/or status is the measure of your worth, etc

I hope you are vegan then....if you discovered that and you still eat animal you are just evil

It's an important point. He may (or may not) have been attempting to express that it seemed incompatible with the simplistic view of evolution that emphasizes competition and survival of the fittest rather than discredit evolution as a concept. It's also important to note that evolution doesn't necessarily select for complete actions (e.g. adopting a baby chimp) but may simply select for emotional responses that drive behavior. So the instinct to care for young, for example, could be selected for because it dramatically increases the likelihood of the chimp's children surviving and simply also be triggered in the rarer scenario that an unrelated chimp baby is in need. Or it could be that chimps who care for unrelated chimps instinctively belong to groups that disproportionately succeed and prosper. It can be challenging to say definitively and precisely without an overall history of how such behaviors emerged.

He will be sorely missed! Rest in peace, kind and beautiful soul! 🥹

That's the point. Richard Dawkins actually explained it better. We cooperate in certain areas and compete in others. Because survival of species is subject to a trade off -a balancing act, between service of self and community service. We will collaborate in areas, even be altruistic, which we understand are necessary for survival of the whole clan. These traits are evolved under selective pressure. Why else would a young soldier lay his life for his country? It comes from the same mindset. The book "selfish gene" by Dawkins explains how all our altruism, cruelty, love etc are ultimately about the survival of the selfish genes that use humans as vessels, make us act in ways that would ensure their survival, outlive us and then "control" our next generation. Our offspring will undergo the same life cycle and the gene will outlive them too.

Touching. Well, the first half at least.

Same

Better here than in the wild 🙂

Our pleasure, glad you liked it!

That's awesome! Wonder if the algorithm suggested it because of that.

You should take a read of his book, Our Inner Ape. Highly compelling and interesting to hear about some of the experiments that have been done with these primates.

David Attenborough's documentaries are marvellous, too.

I highly doubt that considering humans are responsible for their habitat depleting, being poached and generally their survival being made difficult.

@@elle7739Animals are thinking: "Humans are self-destructive, they chop off their trees and pop vitamin pills made in their labs that work hard to create substances that dont even come close to mimicking nature's bountiful fruits, they damage everything in their environment and struggle to live within the rubble they've created......well who does that....fascinating humans indeed."

I think that we humans have achieved magnificent results in science, in human cooperation, in ethics and politics and other areas. One of our achievements is to also respect the animal world. We sadly often exploit animals but, at our best, we respect and value the natural world The creation of huge national parks is a magnificent idea which will help us to fight climate change and thus enable the survival of ourselves and the natural world.

We are 95% ape, 4.5% bee / hive and a .5% genius variable that is found by watching adhd children raised with a third variable to help guide them to the correct answers as far as they are known with current information. As they learn how to find the correct answers, then progress is made. Very small change repeated with a small variable for support answers a lot of questions.

@@Kattelyn21 Fascinating. Have you thought of submitting a paper to the Journal of Human Evolution?

You're not alone. Even some researchers who have worked with gorillas taught sign language have been skeptical. “I do not believe that there has ever been an example anywhere of a nonhuman expressing an opinion, or asking a question. Not ever.” Another: “It would be wonderful if animals could say things about the world, as opposed to just signaling a direct emotional state or need. But they just don’t.” bigthink.com/life/ape-sign-language/ It may be that pleasant, cooperative instincts are just that--instincts--rather than something analyzed or reflected on in the way that we consider the root of our thought process.

@@The-Well I have always been puzzled by the tendency to irrational anthropomorphism demonstrated by otherwise intelligent people. I'm not sure whether this is due to soppy sentimentalism, misinterpreted sympathy (sym-pathos) or a desire to create a basis for claims of animal rights. A mixture of all three, perhaps. As to the latter, it seems to me that human duty, practically expressed, is a far sounder basis for the humane treatment of animals than abstract notions of animal rights.

Glad you like him, thank you for the recommendation!

He does in his book "Mama's Last Hug". If you look back a few years, I'm sure he did some press interviews for it

Some of us are probably above 95% 😉

I think we humans combine cooperation and competition in a complex weave of behaviour.

It's an important point. Also worth noting that evolution doesn't necessarily select for complete actions (e.g. whales thanking humans) but may simply select for emotional responses that drive behavior. So the instinct to thank anyone who assists it could evolve because it's helpful for building cohesiveness in the pod of whales it's around 99% of the time, and it simply also gets triggered in the rare case whatever assists it is not a whale.

We never really left.

You cry during a movie because of predatory drives? Family and children are the cause of a wide array of emotions... because you see them as prey? Something about your math doesn't add up.

@@woodygilson3465 A long time ago, working at McDonald's as a janitor, a guy came in with the express purpose of asking the manager of the store I was working in for his brother's job back as manager of the downtown store. He quickly started bawling about that, which is something you dobt forget. That day I tied a major piece of the puzzle of emotions together. The guy was Sad AND pleading and begging. The two had to be inextricably linked together. Why does the woman who gets a giant check from Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes start crying? The PC thing to say us that these are "tears of joy". But tears and joy are like apples and oranges. Rigidly using scientific methodology, it MUST be that the emotions are a SET of phenomena, each for a specific purpose and the whole set interrelated. In the case of the winner of the Clearinghouse Sweepstakes Prize, isnt it more to the point that one of the FIRST things that's going to go through her mind is, who is going to want, ask for, and get money from her? In the simplest analysis, she imagines being caught in a catch-22--namely, if she relinquishes money to others, then the money goes. If she keeps it, she will likely face the threat of being socially ostracized. So--in her imagination--she begs and pleads for whoever she's refusing to give money to, to not abandon her. Put simply, what she's doing is defending herself against attack, even if only in her imagination. This is what they guy was doing when he cried to the manager to give his brother his job back. Conversely, if one feels like he or she is stuck in a crying jag, isnt it true at the bottom-line that it somehow has to do with the need to defend oneself against attack, against being socially ostracized, for example (that's a big one, I think)? If one asks oneself soberly whether there is a realistic chance of this happening, and realizes that there isnt, then the crying stops on a dime. When my dad died, I had been living a matter of sone ten miles from him. I had never driven a car, but i rode a bike, and when i was down in the dumps about his death, i saw that it was because i felt that i hadnt been there nearly enough for him, and that kind of sin i could easily imagine being something which could motivate others to socially ostracize me. See how that works? By the way, there is chasing (destabilizing and weakening)--Happy (as opposed to content), attacking (anger, obviously), Indifference (running away and hiding (in a world that affords little opportunity to do this literally, we put on an expressionless face and remain as neutral as we can, even in our actions). Abd I just told you what being Sad is--defending oneself against attack. Chasing (destabilizing and weakening others), and attacking are clearly predatory behavior. Running away & hiding, and defending oneself against attack are, together, prey behavior. And look at this: There is chasing and running away, and there is attacking and defending against attack. See how that works? The structure is absolutely beautiful. That doesnt mean that I had an easy time if working it out. I kept trying to shoehorn in concepts of human dignity into the equation, but realized that I was spinning my wheels, and later found myself embracing myself as a natural, physical creature, as opposed to the thing of intellect that i had been cherishing. On top of that, I resolved that we are all here to be real in our words and actions, and that, with so much on our plates this way, there's no time to even think about another life. Did I leave anything out? 🙂

@@billbrenne5475 The "rigid science" part. You left that part out.

@@woodygilson3465 No, I left it out as a future protracted conversation. Also, everyone subconsciously knows these things anyway. The romantic explanations are simply hard for people to wake up from. Why does a woman who wins the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes Prize start crying when she's presented with the giant check on TV? The romantic, PC explanation is that this is "tears of joy". It's just hard for people to accept that it ISN'T about being happy or "joyful". Instead, right away, it's clear enough to anyone who looks objectively at being happy and sad is that these are very, very different things. Taken scientifically, Happy, Sad, Indifferent, and Angry fit in their own exclusive boxes as members of the set of emotions. So the REAL question is, what makes the woman SAD when she gets the check(?). Obviously, one of the very first things that she will think about when presented with the check, is, "Who is going to want some or all of the money?". This, in turn, precipitates the playing out of scenarios in her head, which boil down to two options, simplistically speaking: Either she will give money to those who ask (or demand) from her, or she won't. If she gives the money, that's one thing, but she's naturally going to want much, most, or all of it, naturally. If she refuses to give money, then she risks being socially ostracized, and is forced back on herself to plead and beg with these people that they not ostracize her. This pleading and begging is universally recognized as being expressed in terms of being Sad. Hence the crying--all from her imagining what happens between her and others in her social life because of the money. When we plead and beg we are effectively defending ourselves against attack, the opposite if what an angry person does, which is to attack, even if not physically. Indifference requires little explanation. We simply cannot run away and hide from others much of the time in the world of people. In lieu of that limitation, we express ourselves (if that's the right word), by NOT expressing ourselves, distancing ourselves from others and maintaining a neutral facial expression. And there us an associated near-robotic self-expression as well, in order to keep ourselves as neutral as we can to others. This is running away and hiding in human form. The hardest to wrap your brain around may be what we call, "Happy". Not contentment, but bouncing off the walls, great big grin and laughing (sense of humor). I'm here to tell you that being happy in this way is neither innocent nor harmless. What does a comedian do for a living? What are they doing on stage (or with others), when they are playing their trade? There IS a purpose, believe it or not. Using the example of the comedian, we can say that he or she is effectively weakening or destabilizing a target, making them easier to attack. In the animal world, a predator does not chase an animal merely to catch and kill it (though this is the obvious objective), butvery much also to wear the target down to make it easier to attack prey. And the audience enjoys and vicariously participates in this dynamic. Still dont believe me?

@@woodygilson3465 I should have added that, more generally a happy person (as I described the form of self-expression in question) is basically harassing others.

@Michael Morgan haha I was expecting this. I think too much rationality is bad for humankind. Humans ARE irrational, and it's fine for all of us skeptics to be a little irrational too. Adds a little color to the world.

I think "divinity" is a great word but why reserve for humans? Aren't whales divine? And lions and housecats and dogs and dung beetles?

@@zaidsada6841 We are not more divine than animals

@@jayabee we have a higher consciousness, a self awareness. We are concerned about morality, about good and bad deeds. We are philosophers and artists. We are special.

@@zaidsada6841 No, we simply have more complex brains. We are the dominant species on earth. If we were special, we would take proper responsibility for the world and all her inhabitants. Instead we cause immense suffering and we exploit everything for our own selfish needs. We're not special, we're lethal.

LOL Which proves that primates, just like humans, can also be selfish.