h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When I first got my cat, it became very attached to my labrador and treated it as its mother trying to suckle and curling up beside at night. The dog kept the cat clean by licking it and helped it up to its food. This would seem to be an imbuilt mechanism on the part of both animals couldn't it be the same in the instances turtle mentioned?

This is quite common. I share my home with 3 dogs and five cats who all get along well. At one time, we had a rabbit who thought it was a cat and used to play tag with all the cats and wrestle with my dog when she was a puppy! It's quite mad here!

Interesting stuff, but all examples of animals helping/getting on well together when they are pets are not really natural situations. The fact is that if your dogs and cats were all wild and met each other, they wouldn't be so friendly!

I don't think it is unnatural for animals to be kind to each other. True, if they met in the wild, there would be a fight, but the fight is based on the struggle for survival. A dog would see a cat as a competitor for food and territory, and would be forced to act accordingly. Now that they have the benefits of civilization, meaning that they have a limitless supply of food and water, and an incredibly plush and comfortable shelter, they're not motivated by hunger and fear. They are free to share their territory and enjoy each other's company.

I've met people who think that humans are superior to other animals because of our capacity for compassion. Indeed, one of the synonyms for mercy and compassion is "humanity." To these people, I say get yourself a dog, and bond with the animal... you'll see how little difference there is. Dogs are nothing more than mischievous children who can't speak.

But most animals are still violent towards each other. It is only when there is a group/herd of animals that they "care" for each other. Most animals are still under the impression that there is competition for survival.

Children fight over food:

"How come he got a bigger piece than me?"

They fight over territory:

"Mine!!!!"

And they don't stop until we teach them better. Just like with dogs.

Yes, compassion is taught - not inherited. Hmmm...

I agree that dogs can be as affectionate as humans. But in pack situations, animals do not always look after each other. The old animals are left the starve, not nurtured.
There must be an inherent capacity for compassion. This is made obvious by condition in which it is absent, e.g. psychopathy. You can't teach them to be compassionate!

Yes. You may also not be able to teach an autist (sic) compassion. But the fact remains that animals that have never met each other would not be compassionate. However, the pack situation often does have compassion - the sharing of food, hunting together, caring for wounded. Of course this does not always apply but animals CAN be compassionate, but often are not. Very similar to us Homo stupido .

I know of a red pussy-cat who had maternal feelings towards a guinea-pig. Whenever the rodent was out of the cage, you could find the two close together. The other cats in the house didn't understand it much, but Minou (the red one) would fiercely protect the rodent from their 'attacks' of curiosity.

It was real fun to see.

I would say that leaving the old animals to starve can be a smart move for the 'community'. The young are the future of the tribe/pack/herd, the old have served their purpose already and will not be able to contribute much. However, this only happens when said elders are no longer capable of sustaining themselves.

If the animals would have the same cognitive abilities as us, they would be able to cooperate more effeciently in a variety of ways, allowing them to nurture even the least productive specimen among them. Additionally they might have more need for the elders to teach the young, and thus keep them alive longer. However, when that luxury is not available, they must save their resources.

Symbiotic behavior, as I saw mentioned earlier in this thread, a specific type of caterpillar living in harmony with a certain type of ants, is something completely different from the bit we're talking about here. This symbiosis is to their mutual advantage, and has not much to do with compassion at all.

Let me add something to the above.

Compassion is something that may be present in a wide range of species, possibly including humans. However, not all of them have the luxury of continuously exercising it. Tactically, compassion is not always profitable.

As was pointed out before, our pets seldom have the need to protect their territory as vigilantly as their cousins in the wild. That allows for them to be more compassionate.

Also, the mention of a horse protecting a bunny rabbit, or a gorilla liking a cat, is clearly not a common thing. If the bunny or the cat was replaced by a tiger cub, their 'foster parents' might be reluctant to show them the same amount of mercy. Compassion is seldom extended to natural enemies.

Compassion is psychologically profitable. When you throw change at a beggar it is not directly profitable to you, but it does superficially deprive you of some guilt and makes you feel a good person, thereby benefitting you. Question is, do quite sentiant animals (such as dogs) also have such petty emotions as guilt?

Well, when you're in the bush, struggling very hard to simply be fed every day, how much time do you have to contemplate on psychological profit? And when you have the brains of a dog (for example), how much need would you have for psychology?

I agree with almost everything you say, TM, ubt could you clarify one thing: That bit where you spoke about pack behaviour and then symbiosis. You said that one of them was nothing to do with compassion, only mutualy need. I assumed you met symbiosis. However, this definition also extends to the pack behaviour you describe. Sharing food, helping the wounded etc, is necessary for the survival of the pack, and nothing to do with compassion.
Of course, if you meant that both of your points were merely cooperation and not compassion, you've already said all this! So ignore me

No, I'm not going to ignore a valid argument/question

With regard to your assumption that the distinction between compassion and mutual need referred to symbiosis: I mentioned that distinction in the paragraph on symbiosis, so your assumption is right

There is one difference between symbiosis and normal pack behaviour.

Within a pack, you will usually only find animals of the same species (although there are a number of exceptions ofcourse). They have some tolerance for eachother because without that there wouldn't be procreation and the species would become extinct. The need to cooperate is a natural thing here. You'll even see affectionate behaviour within the group outside sexual activity.

Symbiosis, on the other hand, is a bond between two different breeds of animal which don't mix 'sexually'. The mutual need in this case is not a logical consequence of their nature. However I agree that both species will adapt their ways to gain the maximum profit from the cooperation. That's not compassion, but mostly opportunism.

Fair enough, I agree with your definition of symbiosis vs. pack behaviour. Humans need to cooperate as well, we have a highly specialised sort of 'pack behaviour'. You could argue that we are all becoming so specialised that we are now like cells in the body (or at least organs). Nobody can do everybody else's job. And we all see the problems people without compassion have integrating into this society.
So, my main thrust is, do you think that compassion is just a more advanced form of oppurtunism, that is necessary for us to maintain our more advnaced and complex form of social cooperation? i.e. in the end, is there nothing more to compassion than simple need?

Dogs definitely have guilt. I had a dog that I was housebreaking, and when she would mess in the house, she would start acting real funny to me. So I'd get her to follow me around the house, and when I came to a room that she refused to enter, I knew I had the one.

That bit earlier about packs driving out the older or sicklier animals who can't help provide has a parallel in human history. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, dogs and horses were valued and loved members of the household, until they became too old to hunt or plow. When that time came, the animals were deemed to be a waste of food (remember, prior to the IR, food was a limited and precious resource) and taken out and shot.

Used to happen with old humans as well!

You don't say!