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

Nope, evolution takes care of that. That is why we feel disgust and stays away from anything rotting. Like it doesn´t require intelligence to stay away from cliffs. The ones that didn´t simply died out.

Evolution took care of that with disgust and intelligence to come up with something to do about it.

If Uncle Albert died in the cave and got smelly, you may well get too disgusted to get near it, therefore evacuating the cave. Which isn't too wise a move.

And then the ones that buried him right after survived, and the others walked into a cave with a bear in it looking for a new place to live, and died.

Which - to put the converstaion on track again - brings us back to the cows and their electric fences.

Did anyone see "Quest for Fire"?

Okay, let´s put it back on track then. Even though I love when discussions wander off. There were once upon a time two monkeys fighting. The mate of one of them tried to seperate them but couldn´t. But then got the idea to scream "Leppard!" and everybody, including the two fighting monkeys, hurried into the trees. What do you think, was this in some way language, since she used a word that had already been created for a different purpose?

Nope. Not at all. Language has nothing to do with WHAT is said. Or rather, it does, but only because of what those words MEAN. When a monkey yells "leppard" (even though it probably would have yelled "leopard", instead ) it is converying the idea of danger. That is communication, not language.

If you are saying that there was no danger (which is the idea that I am getting, upon reading your post a second time), I still maintain that it is not language. The monkey was not conveying an idea that had never been conveyed before. It was not original. He was screaming "danger", which was true. The fight was a danger, to both monkeys involved.

Another point to bring up - animals are intelligent. Very few people these days say that animals aren't intelligent. There are too many examples of intelligence in animals to think otherwise. The degree of intelligence varies, but there is still an innate intelligence. That doesn't mean they can think the way we can, though. Animals do know how to problem solve, that is a proven fact. But that only makes sense - evolutionarily speaking. An animal with the ability to problem solve will not starve to death, or will not be trapped by a predator, as easily as another one that cannot.

Also, there's an evolutionary explanation to altruism. Any organism can be considered "evolutionary fit" if they pass they're genes on to the next generation. So what happesn to barren animals? Animals that can't have kids. The explanation is this: altruism. It's not real altruism, of course, but the explanation says that there IS no real altruism. Animals help other animals for seemingly no benefit, because it helps pass on their own genes. For example. You might find a herd of elephants, which are all related (as herds normally work) in whihc all the members help the infants. What does that mean? My brothers and sisters (and the elephants brothers and sisters) share some of the same genes as I do. SO if I help THEIR children, then SOME of my genes are being passed on - even if not so many, and even if not from my own body. The point of all this? A problem solving animal can save another animal's life better than a non-problem solving animal can.

Which, to settle all of the evolutionary biologists out there, does NOT mean that it evolved out of necessity. But if a gene for problem solving mutated into existence (which must have happened, since animals can problem solve), then it is an evolutionary advantage ot be able to problem solve.

Marduk I am rapidly becoming a great fan of yours. You have put so much thought and effort into your postings - not only here. A hard act to follow.

Reading about elephants, the thought crossed my mind that the attitude conveyed by some TV programmes on animals is rather patronising. The fact, for example, that elephants use midwives and such is just as normal as humans having midwives, but it is often presented as something cute (especially if the example shown is using smaller animals). We should be learning from them. Maybe they picked up something along the way that we could use, too, or have forgotten since. In things like this, they are our equals, as mammals, and not for us to look down on, as if they were copying us, or thinking "how clever of them to think of that, too".

Maybe we could eliminate cot death by licking our babies when they're born. A bit far-fetched, but that's the sort of thing I mean ... humanity has de-naturalised itself too far.

And those that attempt to be natural in anyway are regarded as hippies, ecowarriors and treehuggers.

All of which can well be true, but they should not be terms of derision.

Well I breastfed my babies because I was too lazy to wash bottles. And I don't care if anyone derides me for that. I can still retaliate with the arguments about human milk being better for human babies' immune systems etc etc. Whenever it suits me, I always do what animals do - i.e. sleep after meals, when possible/smell my children/seek company/seek solitude. It's usually the easier thing to do and creates contentment and peace of mind.

Fair enough. The fact that you have to be *so* careful about sterilising bottles suggests there has to be another way.

Having said that, I don't know why you'd want to smell your children...

Hmm, well I knew all that about altruism already :-p We all act out of selfishness. The core idea of Satanism, check it out.

Hmm, saying that we ought to be more natural seems wrong to me. Firstly, it makes as much sense as when somebody says to you "just act natural". Those two kind of rule each other out. Secondly, just because somehting is natural doesn´t mean it´s good. Death is natural, but I´d prefer not to experience it. Technology isn´t evil, while running around in leopard-fur(in the first posting every time I wrote leopard I corrected it to leppard. I thought that was the English word for it, because of Def Leppard) and hitting animals with clubs is heaven. The noble wild is a lie. And about treehuggers and hippies, the problem with them is that they have a screwed up idea of Nature. Their view on it is too fed up with romantic ideas, instead of facing reality. And in that way, even though they have good intentions, they usually screw up more than they do good. I´d personally like to start a new kind of Greenpeace, that really knows what it´s doing before going off trying to change the world.

Ahh, now I remember what I wanted to say too. The monkey didn´t just sue the word for danger, she used the word for leopard. Which when said makes everybody head for the trees. There are other screams for other things. But the reason she did it was to seperate the two fighting monkeys, where one of them was her mate.

A few points to make

First, I do commend you, Trillian's Child, on breast feeding your children. Babies, rather - I'd hope you're not still breast feeding them. You are very right to do so. I don't know about in Europe, but in North America, it is becoming much more widely spread that breast feeding is better from the children AND for the mother. There was a study done (don't have the specs on me, though) that showed that the longer a baby breast feeds, the lower its chances of developing allergies. And there's always the excellent saying - "Cows milk is for baby cows".

I think in terms of natural vs. unnatural, and learning from animals, you have to define what you mean. There ARE things we learn from animals. Martial arts is the glaringly obvious one that springs to my mind. Probably because I take kung fu (meaning that if you don't take martial arts, or don't know much about it, it wouldn't be "obvious"). The history of martial arts is that they all began under one roof, so to speak, several thousand years ago, when buddhist monks had to travel the harsh distances from India to China. They had to learn how to defend themselves from bandits along the way. Since the use of weapons is prohibited by the buddhist religion, they developed what they call "natural" weapons - the hands, feet, elbows, knees, arms, and legs. They developed techniques from watching how animals moved and fought. The tiger, crane, and snake are three of the prominent animals from which they learned.

Don't mistake this for just a way of fighting - it's a way of life. All of the movements, all of the forms, are designed to improve the body's strength, flexibility, and ultimately - health. All of the techniques are closely linked to methods of breathing that maximize oxygen flow to the brain and the body, and they both relax and stimulate at the same time.

There are other things which we do very similar to animals, and don't need to learn from them. They're mostly what we call "instinct". In terms of psychology, we learn most of what we know about behaviour from animals. We know that there are big differences between humans and white mice, but we perform studies on white mice in order to extrapolate human behaviour from the results of those studies.

People are beginning to realize the importance of taking care of the world, much more so than ever before in history. There have always been a few people interested and knowledgable about keeping the world "healthy", but it has never been widely known. That is changing, and you can see it, with toxic materials being outlawed, and recycling (at least in North America) is becoming a part of daily routine. I do have to agree, though, that a lot of "fanatics", have a more...extreme... view point. Extreme only in a sense that I believe they do not consider the needs of humans as much as they should. Yes, it is important to keep the world in good condition. No, we shouldn't just do things and leave it to our children to clean up. But at the same time, we have to take into account the fact that we have 6 billion or so people (give or take a few) on this planet, and their needs come first. if there is something that is a necessity to human survival (by which I don't mean life or death, but living a good life, in comfort, like an average middle class citizen, with good health, enough food, warm clothes, etc) then I think it does not matter how many trees it takes, or how many animals it kills. I am firmly against animal testing for cosmetics, but in firm support of it for medical testing (under the proper ethical guidelines). I am firmly against any cruelty to animals, be it throwing stones at squirrels or harpooning whales for fun. I am also against hunting for sport, and killing for no purpose. But when it all boils down, we humans come first.

*gets off soap box*

As for the monkeys... If the monkey said the word for leopard, instead of the word for danger, it wasn't conveying a new idea, was it? It was conveying the idea of a leopard being there. So I put forth that the monkey was not using language, but rather problem solving skills. It decided that just yelling danger wouldn't be enough, so it had to think of some other way of saving its mate from this fight.

I agree with you, too, Marduk. What I was trying to say was that we should listen more to our instincts (i.e. behave as the animals do) than just rely on unnecessary technology - at least it seems best in things like having babies and, maybe to a point, curing illnesses or discomforts. I can usually tell, if I am being sick, what has caused it, and you should be able to feel instinctively if an pain needs cold or hot compresses to treat it. But people just try and think their way through this.

I have an attitude, again concerning childbearing, which I can't explain, but I can see no reason why I shouldn't carry someone else's baby for them. It sort of shocks me, myself, but gut feeling is that there is nothing wrong with that. I had really good pregnancies and enjoyed having babies, I was strong enough to do it and am capable of detaching myself emotionally from the baby growing inside me. Since I have had a hysterectomy, I can't do it any more.

O well, enough of that.

Cow - if you don't know what it's like to smell your baby then you can't have had children.

To get back to communication. I have now heard that plants communicate. Someone told me, I don't mean I overheard something in the garden.

Absolutely right... Still infact a non-consentual virgin (ie: desparate for it...)

Ahem.

Technology is neutral... it's the attempt to apply it that is good or evil. And we don't understand enough about the natural world to work out the full consequences of our actions.
I'm sure no-one would begrudge anti-biotics... but they are rapidly becoming useless as strains evolve to have resistance to them. The one system we still have that successfully combats bacteria is the immune system...

And where do you think the phrase 'Get a life!' came from? Get up from your TV, your computer, your artifical creations around you and smell the warm, peaty smell of wet earth in the morning.
Which is something I do far too rarely...

I've only had time to skim the postings, but has anyone mentioned bees yet?

In passing only.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Watzlawick also writes about bees. It's body language, all right, but
some crazy researcher found out, that they have some sort of grammar,
don't laugh, and that there are even different dialects! Italian bees
cannot understand Austrian ones and vice versa. Fascinating stuff.

To browse a forum quickly, remove all & things upto but not including &post=xxxxx and and &show=999 or some other semi-moderate number. 100 should be more than enough... maybe even 50.

Pregnant woman has the strongest instincts - for example she is very careful crossing the street or stepping downstairs, she knows exactly what she needs to eat (strawberries for iron, chalk for calcium etc etc), sometimes coffee and smoking make her sick, sometimes she wants to sit in the water up to her neck. If you ask her why, she just says - I feel so...
I felt so.

I agree with Cow, technology is a tool just like a hammer or a scythe or a rock. It can be used or misused. It should make our lives easier and better, but some people do go to an excess. Hopefully we as a race will figure out what's good for us soon enough!

If you're interested on bees, take a look at the forum on "what was the first language". We discuss it there. They have a complex form of communication, but it's not a language. I'd argue the point of grammar - unless it was being defined only as a set of rules to determine the communcation. It's definitely not a "language". The dialects, though is an interesting point, one that I believe is evolutionary. Their method of communication involves a series of dances and wiggles to show the other bees how far the food is. And imagine this: one set of bees lives in the mountains, another set lives in the open plains. The first set needs a wiggle to show the mountain, perhaps going up or down, but the second set doesn't. Thus a symbol would have to have evolved for one, but wouldn't have evolved for the other.