Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.
by coyote » Thu 02 Nov 2006, 00:19:00
BW, that was quite a post. I agreed with much, and found all of it interesting.
Lord, here comes the flood
We'll say goodbye to flesh and blood
If again the seas are silent in any still alive
It'll be those who gave their island to survive...
-
coyote
- News Editor
-
- Posts: 1979
- Joined: Sun 23 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: East of Eden
-
by threadbear » Thu 02 Nov 2006, 01:28:20
Thanks Blistered, That was very thoughtful and beautifully written. Not all scientists are reductionists, and not all reductionists are scientists as you made clear. Artists often ignore the innate complexity of a subject in an attempt to capture some sort of essence.
I have a problem with theories of mind that reduce mind to brain and then reduce brain down to a container for chemical reactions. It's a strange tautology that can dismiss the affection one feels for a dog, as just a chemical reaction, and miss that best loved theories of the mind, could be equally dismissed, for the same reason.
But I agree with you that there is something "artificial" about dogs that they actually share with humans. It's ironic that two species that have evolved, largely through the process of neoteny, have found resonance with one another, if not deep symbiosis.
It's doubly funny to me that dogs appear to worship us as Gods. It seems to be the same retention of juvenile traits that drives humans to worship God, who we actually refer to as "our father". Even when we pass what we think of as childhood, the desire to remain bonded with some kind of idealized super parent is there. What I have to ask is, why? What purpose does it serve the individual, to have acquired traits that make him want to grovel before a master, and an invisible one at that. Is there some part of our history we're unaware of? Are we someone's pets? If that question isn't asked, neoteny becomes just another form of reductionism.
Neoteny in dogs: Warning --cute art--painted by cute people.
Compared to wolves, many adult dog breeds retain such juvenile characteristics as soft fuzzy fur, round torsos, large heads and eyes, ears that hang down rather than stand erect, etc.; characteristics which are shared by most juvenile mammals, and therefore generally elicit some degree of protective and nurturing behavior cross species from most adult mammals, including humans, who term such characteristics "cute" or "appealing".
http://www.appleblossomart.org/dogdesk.htm
Neoteny in humans:
Stephen Jay Gould was an advocate of the view that humans are a neotenous species of chimpanzee; the argument being that juvenile chimpanzees have an almost-identical bone structure to humans, and that the chimpanzee’s ability to learn seems to be cut off upon reaching maturity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny
-
threadbear
- Expert
-
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
-
by Wednesday » Thu 02 Nov 2006, 02:29:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wednesday', 'L')ately I've been craving that sort of companionship that only comes from a good old mutt dog.
Gross.
Anyway, why are you posting this here? You can get an old mutt dog anywhere. Try craigslist. Are we supposed to vet (no pun intended) your
taste in type of mutt?
Or do you want a personal opinion on whether or not to own a dog.
Let me put it this way: a dog owns
you.
If you like following a dog around holding a sack of shit, and think this is some kind of lifestyle improvement, get a dog.
If you like countless hours wasted teaching the dog this and that, get a dog.
If you like having hair and dirt and a smelly house and dog shit all over the lawn, get a dog.
If you like barking or spending hours teaching a dog not to bark and this is your idea of "companionship", get a dog.
In other words, if you're stuck someplace you're just waiting to leave and don't really care about, and you can't find human companionship or some articulated appreciation of the solitary life, of communion with nature, or just need to cuddle with a warm, hairy animal that licks your face and digs holes in the yard and farts,
GET A DOG !!!
What's gross about a dog?
If you had actually read my posts then you would be aware why I can not own a dog at this time. You would also know that I have had many dogs in the past and plan to have another as soon as I am able to.
But you didn't bother to read. So now you are dismissed.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
~Friedrich Nietzsche~
-
Wednesday
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 763
- Joined: Wed 29 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Central Texas
-
by The_Toecutter » Thu 02 Nov 2006, 04:30:37
I've never cared for dogs much, but I do get along very well with big snakes.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
-
by BlisteredWhippet » Thu 02 Nov 2006, 04:43:55
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')hanks Blistered, That was very thoughtful and beautifully written. Not all scientists are reductionists, and not all reductionists are scientists as you made clear. Artists often ignore the innate complexity of a subject in an attempt to capture some sort of essence.
I have a problem with theories of mind that reduce mind to brain and then reduce brain down to a container for chemical reactions. It's a strange tautology that can dismiss the affection one feels for a dog, as just a chemical reaction, and miss that best loved theories of the mind, could be equally dismissed, for the same reason.
But I agree with you that there is something "artificial" about dogs that they actually share with humans. It's ironic that two species that have evolved, largely through the process of neoteny, have found resonance with one another, if not deep symbiosis.
We have grown the animals we deserve. From my perspective, there is no symbiosis. There are only people who feel that it is true. Just because they feel that its true, doesn't make all pet ownership beneficial. Some of us think we could use our time better. For actual symbiosis, there has to be a benefit relationship. Neotany explains an attraction but not the benefit. What an individual receives is a choice of what to do and makes their decision. Ultimately pet ownership is a destination. You choose what you spend your time doing. Pet ownership is a life style. I can find neotany anywhere.
Its obvious that the reverse is not true, that neotany would be the process or reason that a dog or cat looks at us. Its laughable. Neotany's origin is toward the protection and rearing of
our own children. What is beautiful are babies and youth. Powerfully beautiful.
But doesn't that show clearly that pets are an expression of the repressed desire to express the love and beauty of youth? The pet is a convenient substitute. There is the incest taboo here. A few weeks ago, I heard on the news a story about a local man whose wife called the cops on her husband, who was drunk, fucking the family pug on the back porch. She shot pictures of him with the cellphone.
While thats an extreme example, I'd invite you to impartially look at the fact that people frequently sleep with their dogs, cuddle with their dogs. They buy them toys,
talk to them,
kiss them, say things like "Whosamuddabuddaweedowwwowwoo?" That spells B.A.B.Y.
Dogs love their children. Whales love their children. Its Obvious.
Is it obvious that people love their dogs? Yes.
Do they benefit? It depends. Probably not, I think in more cases than not. Every pet owner will swear they love their animals. Some don't. If you're talking about symbiosis between species, canus and homo, when it comes right down to it... I'm not convinced. 8000 years we've been in contact... its not enough time to really know. It hasn't been a terribly bad deal, though, so it shows symbiosis is possible. If I were to argue the negative I would start out by demonstrating the effects of the focusing on just that one symbiotic relationship. Why shouldn't all animals enjoy our symbiotic time? I know why they can't: too many humans, not enough other animals. No habit or habitat.
Was the original domesticator attempting symbiosis with the first dogs? A technique was recently proven in a dog relative in the caucus region where in just a few generations, a domesticed breed could be developed. Now, was the human's motivation neotany? N o. Symbiosis? No. What is this person DOing? Exploiting the natural variation of just one individual of a species, thus creating a new species. He's "speciating". Pretty Godlike.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')What I have to ask is, why? What purpose does it serve the individual, to have acquired traits that make him want to grovel before a master, and an invisible one at that.
Evolution has the master plan but we are the builders. Its a funny thing whether you're a dog person or a cat person. If you can take it up or you can put it down.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')s there some part of our history we're unaware of?
Yes. Childhood. Some people get pets becuase they are trying to recapture and childhood and a child at the same time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')eoteny in dogs: Warning --cute art--painted by cute people.
It is a marker of American puritanism that neotany is only mentionable in terms of a non-human. Neotany in people is celebrated around the world. Now tell me this: would a person who enjoys the neotany in a cute animal be less natural than if they used that neotany to cute childlike, youthful, babylike art? Why, they'd just have to open a major retail catalog.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ompared to wolves, many adult dog breeds retain such juvenile characteristics as soft fuzzy fur, round torsos, large heads and eyes, ears that hang down rather than stand erect, etc.; characteristics which are shared by most juvenile mammals, and therefore generally elicit some degree of protective and nurturing behavior cross species from most adult mammals, including humans, who term such characteristics "cute" or "appealing".
Right. Right! Such animals never reach maturity. Neotany does not explain the benefit to either the dog or the human in a relationship where one infantilizes an individual of another species, for reasons almost wholly psychologically individuated for most people.
In the end though, it remains a substitute.
The alternative, non-pet ownership, avoids the "entanglement"...a word that pretty much describes the interface of pet and owner.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')eoteny in humans:
Stephen Jay Gould was an advocate of the view that humans are a neotenous species of chimpanzee; the argument being that juvenile chimpanzees have an almost-identical bone structure to humans, and that the chimpanzee’s ability to learn seems to be cut off upon reaching maturity.
by BlisteredWhippet » Thu 02 Nov 2006, 18:59:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'D')ogs are the opiates of the masses? Pugs not drugs!
It looks like we've got a romantic/reductionist and a Skinnerian on board here. I suggest that reducing the pet human relationship down to chemical reactions, deep pathology, or reflexive behaviour, though they are a part of the picture, miss several key pieces of the puzzle.
Endorphins and the hormonal environment is an extremely potent motivator and influences behavior. You could leave it out of the pet/owner analysis, but like you said, you would miss many keys to the picture. "Keys" is a good way to visualize the neurological aspects of the chemical awards of pet ownership. These psychoactive compounds are shaped like keys that open "locks" in the mind that release brain "dope". These lock/key mechanisms were shaped by evolutionary forces, and are therefore tied to species adaptation: reproduction and procreation.
Pet ownership remains questionable as to wether it is good for the
species. Remember, people exercise their mechanisms for eating fatty foods all the time, and we have a massive overpopulation problem. So the question remains, should we be stoking this reflex? There is no famine, but people certainly are eating like there is one- biological overshoot means evolution could be shortsighted. There is no population problem, but people tend to keep on stroking that neotany for kicks.
Neotany is clearly functional within the paramteters of humans nourishing and rearing their own children, just like sexual feelings are functional in terms of pleasure, reproduction and bonding. I'm not saying the non-childrearing functioning of neotany is bad; I'm saying it
can be just like the maniac who rubs up against telephone poles whenever he gets a
boner. The urge to roam freely, for instance, becomes a liability when locked in Solitary confinement at Attica. Neotany is like any other human drive, without an outlet, it will express itself in other ways.
I like chimpanzees.There are plenty of good analogies you can pull from them to illustrate human behavior. A primate, which left to its own behavior and given everything it needs, will be quite content to masturbate, sleep, fuck, and eat all day. Humans seek pleasure. In a Puritanical culture, the social norms act as a gate, focusing the urge for pleasure to socially-appropriate ends. The need for pleasure is absolute, a constant, yet the modes of pleasure are artificially constricted. This is the basis for the theory that pet ownership can be a stand-in for other things: sex, love, companionship. Indeed, for society to work, it needs the outlet. People would go nuts.
The theory that there is nothing we do that is not written on our mental reality is not original, and I think there is a lot of truth to it. Human behavior is predicated on motivation, and the strongest motivators we know of is body and brain chemistry. So to say that it is meaningless or incomplete to apply reductionism here misses the point of the exercise.
It does not deny that the human-dog relationship is greater than the sum of its parts. I am implying that there are more parts and the sum is even greater. I only appreciate apparent facts which I feel are interesting. I have no existential dilemma as far as damaging my relationship, because I have not
romanticized any particular relationship with an animal. You might still be on honeymoon with your Schnauser, and need a certain amount of fantasy to achieve your orgasmic, endorphin-drenched state of bliss in communion with your animal or whatever, but I don't have that motivation. I'm not spoiling anything for myself by seeing things clearly.
I can't see where I'm spoiling anything for you, except if you're a post-mature, post-chimpanzee who will no longer learn anything new. Perhaps your personal mythology surrounding the relationship with your pet is getting in the way of logical analysis. I can't say I blame you. I'm here to destroy your rose-colored glasses, for fun. I really don't care if can't look at fluffy the same way again, or it breaks into your moments of transcendent bliss with annoying questions like, "Am I happy, or just feel like it?"
I really could give a damn. We're in overshoot, and have 5 billion surplus people and probably an equal or slightly smaller number of surplus cats and dogs. I would advance the agenda to systematically destroy them all to return nature to balance, but obviously one needs to warm up an audience for that kind of punchline.
Mythology is the device with which dogma defends itself. The spiritual aspect of pet ownership resists reduction with petulance and irrationality.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')teve Gould is an icon in zoological circles. As usual, it will take someone from outside the traditional diciplines (psychology, sociology) to teach us more about ourselves, our psychology, and our behaviour. Gould completely undermines your point of view, Whippet. That's why you immediately dismiss him. We may be denatured, but we are still animals. Scientists like Gould are finding the more we learn about animals, the more we can appreciate that point.
This is precisely the point of contention: the belief of pet-owners that the pet-owner relationship is the best way to return to nature. I emphatically argue it is not; reductionism clearly exposes the human bias here, and material reality reflects an abolute poverty of benefit for nature "at large".
You can learn everything a dog needs to teach you about nature, yours and otherwise, by owning it for about a week. After that, it is pure cognitive pathology. The human mind in quite capable of inventing all kinds of meaning a fantasy, but the fact remains that a reasonably sensitive and intelligent human being can learn everything a dog has to teach rather quickly. After that, there are no new lessons. The pet simply fills a gap in the supply chain of human brain chemistry, providing a motivation for behvaior that inevitably seeks a simple pleasure principle, and a rather low order of intellectual and emotional stimulation, if I may be so frank.
This reduction is easily illustrated as appropriate thusly: any other human could give you everything the dog could give you, and much, much more. The dog's lemon-sized brain cannot comprehend the subtleties of human thought. Pets surprise and fascinate only because humans cannot perceive the reason they feel so good and are so delighted by what is typically rote, predictable behavior. There is little complexity, little novelty there. Reductionism explains the whole host of missing "keys". What is a crackhead's prize possession, the object of fetishization and fascination? The crack pipe. The animal is vessel for emotional and mental projections, a "delivery system". It has nothing to do with nature itself.
Crack addicts have a problem with reality, but more crack is not the remedy- it makes the problem
worse and that is my whole argument. Pet ownership makes people
more disconnected from nature. So I agree that "learning more about animals" might bring us closer to nature- but you can't have it both ways. You're not congruent by not applying this standard to your own relationship with an animal.
Someday, there may be a cure for the pet ownership, which I think resembles drug abuse or mental illness. Imagine a antidepressent-type blocking agent which prevents the brain from releasing the hormones associated with uncontrolled neotany. Millions of aging humans, having outlived the historical boundaries of their reproductive usefulness, their brains hemmoraging neotany hormones, the inveterate collectors of "cute" stuff, neotanous pornography and kitsch, suddenly having their eyes and minds cleared. For the first time in a long time, they realize they were always whole, like a fat guy realizing he doesn't really need a donut. No longer strung out on Heroin, the addict becomes a person who can appreciate natural happiness and pleasure.
Neotany could be controlled without drugs. All you need is a susbstitute
human being. I think the epidemic of pet ownership could be ascribed to the ascension of the nuclear family, a fragmentation of the extended family and wholesale erosion of community. The nucleation of the family was a sea-change in social dynamics and parallels the rise in personal pet ownership. Could it be the case that pets stand in for the naturally reciprocative interrelationship between youth and community? The aging nuclear family is problematic. The trend of gentrification drives people to further and further isolation in their age group. The mores of the society stratifies affiliation by age. The cultural ethic is highly age-conscious. Age discrimination is doctrine of mass media and advertising. People used to freely associate and benefit from relationships up and down the age strata. Receptacles for excess neotany were not necessary.
Just another brick in the wall, baby. Pet ownership is an indulgence, but not necessarily one that is not explainable or unjustifiable.
It occured to me the paragraph you quoted was taken out of context. I figured it must have been, because it is incomplete. Then I realize that it is not a quote from Gould, but someone paraphrasing Gould. I'll go back over it just for funsies.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Stephen Jay Gould was an advocate of the view that humans are a neotenous species of chimpanzee; the argument being that juvenile chimpanzees have an almost-identical bone structure to humans, and that the chimpanzee’s ability to learn seems to be cut off upon reaching maturity.
Keep reading it, it makes less and less sense. The adage "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" might be true for old, stupid dogs, and perhaps old, stupid people, but the connection is tenuous for
people.
I don't quite know how to respond. I don't believe in the automatic deference toward the randomly-quoted and paraphrased argument simply because it was once spouted by a meat robot with university credentials. The guy is pushing up daises right now so we'll offend no one by suggesting maybe he didn't understand animals on their own terms; perhaps he didn't truly appreciate the multifolded quality of animal intelligence; and perhaps his intellectual heritage belongs in the postmodern Cartesian rubbish bin, or on the Clearance rack at the used bookstore.
Humans are like chimpanzees. Human neotany is like chimp neotany. These are tautological banalities. So what?
But then there's this: "the chimpanzee’s ability to learn seems to be cut off upon reaching maturity."
What are we supposed to take from this? That you "can't teach an old dog new tricks"? What do you intend we take away from this folk-like witticism?
How about "You can't teach a pet owner anything about the relationship between him and his pet for sake of a profound, habitual addiction to pleasure hormones brought on by misplaced Neotanous behaviorism that closely resembles religion in its devotion to ethereal and sentimental rationalization and even mental disability related to addiction by the inability to self-organize critical thinking about its behavior, or resist its onceptualization."
In short, pet owners are an irrational bunch of chimps, engaging in private fantasies the benefits of which extend not beyond their ears or eyes.
I think the vanishing species of the Earth, the disappearing wild, the encroachment on habitat coupled with the disintigration of traditionally weblike and comprehensive human group social relationships form sufficient proof that pet ownership is part and parcel the problem of postmodern humanism in the long tradition going back some 8,000 years, starting with the domestication of certain plant and animal species, without running down the the long or short list of damages to the environment
at large this specific practice is engendering
today.
Stephen J. Gould, R.I.P. Thank you for playing.
I will take the companionship of any human being over any dog any day of the week. If I can't get a human, I'll take a chimpanzee, work my way down through the great apes, dolphins, porpoises, squirrels, ferrets, and then
maybe consider the banality of the dog or even less, a cat. But the likelihood of my being unable to find another human on a low order of probability, I don't see pet ownership in my future.
Used to be a good dog was justifiable, as a solitary man on the edge of the known; that companionship has a gravity, honor, and reason that seems eminently justifiable. I think pet ownership is good in some cases, and beneficial. But these are special situations, not as a mass practice. Functional "work" dogs are a good example of this. If the purpose of the animal is therapy for a human being, midwifery for good feelings, then I think the relationship is in danger of imbalance.
In the end, animals are a substitute receptacle for human neotany. Humans remain the ideal subject of human neotany, and return the richest investment. I would suggest the neotany-afflicted seek careers or jobs in nurturing environments filled with young people and discipline their minds so their behavior isn't so dictatorially directed by the vagaries of fickle brain chemistry.
Neotany is a process which evolution crafted to return energy to humanity- and perhaps
protect nature
at large by limiting this drive to members of its own species. Pets are a misplacement. If you've got free energy to throw around, go save wild animal habitat. Protect the world from your displaced neotany. Owning animals has definite environmental
consequences. Consider
not owning animals.
The subtleties of this last point are not taken seriously by most pet owners. I can only tell you that the environment most seriously afflicted by the environmental impact of pet animals is the immediate environment. Cats are much worse than dogs here. Cats tend to rapidly degrade and depopulate diversity wherever they are introduced. Pet ownership paradoxically becomes the
cause of a disconnection from nature, further driving wildlife away from the home. Human living environments should not be wild-free zones. It is not particularly enriching for me to know that my yard and my neighborhood is little more than a killing ground roving domesticated felines.
After moving several times in one area over 5 years, living with dogs and around cats, and finally living in an area with no cats at all (at the edge of the urban/suburban development band,) I was finally able to appreciate a landscape that had not suffered the encroachment of humans thorugh the extension mechanism of their pets. What a refereshing change! Diversity and numbers of species were vastly more numerous. There was a vitality missing from the more urban and suburbanized environments.
Its unfortunate that people cannot appreciate the power and extent of the consequences of their actions (obviously this is the reason the world is in the predicament that it is). That the average person does not apprciate the economic dynamic of compunding interest is analagous to the average pet owner, oblivious to the compounding nature of the environmental impact pet ownership has. We've been depleting natural and fiscal savings at a high rate of speed.
Search: Search Link
by threadbear » Fri 03 Nov 2006, 18:15:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'D')ogs are the opiates of the masses? Pugs not drugs!
It looks like we've got a romantic/reductionist and a Skinnerian on board here. I suggest that reducing the pet human relationship down to chemical reactions, deep pathology, or reflexive behaviour, though they are a part of the picture, miss several key pieces of the puzzle.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Stephen Jay Gould was an advocate of the view that humans are a neotenous species of chimpanzee; the argument being that juvenile chimpanzees have an almost-identical bone structure to humans, and that the chimpanzee’s ability to learn seems to be cut off upon reaching maturity.
Keep reading it, it makes less and less sense. The adage "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" might be true for old, stupid dogs, and perhaps old, stupid people, but the connection is tenuous for
people.
I don't quite know how to respond. I don't believe in the automatic deference toward the randomly-quoted and paraphrased argument simply because it was once spouted by a meat robot with university credentials. The guy is pushing up daises right now so we'll offend no one by suggesting maybe he didn't understand animals on their own terms; perhaps he didn't truly appreciate the multifolded quality of animal intelligence; and perhaps his intellectual heritage belongs in the postmodern Cartesian rubbish bin, or on the Clearance rack at the used bookstore.
Search: Search Link
If Gould died following a career pushing postmodern Cartesian rubbish, he put Descartes before the hearse. True or false.
As far as your comments about neoteny, they reflect a lack of understanding. You are obviously new to the topic.
Apes can't learn new things with any great ease after adulthood. But apes aren't domestic creatures, nor are they neotenized. People can learn well past adulthood and dogs can too. A strong affinity for and ability to learn novel information is a hallmark of the juvenile mind, not the adult mind.
Dogs help to anthropomorphize nature for people, and that is a profoundly a good thing, if a bit silly on ocassion. If we percieve all of the animal kingdom as being kind of cute, they stand a better chance of survival. Dogs should be viewed as the natural world's ambassadors to humanity. (Go ahead and scream, you're so cute when you're angry)
YOu should take your writing gifts and do a movie treatment about how you feel about dogs. Call it, "Lassie, Go away"
by BlisteredWhippet » Fri 03 Nov 2006, 19:41:37
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f Gould died following a career pushing postmodern Cartesian rubbish, he put Descartes before the hearse. True or false.
The reason why I dismiss Gould is because his work is irrelevant to my work here, which is mounting an argument against pet ownership. Who cares what Gould thought? He is a dead man and his ideas died with him. Real life happens outside the library. Gould tried to prove evolution, which to mind is a waste of life. It would be like me trying to prove Costco has the lowest possible prices. I already agree with his argumentation, so why investigate? I think the canon of western thought and philosophy is categorically against nature as evidenced by the sorry state of it through its attentions and "stewardship". The whole kit 'n' kaboodle must be thrown out for a new, better deal to appear.
The question remains
why should I care what Gould has to say? Or is this a just an empty appeal to authority?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s far as your comments about neoteny, they reflect a lack of understanding. You are obviously new to the topic.
Neoteny as a topic doesn't hold much interest for me. I've already grasped it fully. I'm not sure where I'm out of the loop here. It is a simplistic concept, no one argues it, show me where I've misused the the concept.
Neoteny may be the process by which an animal becomes phylogenetically cuter, but this is followed by the behaviorism of attractiveness to novelty, youth, beauty. The neotenous drive is expressed in attraction toward warm, soft, fuzzy, helpless, etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')pes can't learn new things with any great ease after adulthood. But apes aren't domestic creatures, nor are they neotenized. People can learn well past adulthood and dogs can too. A strong affinity for and ability to learn novel information is a hallmark of the juvenile mind, not the adult mind.
I disagree with the premise that the animal can be measured, judged, or its motivations grasped outside its natural environment, while maintaining its character as distinctly non-human. The research only shows that humans took an animal and applied tests that were relevant to humans in order to prove that the non-human had human-like qualities. Animals are an order, I believe, not subject to to anthropomorphic questions like, "Can they learn new things?" The methodology is fundamentally flawed. We create human tests for apes becuase we cannot fathom an ape test for apes. Apes don't take tests. They don't
have to learn "new things". So Gould and his silly tests can take a walk.
Give me something that Gould says that interests me, and I'll investigate on my own, thanks.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ogs help to anthropomorphize nature for people, and that is a profoundly a good thing, if a bit silly on ocassion. If we percieve all of the animal kingdom as being kind of cute, they stand a better chance of survival. Dogs should be viewed as the natural world's ambassadors to humanity. (Go ahead and scream, you're so cute when you're angry)
