Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

3

sudo wrote

None of them have evolved enough to understand language yet. Chimpanzees are getting there, eventually - scientists say they're currently in their own "stone age" right now. But no species other than humans is currently advanced enough to understand language, fire, or other types of primitive technology.

Let's not forget that these species aren't doing much better than primitive humans, as far as ethics are concerned. Chimpanzees have been known to wage "war" on each other. Male dolphins often rape female dolphins. Besides that, though, should any of these species ever evolve to the point of developing a civilization of their own, there is no reason to believe they would skip past capitalism.

4

kore wrote (edited )

bonobos on the other hand are much more egalitarian and "free love" kind of animals

generally don't agree with applying terms like "ethics' to non-human behavior though.

EDIT: also i don't think that one should use terms like "enough" or "advanced" when talking about evolution. there is no more or less. it's extremely easy to get into scientific racism with that sort of mentality

EDIT 2: i also think you are overgeneralizing (and arguably being a bit racist) by associating war and rape with so-called "primitive" societies.

1

sudo wrote

bonobos on the other hand are much more egalitarian and "free love" kind of animals

More so than chimpanzees, yes, but they aren't completely free of problematic behaviour. For example, females that have strong bonds keep males away from food and often attack males, biting off their fingers and toes (de Waal 1997). They also have social hierarchies.

generally don't agree with applying terms like "ethics' to non-human behavior though.

Why not?

EDIT: also i don't think that one should use terms like "enough" or "advanced" when talking about evolution. there is no more or less.

Really? You don't think there is such a thing as a more advanced lifeform? You don't think there is any difference in cognitive ability between yourself and, say, a horse? A frog? A tree? An amoeba?

it's extremely easy to get into scientific racism with that sort of mentality

Only if you go on to say that X race of humans is less evolved than Y race, which is not scientific at all, nor is it true.

EDIT 2: i also think you are overgeneralizing (and arguably being a bit racist) by associating war and rape with so-called "primitive" societies.

These are things that humans have been doing to each other for millennia, and still are doing to each other. The OP seems to think that humans are unique in their ability to be violent to each other, and that other species wouldn't do the same thing. I'm merely shattering that illusion.

1

kore wrote

"Ethics" means nothing to the bonobo female biting off a male's toes.

I do not think there is such a thing as a more advanced lifeform. I obviously am a very different lifeform than an amoeba, but they are just as evolved as me.

My point about scientific racism was precisely that it's based off of the untrue assumption that there can be more or less evolution (aside from the fact that there are no human "races" as the term is defined by modern biologists)

If humans are still doing these things to each other there's no reason to use the word primitive, that's my point.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

My vote is octopuses. We've recently found that they've started making cities, and something about a bunch of typically isolated creatures begrudgingly living together tickles me to no end.

2

kore wrote

Kanzi the bonobo is probably what you're looking for: http://lithiccastinglab.com/gallery-pages/2001julykanzichimp.htm

There are tons of videos of him on youtube too.

bonobos/other apes don't have the hand anatomy to make anything more than the most basic stone tools. (thumbs are too short for powerful precision grip, wrists not that flexible)

As far as language goes, human vocal tracts are actually very specific morphologically and it's doubtful even our closest genetic relatives (neanderthals, homo erectus) had the proper larynx morphology to produce speech as varied as we do.

Symbolically, chimpanzees can use symbols (or gestures) to communicate but it is not conclusively proven that they have a capacity for syntax or grammar (i.e. "combinatorial" language)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vocalization#Bird_language goes into this for birds.

"work together" so many organisms do this, bees for one. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality for more.

1

ThisGuyIsAProblem wrote

Shit, if there was another intelligent species here, one of the intelligent species would enslave the other.
Took like 50,000 years and we still try enslaving our own race.