Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How Darwin worship helps animal extinction

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Clever Critters: 8 Best Non-Human Tool Users, by Brandon Keim (Wired Science, January 16, 2009), we are introduced to best known examples of animal tool use.
The article begins with the requisite Darwin worship, of course:

Much more likely remains to be found: until Jane Goodall watched chimpanzees fishing for termites with sticks, scientists had been reluctant to credit animals with such sophisticated behavior — perhaps because, as Charles Darwin noted, “Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.”
Darwin himself was quite intrigued by animal tool use, suggesting that it allowed them to overcome biological shortcomings. In On the Origin of Species, he noted that elephants snap off tree branches to swat away flies; in honor of Darwin’s interest, elephants are the first on our list of animal tool use.

So that compares with, say, the Canadarm on the Space Shuttle?

Well, the sad reality is better recorded here: “African elephants face extinction by 2020, conservationists warn”.

If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

They don’t stand a chance in a contest.

Look, it was never supposed to be a contest. Pretending that they and we are on equal terms dooms them.

Whatever you may believe about religion, the plain fact is that we must look after them, especially when they are vulnerable. Otherwise, they will die.

Ideologies aimed at pretending that humans are “just evolved animals” are – in my view – bad for the environment.

Comments
Why is third hand reportage about YouTube videos from Wired from months ago rating an OP, when Mr Vjtorley is citing the primary literature on the same subject in the comments on the Emergence threads? This OP is clearly more op-ed than journalism. Where is the 'because'? Where is the justification of the opinions stated? The view that humans and elephants and butterflies are all twigs in the great tree of life is bad for elephants and butterflies because ... ? Please fill in the blank.Nakashima
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
To be fair, caterpillars can do stuff that you can't either. :-)David Kellogg
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
"Yes, it is fundamentally “racist”, but not like “I think black people are inferior to me”, more like “I think caterpillars are inferior to me”." uflcard and all: It's not a question of "-iority." I (a human of limited gifts) can easily do stuff caterpillars can't. Never could and never will. And no training would teach them. But all humans blessed with normal gifts can do what I can do, and vast numbers can do much better than me. The caterpillars' nature is not such that they would even strive for such achievements. They just want to know the way to the nearest leaves they can devour. And their nature is fine as it is. I would not seek to tamper with it. It is an insect nature, and insects are very important on the face of the Earth. Their role must be properly understood. But it is not an intelligent nature as a human understands intelligence.O'Leary
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
I have a question: does "Darwin worship" help animal extinction? The post does not provide a shred of evidence that it does.David Kellogg
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
uoflcard in #24: Are you asserting that a natural process, such as evolution, cannot (i.e. by definition) produce humans who have the ability (i.e. the intellectual and emotional capacities) to do things that are qualitatively different from the capacities of all other animals? If so, please cite arguments, with evidence, to support this assertion.Allen_MacNeill
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Clive, re #20:
"I never got an answer from you Allen as to exactly what accounts for the “ought” in evolutionary psychology."
That's because there isn't any "ought" in evolutionary psychology. It's a purely descriptive field, with some analytic underpinnings. It has absolutely nothing to do with ethics, which are prescriptive, not descriptive/analytic. To be as concise as possible, we cannot decide what we "ought" to do by consulting what evolutionary psychology suggests we have an evolved tendency to do. Yes, we might discover that what we "ought" to do might be somewhat easier for us to do, compared with a sentient race that evolved from, say, badgers. However, saying that something might be "easy" is once again to say nothing at all about whether we "ought" to do it.Allen_MacNeill
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
uoflcard,
He [Dawkins] is very much in favor of producing a “humanzee”, strictly in order to blur the line between humans and the other animals in the world.
Do you have know of a quote by Dawkins where he says he is in favor of actually producing a human-chimp hybrid? I know he has speculated about the possibility as a sort of thought experiment, but he qualifies this by stating:
"I have not said that I hope any of them [experiments including the chimp-human hybrid] will be realised."
madsen
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
#17 Larry:
Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.
I see this as a fundamentally racist and selfish position because it denies any commonality or connection between humans and other animals. While human uniqueness is a wonderful thing that should not be ignored - neither should we deny the uniqueness of other species of living things - I see no reason to draw such hard boundaries between ourselves and other forms of life. To establish such boundaries as axiomatic is spurious and reprehensible. Denyse O’Leary’s post reminds me of the anti-abolitionist arguments made by American slave-owners: “Slavery is actually good for the slaves. They like it. It makes them happy.”
I really disagree with basically everything you wrote here. First, Denyse's position does not deny "any" commonality or connection, it just states that humans have fundamental differences in several key aspects. Listen to Mozart, gaze at a Michelangelo work, study the LHC, and this is obvious. Yes, it is fundamentally "racist", but not like "I think black people are inferior to me", more like "I think caterpillars are inferior to me". So you are not in favor of ANY "racism" between animal groups? I'll give you a spin off of a scenario that was proposed during the debate about embryonic stem cell research: There is an old building, which you know is full of termites. There is also a baby in there. It is on fire. Do you save the one baby? Or do you grab a piece of wood to save thousands of termites? If there is no difference between the two, the decision should be made on sheer numbers. If you choose the baby, then you are agreeing with Denyse, that there is a You equate her view of animals with anti-abolitionist views of slaves. Basically you're in favor of giving human rights to animals? If not, then the comparison is completely uncalled for. If so, then please explain to me how you think society should work (prosecution for people who hit bugs with their car windshields? Or no rights for anyone - i.e. total anarchy?)
While human uniqueness is a wonderful thing that should not be ignored - neither should we deny the uniqueness of other species of living things - I see no reason to draw such hard boundaries between ourselves and other forms of life.
You seem to equate the uniqueness of humans (genius thought, brilliant works of art, the ability to comprehend rights and form civilizations) is the same as the uniqueness among animals (varying physical characteristics and instincts). You say you see no reason to draw a hard boundary between us and other forms of life. If you can't see the fundamental differences between humans and the rest of biology, I think it is because doing so would violate your worldview. However you believe we aquired our traits of intellect astronomically beyond the capacities of all other organisms in the history of biology (an extremely unique selection pressure history, Image of God, whatever), you are just in denial if you cannot acknowledge their significance. They aren't just "unique" like every other lifeform was "unique" from one another in form and/or function.uoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT
Uoflcard, I'm not even getting to the merits of any particular animal rights argument. I'm just trying to figure out the rationale behind the opening post. I know Ms. O'Leary is a respectable grandmother and everything, but this article reflects some exceptionally sloppy reasoning.Ludwig
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Ludwig:
Ms. O’Leary used the phrase “on equal terms” (as far as I can tell) to imply an attitude something like “they’re equal to us, so they can fend for themselves.” It’s what I characterized as, “every animal for itself.” That’s not at all the view of PETA, Singer, etc. They would, if anything, give wild animals too much protection, not too little.
Then we would be in agreement, for the most part. See my post above about an extreme hypothetical of road killing getting ambulances/crime scenes and prosecution for people who step on ants. They stop short of this scenario because it defies everything that makes us human, which, as much as they deny it, actually does exist.uoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Allen, More to the point of what Ms. O'Leary was trying to get at here, even if "Darwinism" leads us to the conclusion that "we should treat all animals exactly the same way we treat humans," why would that put them at greater risk of extinction? Did she mean to imply about human nature that the more we see other animals as "on equal terms" with us, the more likely we are to exterminate them? That's a pretty grim assessment, and incorrect, I think.Ludwig
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill, "is to once again fallaciously conflate an “is” statement (the first one) with an “ought” statement (the second one). We’ve been over this road before, joseph; want to do it again?" I do, because I never got an answer from you Allen as to exactly what accounts for the "ought" in evolutionary psychology. I posted my question three or four times, and you just ignored it. Please, stoop to explain to me how we, as purely evolved beings, who cannot evoke and ought from an is, know what ought is?Clive Hayden
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
That is, if you are arguing that this statement:
"According to the theory of evolution we are animals, no more or less “evolved” than any other animal."
means that
"therefore we should treat all animals exactly the same way we treat humans"
is to once again fallaciously conflate an "is" statement (the first one) with an "ought" statement (the second one). We've been over this road before, joseph; want to do it again?Allen_MacNeill
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
In #16 joseph wrote:
"According to the theory of evolution we are animals, no more or less “evolved” than any other animal."
So obviously the case as to constitute a truism. Your point?Allen_MacNeill
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.
I see this as a fundamentally racist and selfish position because it denies any commonality or connection between humans and other animals. While human uniqueness is a wonderful thing that should not be ignored - neither should we deny the uniqueness of other species of living things - I see no reason to draw such hard boundaries between ourselves and other forms of life. To establish such boundaries as axiomatic is spurious and reprehensible. Denyse O'Leary's post reminds me of the anti-abolitionist arguments made by American slave-owners: "Slavery is actually good for the slaves. They like it. It makes them happy." How O'Leary connects a vague notion of "Darwinism" to animal extinction is not explained or supported. Too bad.Larry Tanner
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
Ludwig, According to the theory of evolution we are animals, no more or less "evolved" than any other animal.Joseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
I asked who was putting wild animals "on equal terms" with humans, as Ms. O'Leary used that phrase. I received several responses referring me to PETA, Singer, speciesism, etc. I don't think that's right, but I can see why there's a misunderstanding. I think it's because of confusion over the meaning of the phrase "on equal terms." Animal rights proponents would, arguably, place wild animals "on equal terms" with us in terms of rights. Using that meaning of "on equal terms," they would, if anything, give wild animals too much protection. Ms. O'Leary used the phrase "on equal terms" (as far as I can tell) to imply an attitude something like "they're equal to us, so they can fend for themselves." It's what I characterized as, "every animal for itself." That's not at all the view of PETA, Singer, etc. They would, if anything, give wild animals too much protection, not too little. In other words, no one puts wild animals "on equal terms" with humans under the novel meaning Ms. O'Leary is giving that phrase. I think this is a really confused article.Ludwig
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
I think Darwinism helps animals, because people who are devout Darwinists usually love the animals they study. I think it is bad for humans more than animals. Let's say Dawkins gets his wish and we completely blur/erase the line between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. So he's happy because all teachings of God have be expunged from public law, but now what? All animals have equal rights? So a deer that gets hit by a car has to have an ambulance called (or else the driver is held responsible for flying the scene of an accident, manslaugher, and who knows what else). How about that ant you stepped on on the way to work? 150 years in prison for you w/o parole (that was the 100th ant you killed this week!). No one is implying to take it to that ridiculous of a level, but if you blur the first line, where does it stop? Just chimps? Just apes? Mammals? It would be completely arbitrary. Forget mental capacities, because NO other animal on Earth has the mental capacity to understand human rights. So IMO, Darwinism actually helps animals, because it usually leads to an increased awareness of animal health and environment. It is probably an inconsistent application of worldview that causes a Darwinist to stop from going all of the way to the scenario I proposed above (or to the only other possibility: No rights for anyone, i.e. the end of civilization). IMO, the #1 reason I can't be an atheist, besides the lack of faith, is how unlivable the worldview really is when you consider all of its ramifications. While appalled at his beliefs, I at least have some level of respect for atheists like Peter Singer who honestly takes his atheistic worldview to its true, horrific conclusions. Let me emphasize that the respect is for his honesty, and nothing to do with the fact that he thinks it's okay to kill babies.uoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
Angryoldfatman #10:
So if other animals endanger us with their tools, we will use our tools to purposefully exterminate these other animals, rather than just accidently and haphazardly doing so as in the past.
Could you please expand on this? I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you being threatened by tool-wielding wild animals?
unconnected dots and unforeseen consequences are your stock and trade.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I hope we can abide by the new moderation rules and avoid personal attacks.Ludwig
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
Sorry, that last sentence should have been directed at Ludwig, who seemed to imply high similarity between humans/animals while also denying it. That was confusing, yes. Also, I see Denyse's post as a stretch. She does at least state that it's her opinion. She doesn't say all extinction is Dawinism's fault, she just says putting animals and humans on equal terms is bad for animals. I think she needs to expound on this idea a little more, though. Here's my understanding of the theory....Darwinism/Naturalism implies that we are perfectly equal with all life on Earth. We are not "greater" or "more privaledged than them. We put them on equal grounds with us, and we leave them alone. This (somehow - Denyse needs to further explain) contributes to higher rates of extinction, especially endangered species. Perhaps it's because if we leave endangered species alone, they will probably die. I would agree with that, but I don't see how Darwinism implies leaving animals completely alone (maybe this could be better explained by Denyse or someone else)uoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
Yes, we should look after them. Make sure they get nice and meaty.Joseph
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Ludwig @1 wrote:
I appreciate Ms. O’Leary’s concern for the preservation of wildlife, but who exactly is asserting that humans and wild animals are “on equal terms”?
Besides the names brought up via Wiki entry on "speciesism", there's Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, and Eric Pianka, along with practically the entirety of PETA, ALF, VHEMT, and all sympathetic organizations and groups.
And the “every animal for itself” attitude Ms. O’Leary seems to be criticizing doesn’t necessarily follow from accepting that (1) humans are animals who use tools and (2) other animals use tools as well.
We use tools. Animals use tools. Humans are animals, the only difference being (as you so astutely pointed out)that humans' tools are much more sophisticated than other animals'. So if other animals endanger us with their tools, we will use our tools to purposefully exterminate these other animals, rather than just accidently and haphazardly doing so as in the past. I'm surprised you couldn't make the logical connections necessary to arrive at these conclusions. I guess I shouldn't have been; unconnected dots and unforeseen consequences are your stock and trade.angryoldfatman
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Huh? She said:
Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals. They don’t stand a chance in a contest.
That is an obvious admission that humans are responsible for the extinction of animals.
I don’t see any chimps trying to save endangered species.
Umm, okay. Touché. No, seriously though. What are you talking about? Her post was a call for humans to protect endangered species, and an assignment of blame to humans for destroying them. And an implication that Darwinism is somehow responsible.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Observation 1: elephants can be said to use tools. Observation 2: elephants are endangered. Conclusion: "Darwin worship helps animal extinction." What in the world? That makes no sense.David Kellogg
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
AmericaninKansaskis:
Now you’re saying that human activity is responsible for extinction? Are you willing to admit you’ve made an about face?
I believe you have it exactly opposite of what she said. Denyse:
Whatever you may believe about religion, the plain fact is that we must look after them, especially when they are vulnerable. Otherwise, they will die.
AIK:
Species were going extinct long before 1859. Of course, your “human activity INCREASES biodiversity” post makes it painfully clear that you are unaware of this. And the reasons for these extinctions had NOTHING to do with treating animals as equals.
We also weren't trying to take care of them. We slaughtered many species (Wooly Mammoths, etc.). Now that we know of our responsibility to care for them (i.e. have dominion over them), we should have a different mindset. I don't see any chimps trying to save endangered speciesuoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
...on my last post (#5), the final paragraph is not supposed to be in block quotes. Sorry. Ludwig:
Maybe I’m just missing some key part of Ms. O’Leary’s rationale.
I would say you're just ignoring what is obvious (the DIFFERENCE in the tools). What is the most sophisticated tool in the animal kingdom (non-human)? A crude fishing pole? Maybe. If not, tell me. Now, what is the most sophisticated man-made tool? Large Hadron Collider? It seems like a HUUGE leap of faith to believe that difference is due to varying selective pressures.uoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
who exactly is asserting that humans and wild animals are “on equal terms”?
PETA, for one, who basically says "a horse is a dog is a frog is a boy". Here is an article about some animal right activists going to COURT to get human rights for a chimpanzee: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/01/austria.animalwelfare
If Hiasl [the chimp] is granted human status, Martin Balluch, of the Association against Animal Factories, who has worked to bring the case, wants him to sue the vivisection laboratory. He said: 'We argue that he's a person and he's capable of owning something himself, as opposed to being owned, and that he can manage his money. This means he can start a court case against Baxter, which at the very least should mean his old age pension is secure.' He wants the chimp to sue. I seem to think Richard Dawkins has publicly supported apes having civil rights, but can't find a link. He is very much in favor of producing a "humanzee", strictly in order to blur the line between humans and the other animals in the world.
uoflcard
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
O'Leary, please try to remain consistent. When I first started lurking here, you made a post saying something along the lines of "human activity INCREASES biodiversity". Then when people pointed out that you didn't have a sweet clue what you were talking about, the post disappeared into the night. Now you're saying that human activity is responsible for extinction? Are you willing to admit you've made an about face? Also, you've provided precisely ZERO evidence that Darwinism is responsible here. Species were going extinct long before 1859. Of course, your "human activity INCREASES biodiversity" post makes it painfully clear that you are unaware of this. And the reasons for these extinctions had NOTHING to do with treating animals as equals. Quite the opposite. You might want to google the acronym HIPPO as it relates to conservation.AmerikanInKananaskis
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
And, yes. An elephant using sticks to swat flies "compares with" the arm on the space shuttle insofar as they are both examples of animals using tools. That's as far as it goes, of course. There's a rather massive difference in technological sophistication.Ludwig
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Shouldn't that be: "the same plain" ?critter
April 27, 2009
April
04
Apr
27
27
2009
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply