Anthropocentrism vs Anthropomorphism

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Coming from the hunting debate and reading some stuff in other forum I thought that this is an interesting debate:

Is man at the center the natural world (anthropocentrism)? Do other beings deserve being perceived with human characteristics (anthropomorfism)?

Care to take a side?

[beagle]

Option 3 

Man has the same characteristics as other animals but by virtue (?) of opposable thumbs and intelligence has risen to the top of the stack, while maintaining most of the other animal behaviour. Consequently we behave like other successful predators, while kidding ourselves we're above that sort of thing.

[Swatopluk]

Depends a bit on the purpose. Children books would look much different, if animals in them behaved naturally
It's difficult to put oneself in an animal's shoes (especially because they seldom wear any). There is even the thought that it is impossible to not to a degree anthropomorphize animals in order to understand them or that total understanding is impossible because of that.
I think for 'higher' animals it is possible to get good results with an 'what is the motivation' approach, i.e. to assume that they 'think', 'plan' etc. Amoebas would be a wee bit more difficult. Animals that pass the mirror test are probably the only ones we could really get into (with lots of efforts). Hive minds are likely completely closed to us.
The discussion is fairly old already, since it was a topic of debate in ancient Greece before and during the life of Socrates. The famous 'Man is the measure of all things' aphorism of Protagoras is notoriously quoted out of context. Originally it was, to our knowledge, not a statement of hybris but of insight into the limited capacity of human thought. Man can only think in categories of himself. Xenophanes claimed that, if lions or oxen or horses had gods and hands to draw them, then their gods would looks like lions, oxen, horses.
Somwhat related it is said that someone who has learned to read cannot regain the full status of an analphabet, even if he loses through lack of excercise the practical capability (or is transfered to a country with a different type of writing, e.g. China) because he will still understand the basic principles of what writing is. The same way it is (likely) impossible for a normal person to 'unthink', i.e. to become unselfconscious.

[Sibling DavidH]

We brought up our first daughter J and our first puppy together.  Once J began crawling they were an inseparable pair, just like twins. Later, J habitually spoke of the dog and her little sister in exactly the same terms.  For a while J was referred to as 'the people puppy'.  This experience taught us just how much we have in common with other animals - dogs, at least - and how vague some of the boundaries are.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The same way it is (likely) impossible for a normal person to 'unthink', i.e. to become unselfconscious.

I can think on a number of 'unthinkers' very easily, like Faux viewers.
---
This subject is interesting because while the classical scientific position has been eminently anthropocentric a number of scientists like Irene Pepperberg or Jane Goodall say that perhaps it would be better if we anthropomorphize [intelligent] animals.

The anthropocentric view pretty much claims the obvious superiority of man that can be showcased not only on our success on the planet but our ability to take any other animal for our benefit/entertainment. Said view disregard that we hunted/killed ourselves successfully on the basis of our technology rather than race superiority as it was viewed before.

On the same token, if an alien race arrived to this planet and started making experiments with us (as it is claimed by some) their ability to do so would be linked to their superior technology rather than a inherent superiority. IOW a being can be better suited to solve certain kinds of problems than others but that in itself doesn't make it superior to those who can't solve said problem as efficiently. For instance, even with gear we would have a hard time if dropped in the middle of the ocean while a cetacean would have absolutely no problems.

The last point is abstract+numeric reasoning vs emotional makeup. We excel at numeric reasoning and our abstract reasoning takes advantage of that point even while in tests many animals solve logic problems quicker than us. The neocortex in mammals and neostriatum in birds certainly manages high reasoning but our emotional makeup is the result of said brain regions managing the more primitive emotion centers of the brain; while is certain that animals feel fear and can show signs of PTSD, many still consider our other emotions (joy, love, etc) to be uniquely human, which I believe is a completely unwarranted assumption. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if their analog emotional responses are as strong or more than ours.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting.

One of the problems I have with discussions of these sorts, is the failure of many (I'm not pointing fingers at anything already said, here... ) philosophers to recognize that the 'success' of humanity is as a species, not individuals.

Moreover, any successful individual humans is firmly founded on the collective shoulders of the species itself; in the majority of cases, individual success would've been impossible without the culture supporting that success (either positively, or as a contrasting measure).

My point is that humans are successful when in cooperation far, far more often than as individual--indeed, even individual 'success' is most frequently achieved by that individual rallying this collective-behavior into a single focus.  That is, the individual acts like a catalyst; in a leadership role, leading the collective behavior into the successful endeavor.

So, we're back to the success of the species.

And as a species, we are not so much a predatory species, as we are an opportunistic species; that is, the events of our actually acting like a predator, as compared to the events where we take advantage of opportunities that present themselves is highly lop-sided in favor of the opportunistic events.

To put it in primitive terms, we were successful hunters likely once a week or so, but daily we gathered foodstuffs that were available 'at-hand', i.e. wild grasses, fruits, etc.   This was even more so, once we discovered fire, and could stretch the 'fruits' of our hunting by cooking/smoking/drying the meat--- a single successful hunt would last much longer before we needed to go out again.

So, I take exception to the claim that we were a 'predatory species'-- sure, we hunted, but that was not the chief sustenance-behavior that kept us going day-in-day-out.

This was even more pronounced once we invented agriculture-- our hunting-for-food days went from 'occasional, but needed' to 'when we felt like it' to 'only for pleasure'--- by then, we "hunted" the domestic animals we'd penned up...

..............

As for humans being the 'pinnacle' of life on earth?  I simply must ask:  by what measure do we make this ego-centric claim?

Population?  We lose that one, and badly:  even lowly rats out-populate us.   Territory-domination?  We lose that one, too:  simple round-worms beat us several-times-to one, not to mention bacteria, many insects and any number of plant varieties.

How about eco-modification?  Again, you have to choose your measurements carefully, to get humans at the top.

In truth, I think it is our own hubris that makes us presume we are the 'pinnacle' on earth-- we've barely begun.  Remember the 12 hour clock model of the age of the earth?  I.e. the 4-ish billion year old history of the earth is a clock-face, humans have only been around a few seconds before midnight... much less, if you look at so-called 'civilization'.

As Sam Clemens penned in an essay, "... man thinks he's the end.  Maybe.  But the evidence ain't all in, yet..."

[Aggie]

Humans should be perceived as having largely animal characteristics, with a few over-developed quirks, in my opinion.  That species of similar genetic stock (primates), with similar social structures or that have associated with us for millennia (dogs) show 'humanlike' traits should be no surprise.

Mostly it's formalized language that got us where we are, IMHO, allowing a complex inheritable culture and rapid idea transmission / modification.  It's also the lack of language and therefore direct insight into thought and feelings of other animals that seems to have given some folks the impression that they don't actually have thoughts and feelings.


Humankind is not at the centre of the natural world, but needs to consider itself so because of the impact it places on other species.  I would challenge Bob to point out a single species that has directly or near-directly impacted (positively or negatively) so many other species on earth. _{note that I don't consider the challenge insurmountable by any means, just wanted to throw that out there.  Limit it to animals and it may get a little more challenging.}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Of course the biggest impact on the biosphere is the result of cyanobacteria, algae and plants pumping O₂ into the atmosphere, but there are some effects by animals from termites (soil PH, methane production) to elephants (studies on partial deforestation in Africa).

As for language, while we indeed have a very sophisticated language, we are far from alone on that respect. cetaceans, elephants and -yes I know I talk about them all the time - parrots have very sophisticated vocalizations that have very specific meanings* , as the flashing colors of certain cuttlefish and squid. The fact that we haven't been able to understand their language doesn't mean they don't have one even if it is less sophisticated than ours.

*As an interesting observation I noticed with my 'tiels is that they both use a particular vocalization for water/liquid/alike.

[Aggie]

It's the capacity for abstract thought via language that I think helps humans, and also the capacity for technical communication - i.e. detailed instructions which can be recalled at a later date.  It's these capacities that are difficult to judge in other species. 

Certainly in my experience, dogs are able to follow technical instructions in human language, with smarter breeds plausibly able to follow multi-step procedures without continual prompting, but are they able to provide instructions in their own language?  Difficult to determine that experimentally, unless you gave one individual instructions in human and had them communicate the instructions to a second individual in their own language.  Which would require the first individual to be a translator as well as a instruction-giver.


Agree on photosynthesizers, but the example doesn't meet the restriction of a single species.

[Swatopluk]

And those microorganisms had much more time to do their job than we. Not to forget that this oxygen stuff was about the deadliest unspecific poison of the day.
It's as if we suddenly blew gigatons of HCN, Cl₂ and H₂S into the atmosphere per year for centuries and tried to live our lifes without respirators.

Some animal species are able to learn abstract language/'writing' at the level of a little child. But they, to my knowledge, cannot teach it (but neither can human babies or even pre-schoolers).
On the other hand language also shapes our mind. There are things that can be thought in one language but not another. Bible translators met that problem long ago and had to find ways to deal with it (a very simple example: some languages have no words for lake or boat*. How does one translate the stories about Jesus's fishing expeditions? More extreme: some languages have no words for left/right and always use an external frame of reference).

*This reminds me of the Odyssey where Ulysses gets the task to travel until he comes into a land where people don't use salt, have never heard of the sea and mistake his oar for a spade

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Edit: Dangit, I had not read far enough, Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) beat me to the punchline....   
==================

...  I would challenge Bob to point out a single species that has directly or near-directly impacted (positively or negatively) so many other species on earth. _{note that I don't consider the challenge insurmountable by any means, just wanted to throw that out there.  Limit it to animals and it may get a little more challenging.}

I can, in fact, name 3 "species".... single-celled bacteria out strip all other life, with regards to creating hostile environments that other species must adapt to constantly.  (okay, 'species'  and bacteria do not quite go together-- what constitutes 'species' in bacteria anyhow?  It's well documented that any two bacterium can exchange genetic material to the benefit of each-- regardless of the individual species-- and bacteria reproduce asexually, so the classic definition of 'species' fails here, too.) 

Viruses are only out-stripped by bacteria, with regards to affecting the genomes of a wide variety of other species-- google ERV's.  Occasionally, viruses manage to insert their genes into the gamete-cells, and get to become a permanent part of that species' DNA.   These are called ERV's (if I remember correctly).  There are no species of higher organism [as far as I know] that does not have ERV's of some form or other...

The third species I'll mention is, again, not a species, but a class:  nematode worms.  These little parasites inhabit every other species on Earth, usually in a minor and non-debilitating way.   Their intrusion is typically not noticed by the carrier plant/animal, and the little nematode worm happily takes up 'housing' in the host's body.   It's been said, that if you could magically remove all biomass from the earth-- except nematode worms-- you'd have left, a ghostly 'outline' or 'image' of all the life on earth, comprised of these nematodes-- you could literally see what had been on earth, with regards to life forms-- at least at the macrocellular level and up.

So.

There's three....



Now, if you'll permit me to expand beyond the 'animal', and include plants?

I'll name a fourth-- one that is so "heinous" that it literally changed the entire world, permanently, driving the former inhabitants literally underground.

Green algae. 

What?  You may ask..... ubiqutious and harmless green algae?  "heinous"?   How?

Well.... life on earth, at the beginning, consisted of single-celled anaerobic creatures only-- for the atmosphere at that time, consisted of CO2, Nitrogen, methane and other noxious [to us] gases. 

It was home for this lovely and diverse mix of creatures who subsisted on the anaerobic, non-oxygen life cycle-- albeit slowly compared to the aerobic creatures who'd not yet made an appearance.

This went on for billions of years, it seems...

Then some damn fool single-cell goes and ruins the whole, entire earth by inventing photosynthesis, and releasing an extremely noxious gas, free oxygen.    Free oxygen, in case you forgot, is toxic to most living things--including us-- we have elaborate protective mechanisms in place to protect us from it's more toxic effects, because we literally evolved within it's nasty embrace.

But to a billion-year history critter that evolved on an oxygen-free world? This new toxic emission would've been deadly.

Thus, the new algae critters not only found a more energetic life-cycle, it automatically produced a "clear the path" toxic emission, killing off any anaerobic competition around it.

After another billion years or so, the earth was literally transformed into an oxygen-bearing world--- which had to have had profound effects on everything, not just the life on it's surface-- imagine a world free from oxygen:  non-oxidized chemicals/metals could exist in their free state, exposed to the atmosphere....

...after the green algae had transformed earth?   No such luck-- I can well imagine the transition, as the O2 levels slowly increased in the atmosphere (after saturating and "polluting" the world's oceans-- the excess O2 would've slowly bubbled up to the surface) those exposed metals/chemicals slowly began to transform into oxidized salts. 

Human activity pales in comparison to the "damage" that algae did so very long ago...

[Aggie]

I would have to be a stickler for the definition of species in the case of nematodes, as we are talking about an entire phylum (WRT bacteria, your argument is valid, although I'd be curious if we limited it to the levels of relative genetic variability seen within H. sapiens).  Compared wholesale against Arthropoda?  Hard call.  If we drop the animal limitations and look at a fungal phylum like Glomeromycota or Basidiomycota*, there's no contest, IMHO.  But we're still way out at phylum, let alone class, order, family, genus or species.    

Cross-edit:

_{*which cracked the problem of lignin breakdown and therfore carbon sequestration by fossilization of plants into coal, and dropped O2 levels from 35% in the Carboniferous to the usual 21% we see today, possibly knocking Arthropoda off it's terrestrial-dominance pedestal and clearing the way for the reptile revolution.}

Algae's a taxonomic nightmare, but a great example of an evolutionary grade that has had enormous impact on other life.  I have no problem conceding that they have probably had the greatest lasting impact - nothing, including a global nuclear holocaust, that humans could pull off with current technology could cause that radical of a shift.  Although biotechnology could eventually turn up some ecology-shaking life forms.