Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Why aren't either of those necessitated by our physical environment? The space race was instigated and perpetuated by mutual political concerns, and steel was forged in order to create stronger material so that we could lay rail and build skyscrapers.

They were, that wasn't my point. Beavers build dams. That's what they do. The dams are constructed in slightly different sizes and shapes dependent on the land/water layout, and of different trees depending on the available wood (and sometimes trash lying around). But you don't see beavers inventing concrete and creating hydroelectric based lighting for their dwellings.

 

[Einherjar86]

They were, that wasn't my point. Beavers build dams. That's what they do. The dams are constructed in slightly different sizes and shapes dependent on the land/water layout, and of different trees depending on the available wood (and sometimes trash lying around). But you don't see beavers inventing concrete and creating hydroelectric based lighting for their dwellings.

Yes, but I'm confused by your earlier comment:

Animals do not, as a rule, innovate the way they interact with nature to accomplish new goals (since they don't generally create new goals).

This isn't entirely true; animals do innovate the way they interact with their environment. This becomes particularly obvious once humans (or any other organism, for that matter) begin to intervene and human technology begins to interfere in the environments of other organisms.

You measure that innovation based on your human perspective; again, this is "relative." Beavers obviously don't need steel or hydroelectric dams; they're survival is facilitated by their behavior as is. All human achievements and developments, while they might seem more advanced than other animals', are still the result of demands placed upon them by their environment, even those things we might not think we "need" (i.e. iPads, laptops, picture frames, hairspray, etc.).

I'm specifically not separating technology from environment; while technology presents a means of surviving in one's environment, it also becomes a part of that organism's environment (and the environments of other organisms). Thus, our own technological innovations, becoming absorbed into our natural environment, necessitate further technological advancements that may seem unnecessary on a superficial gloss.

 

[Dak]

This isn't entirely true; animals do innovate the way they interact with their environment. This becomes particularly obvious once humans (or any other organism, for that matter) begin to intervene and human technology begins to interfere in the environments of other organisms.

You measure that innovation based on your human perspective; again, this is "relative." Beavers obviously don't need steel or hydroelectric dams; they're survival is facilitated by their behavior as is. All human achievements and developments, while they might seem more advanced than other animals', are still the result of demands placed upon them by their environment, even those things we might not think we "need" (i.e. iPads, laptops, picture frames, hairspray, etc.).

I'm specifically not separating technology from environment; while technology presents a means of surviving in one's environment, it also becomes a part of that organism's environment (and the environments of other organisms). Thus, our own technological innovations, becoming absorbed into our natural environment, necessitate further technological advancements that may seem unnecessary on a superficial gloss.

I agree re: changes create a new environment which facilitate new changes. My point is beavers do not seem to indicate any formulation of new wants past survival.

Beaver: Builds dam.
Human: Builds house.....now wants furniture for the house....now wants eating utensils....now wants a second set of clothes...now wants a barn...and so on.

Beavers arguably impact their environment in a way similar to humans more so than any other animal so I'm using them as an easy comparison. My point is, animals do not continuously modify their environment in new ways based on previous modifications. Beavers don't build dams and then start working on a watch, or whatever. Humans go far past survival/basic instincts in their modifications.

 

[Dak]

WSJ: Debunking the Myths about the Central Banks

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I'm going to keep pushing on this. Human thought/cognition, as consciousness, can be said to separate us from instinctual survival existence, but the things we do actually have surprising analogies in the animal world.

Animals construct their own beds; we cannot judge the simplicity of their beds based on the complexity of ours.

Some animals use utensils to eat; again, their relative simplicity is only arrived at via our perceived complexity and superiority.

All the items you listed are actually necessitated, to some extent, by our technological environment, which has become our natural environment (there really is no difference between the two). Once previous developments are absorbed into the environment itself, then subsequent developments can no longer be seen as responses, or reactions, to previous modifications. They are, in effect, further necessary reactions to our environment.

Technological developments, in and of themselves, aren't formulations of new wants past survival; they are responses to our environment that facilitate, and in some cases ensure (as much as it can be ensured), our survival. We make clocks and watches in order to tell time, so that we don't arrive late to work, so that we don't get fired, so that we don't run out of money to afford housing and food, so that we don't die. The apparent complexity of this doesn't situate it somehow beyond survival.

 

[Dak]

Do we have clocks to be on time or do we have to be on time because we have clocks?

 

[Einherjar86]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

To respond, I don't see any point to your question. Either way, my point still stands. Clocks were invented in order to measure short intervals of time, or intervals contained within/between the sunrise/sunset frame. Now that we have them, and they've become part of our natural environment, we have to be on time (generally).

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

When did this turn into a Chomsky/ Foucault debate? haha

 

[Dak]

Clocks are a tool to provide order, which allows us to do other things more efficiently. Ok. This just reinforces my earlier point. We make things to make thing so we can make things which in turn creates a situation so we make other things and so on ad infinitum.

We aren't still stuck chasing bison in hunting parties while others root for edible plants for us to consume and before we bed down on the ground to do it all over again tomorrow. Beavers are still building dams, and we can expect them to be building dams until there is no more water and or dam material, in which case they will most likely die out (since the water is vital in it's own right if for no other reason).

Edit:

When did this turn into a Chomsky/ Foucault debate? haha

I don't get it.

 

[Einherjar86]

Clocks are a tool to provide order, which allows us to do other things more efficiently. Ok. This just reinforces my earlier point. We make things to make thing so we can make things which in turn creates a situation so we make other things and so on ad infinitum.

We aren't still stuck chasing bison in hunting parties while others root for edible plants for us to consume and before we bed down on the ground to do it all over again tomorrow. Beavers are still building dams, and we can expect them to be building dams until there is no more water and or dam material, in which case they will most likely die out (since the water is vital in it's own right if for no other reason).

They innovate at a different rate of speed. This doesn't mean they don't innovate at all. I don't think that more rapid innovation illuminates a more advanced intellect or ability to adapt. It simply illuminates a more rapidly changing environment.

Edit:

I don't get it.

I'm taking it as a compliment.

Or maybe it's an insult...

 

[Dak]

They innovate at a different rate of speed. This doesn't mean they don't innovate at all. I don't think that more rapid innovation illuminates a more advanced intellect or ability to adapt. It simply illuminates a more rapidly changing environment.

Or are they incapable of expanding the limits of their innovation? I think so, if for no other reason a lack of consciousness and opposing thumbs. Consciousness allows us to deal in abstracts. To invent/innovate.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'll grant that statement about consciousness; it's certainly true that it allows us to reflect on our environment in ways that most organisms can't (as far as we can tell).

However, I'd suggest that, if we're going to conceive of our environment as absorbing technological innovations/developments, then the entire system of technological development becomes more than the sum of its parts. In a sense, technology itself becomes a thriving, quasi-autonomous environment that human beings must "keep up with."

Hence John Gray's great line that technology is "an event that has befallen the world."

 

[Dak]

Using a stick to spear something is "technology", in a very rude form. So is bashing hardened fruits onto rocks. It can't befall if it's always been here

Are we trying to keep up with tech, or trying to keep up with other humans who use it? "Keeping up with the Jones'?" I submit that if everyone but you disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, you wouldn't really be all that concerned with tablets or computers or what have you, and they wouldn't be concerned with you.

 

[Einherjar86]

Other humans are part of our environment too; organisms' environments are, in part, constituted by other organisms.

And the fact that technology has always been with us speaks even more to its presence as an "event," as something inhuman. It isn't something that humanity controls or propels; it is something that necessitates humanity's reaction to it. Its "befallen-ness" is its emergence as a complex system beyond human control or creation.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Some really good quotes on animal rights from some significant philosophers. Thoreau and Schopenhauer stand out here.

http://www.think-differently-about-...ophical_Perspective_Philosophy_Quotations.htm

 

[Dak]

I don't believe in an ethical argument for veganism, but I concur on the treatment aspect. Animals do even kill and eat each other, but they don't run CAFOs in the interim.

Edit: Relevant

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/girlfriend-from-super-size-me-ditches-veganism/#

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm ambivalent on vegetarianism/veganism. The question of whether or not animals can suffer is worth asking, and somewhat contentious I believe.

I have a new blog post up; this one's on 2001: A Space Odyssey and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Factory farming is immoral, we know that much. So all I say is if you're going to eat meat, eat humane/ethical farmed animals. It's more of a lifestyle(no restaurants, no fast food etc.), you have to know where your food comes from so I understand why it's hard for people, especially the uneducated.

Anything less and you're supporting suffering.

 

[Dak]

I'm not going to say I'm at the point where I am able to acquire/afford humanely farmed animals, but we do eat out very rarely and sort of trying to work towards that. There are turkey, chicken, and pig farms all over the place here, but nearly all essentially factory farmed for Butterball, Smithfield, etc. It's unfortunate.

 

[rms]

Factory farming is immoral, we know that much. So all I say is if you're going to eat meat, eat humane/ethical farmed animals. It's more of a lifestyle(no restaurants, no fast food etc.), you have to know where your food comes from so I understand why it's hard for people, especially the uneducated.

Anything less and you're supporting suffering.

It's pretty hard to stay informed, unless you have a whole foods..and this friendly/super/organic/great life animals that I eat are incredibly expensive, but a good cause at the same time.