Conference hydra::dejavu

    Well, since you asked me....
    
    If one understands the concept of a Savior, it is that the Savior
    is one who redeems sinners from their sins.  To paraphrase Rasputin,
    the first thing one needs to do in order to be forgiven from sin
    is to sin.  In order to sin, one (or, in deference to some belief
    structures, one's species) must be aware of or conscious of the
    _concept_ of sin.  Cannibalism and infanticide are generally considered
    sins in most human clutures; fish do it all the time (a home aquarium,
    as Will Cuppy once observed, is a terribly educational device).
     Do fish thereby sin?  No, because they're not aware (nor is it
    relevant to them) of the act as a sin.
    
    No sin, no need for a Savior.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    
    [Doesn't this begin to sound like REX::RELIGION?]

    	Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, etc.) don't need Saviours, as they
    are obviously far superior in intelligence and morality to humans
    (when's the last time you saw a dolphin-made nuclear warhead?).
     
    	When God was designing the most intelligent species on Earth,
    first He/She made humans, and soon realized that the biggest mistake
    God did was in giving humans *hands*; so He/She then designed the
    cetaceans, making sure they could only have fins, and placed them
    in the water, so that the most they could do is catch fish and have
    a lot of time to think.
                           
     	(For those of you who miss the point, the above is mostly meant
    to be satirical.)
    
    	Larry
    

RE: .1
    
    A frequent theme (well, not that frequent, but it's been dealt with
    a number of times) is the question of the Christian reaction to
    alien intelligence.  In traditional Christianity, humans "sin" because
    they are descended from Adam and Eve who experienced the fall from
    grace because they ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
    Whether or not this is interpretted symbolically, it raises questions
    about the "natal state of grace" of those who are clearly *not*
    descended from Adam and Eve.  Does intelligence imply a soul?  A
    tough question.
    
    Probably the best (not the most complete, but the best) treatment
    of this is Blish's "A Case of Conscience", which is one of the true
    clasics of SF, illustrating as it does the ability of SF to present
    original insight on tough questions.
    
    						Topher

    
    RE: .2
    
       It may not be as far-fetched as you think, Larry. After all,
    dolphins kill only for food and do not fight amongst themselves.
    They work cooperatively for the good of the pod (?) and individuals
    are important to the pod. Sometimes I wonder who has the superior
    intelligence.
    
    Steve_who_wouldn't_mind_coming_back_as_a_dolphin

    	I read a quote in USENET once (and posted it in the NAC::SF
    Conference) that humans on Earth are actually reincarnated dolphins
    sent here as punishment for being evil in their past lives!  :^)
    
    	Larry
    

    Animals never betray their nature...man sometimes doesn't recognize
    what his nature is.

    
    Its amazing that people who know so little about animals can say
    so much about what they do/don't do.
    
    Read Jane Goodall's "In the Shadow of Man" sometime, and find out
    how murderous chimpanzees are.
    
    When I kill my neighbor because he is getting in my way, its murder/sin;
    when a male bear kills a cub because he's hungry, its nature/innocent.
    
    There's a lot of anthropomoriphism (sp. wrong) going on here and very
    little in the way of facts and theories that don't have "x is man,
    therefore bad, y is not, therefore good" built into them.
    
    /Bevin

    Bevin, 
    	It isn't in the nature of animals to even attempt to distinguish
    between right and wrong,... they live according to their nature,
    they live the way they live.  Its man who has analyzed, studied,
    and instutionalized his own nature into a myriad of complex social
    mores and institutions.  I don't know if intelligence as we know
    it is what causes mankind to react as we do or if, in our quest
    for ultimate truth, we have distorted our own nature beyond recognition
    but to expect animals to be judged by the (often ridiculous) rules
    of "good and evil" that we have set up for ourselves is arrogance
    beyond belief.

    
    How do you know whether or not dolphins and apes have a social concept
    equivalent to our "right" and "wrong"?  Certainly animals such as
    elephants have the concept of a "rogue male" who has abandoned the
    herd, which in some ways could be regarded as sort of reverse
    ostracism.
    
    It is very hard to tell what another person is thinking, difficult
    to understand another society, and non-humans present REAL
    understanding difficulties.
    
    I am reminded of the arguments that it was alright to have negro
    slaves because negros didn't have souls.
    
    /Bevin

    Having a social concept equivalent to our right and wrong is certainly
    different than us holding animals subject to OUR concepts of right
    and wrong.  I agree that animals certainly may have developed
    equivalent moral systems.  I take issue though that (and perhaps
    this isn't what you ment and I am misunderstanding) OUR social concepts
    can or should be projected onto animals as judgemental devices.

RE: Last bunch
    
    There seems to be a rather complex dual standard being set up.
    
    Animals are said to be somehow better because they "never do anything
    which violates their nature."  When cases of animals acting in ways
    which it seems would have been pronounced "against their nature"
    if done by a human being, the response has been "you can't judge
    animals by our standards" (which I agree with).
    
    It seems that animals always act according to their nature *by
    definition* since we interpret anything they do as simply their
    nature.  People on the other hand are held up to a standard of behavior
    which, as was pointed out, not expected of animals.
    
    The question presented was not "should we judge animals by our
    standards?" but "should we *judge* people by our standards?".  Our
    at least should we judge them by such standards and then insist
    they come out poorly in comparison to the *unjudged* animals?
    
    To put it differently, we like animals because we expect little
    from them and so they don't disappoint us.  We feel cynical about
    humans because we have high expectations, and are frequently
    disappointed.
    
    Disliking your species is simply a way of disliking yourself. 
    Try to rejoice when someone exceeds their nature, which was "designed"
    to allow small tribes of rather weak apes to survive in a harsh,
    dangerous environment.  It is not our nature which we violate (which
    we can no more do than breath water) but our environment which makes
    strange demands on us.
    
    				Topher

    re .11
    
    Bravo!
    
    Part of the problem is the kind of theological exaggerations some
    people like to construct.  If you assume humans are special in that
    we are created in G_D's image, while the dogs, cats and fleas are
    not, then of course we are going to hold ourselve to a different
    ( I hesitate to say higher ) standard of behaviour.
    
    I don't think there is a whit of empirical evidence that humans
    act against their nature (by and large, excluding dysfunctional
    behaviour brought about by fits, fevers and tumors of the brain).
    People do what their genes and glands program them to do in response
    to external conditions.  That is why the "morality" of the human
    species has not changed an iota since G_D invented dirt.
    

    Re .12
    
    My friend, Bob, I'll have to take gentle exception to that.
    
    >People do what their genes and glands program them to do in response
    >to external conditions.  That is why the "morality" of the human
    >species has not changed an iota since G_D invented dirt. 
    
    But cultural morality _does_ change.  Once upon a time, it was
    perfectly acceptable for humans to consume other humans as food,
    willingly and actively.   Such people were callede "cannibals,"
    and by modern standards throughout the world, this practice is
    effectively considered immoral (with a few exceptions such as the
    Andes airliner crash of some years ago).  Likewise, incest [which
    does occur] is culturally immoral in most societies now, even though
    it was mandated in other cultures (the Pharaoh of Egypt was compelled,
    by religious reasons to have his sister[s] as at least one of his
    wives, for instance).   There is some elasticity, culturally based,
    in "moral" behavior.  That's why this discussion has been pivoting
    around the discussion of good and evil.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr,
    

RE: .13
    
    We can skip the arguments about whether institutional canniballism
    (as opposed to emergency canniballism, e.g., the Andes crash, or
    pathological canniballism) has ever actually existed.  It probably
    does, but there is a small group of anthropologists who claim that
    the evidence is much weaker than normally assumed, even by
    anthropologists.
    
    The details of what is considered moral behavior changes, but (and
    I suspect this is what was meant in .11) it can be argued that there
    has been no temporal trend in *conformance* to the prevailing moral
    rules.  (I would be willing to argue otherwise, but I would be on
    awfully weak ground.  The argument would depend on making a number
    of assumptions which I feel are justified but which I can not prove
    -- they are my biases.  In other words, there is a sense in which
    moral progress *has* probably been made, but it is not a sense that
    everyone would except as meaningful).
    
    By the way, I would suspect that if the average citizen, or even
    nobel, of Pharaohic Egypt, tried to marry his/her sister/brother
    they would be shunned at the least.  The Pharaoh and his sister/wife
    were an exception specifically because they were considered *exempt*
    from "normal", mortal moral standards.
    
    						Topher

    Where does religion enter into human nature?  How is the worship
    of a "higher Being" inherent in our human nature?  How would this
    practice enhance the survival of the first mammalian slugs that
    crawled up out of the primordial swamp?  What "real" purpose
    could there have possibly been for human intelligence to evolve
    in that direction? 
    
    What part of human nature called out for human sacrifice in ancient 
    religious ceremonies?  What did the trend of cultural religions away from
    human sacrifice reflect in terms of human nature?  Is war an inherent
    part of the nature of humanity?  If so, does humanity's obsession with
    war on today's scale of magnitude reflect a facet or a distort of the 
    nature of humanity?  How could war have been a contributing factor
    to the survival of the species of mankind when he first developed/evolved?
    Lets define the nature of man first because sometimes I don't think
    I understand it at all.

    Re .14:
    
    >                                    ...     It probably
    >does, but there is a small group of anthropologists who claim that
    >the evidence is much weaker than normally assumed, even by
    >anthropologists. 
    
    Well, even as ancient China was becoming civilized, there was
    sufficient of it around so that they called a human prepared for
    the table "long pig."  [Human flesh reportedly tastes like sweet
    pork.]
    
    >By the way, I would suspect that if the average citizen, or even
    >nobel, of Pharaohic Egypt, tried to marry his/her sister/brother
    >they would be shunned at the least.  The Pharaoh and his sister/wife
    >were an exception specifically because they were considered *exempt*
    >from "normal", mortal moral standards.
    
    Good point.  However, also look at the story of Lot _after_ the
    destruction of Sodom in "Genesis."  Nobody found anything too wrong,
    there; even though it was done in a "noble cause."
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Not why one God, ...why any God?  Groups of cats or lions or deer
    don't APPEAR to gather together into a woodland grove to honor their 
    creator in traditional ceremony.  They don't bury their dead with 
    circumspect care.  They don't appear to attempt to plan beyond the 
    coming season.  Whales and dolphins may share our proclivty for
    the mystique, they gather together and communicate also.  If we
    are going to have a discussion centered around the nature of man
    then it would be helpful to define the nature of man as we know
    it.  Some of the mores of our society developed, not from our nature
    but from our experiences (as I believe are most of your examples).
    As the results of our experiences change,...then so do the mores
    of society that accompanied them.  But the true nature of man ....
    does or doesn't it change?  Is it an inherent part of man's nature
    if it does, or merely another reflection of historical experience?

    	Humanity originally made up all those gods, goddesses, and spirits
    to help explain the unknown and frightening world around them -
    it made life a little easier to take if you anthromoephosized
    everything.  
    
    	A little early civilization psychotherapy, you might say.
    
    	Larry
    

    RE: 17
    
    Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but was "fish on Friday" started
    by the Pope to support the Spanish fish business?
    
    Only one example of a political bent in "religious" or "spiritual"
    matters. In fact, aren't most of our present religions WHAT they
    are because of politics, one way or another? Christianity certainly
    made many concessions to the other religions extant at the time
    in order to get converts. (An getting converts is what it's all
    about, either that or banning birth control so the numbers increase
    anyway. If you don't do either...well, look what happened to the
    Shakers)
    
    Dawn
    

    re .21:
    
    >re:  .18
    >
    >Don't elephants bury their dead? 
    
    Apparently they do, ast least sometimes.  An interesting anecdotal
    story was picked up by Vance Packard and included in his book, _Animal
    IQ_, published in the late 1940s or early 1950s, in which a hunter
    had been knocked senseless near some elephants, and one went over
    to him and sprinkled vegetation on him, as a cursory attempt to
    bury him.  The hunter opined that not only do elephants have some
    idea of death, but that they extend it beyond species.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I've always been fond of elephants_:-)

    RE: the pope and fish - I'm not real sure. I think because SPain
    was (is) a Roman Catholic country, and was in some real economic
    trouble. Maybe they appealled to him (if this Catholocism (sp?)
    is worth anything, you'll help us out) or he took it upon himself.
    
    Or maybe it didn't happen that way.
    
    Dawn
    

    It wasn't Spain, but Italy.  The fishing industry was going down
    the drain when they asked the Pope for help.  He decreeded that
    all Catholics have to eat fish on fridays --I think the spiritual
    reason given was "to cleanse the soul".
    
    I heard the story many years ago on the Sunday Morning radio show
    "Topic Religion" on WEEI am.  It was told by the Priest...

RE: .21
    
    "... most religious matters probably evolved out of practical matters."
    
    I doubt it.  It is certainly true that *some* seemingly arbitrary
    religious practices have practical roots (including, apparently,
    this business of supporting the fishing industry) but for many others
    you would have to stretch the definition of "practical" quite a
    bit.
    
    Many religious practices come about because someone "explains"
    something (a physical phenomena or a religious conundrum) and that
    explanation has consequences.  For example, the classical banging
    on pots to bring back the sun during an eclipse.
    
    Many religious practices, particularly in the Judaic/Christian/Islamic
    cluster, come from a need to distinguish one religion from another:
    e.g., the milk with meat law, or the celebrating of the Sabath on
    the *first* day of the week.  In a sense this is "practical" but
    not in the sense of supporting the fishing industry or avoiding
    Salmonella poisoning.
    
    Of course, all religions cater to the need for ritual, stability,
    and belief affirmation; and religious practices always serve these
    functions, but once again, this is a different sense of "practical".
    
    Its fun to speculate about, and sometimes actually learn about,
    practical roots to religious practices.  But not all practices are
    practical, including some which we can find plausible sounding
    explanations for.  Fundamentally, religion is non-rational, and
    at times even irrational.
    
    					Topher

  When reading some of the previous animal/man notes I was reminded
    of a quote I once heard,
    
    	"The wolf and the hawk are the only creatures to mate for life."
    
    	Is that their 'nature'??  Too bad humans can't make the same
    claim.

>    	"The wolf and the hawk are the only creatures to mate for life."

I never would have known that.  A wolf and a hawk really seems like and
unlikely couple.  :-)

		Dave

    geese too
    

    and swans, among others which escape me at this moment.
    
                      Deb
    
    

    and aardvaks....
    
    

    ... and while we're on the subject, black widow spiders .... even
    if it is short ....
    

    Mantises...