I took the excerpt from Kels FAQ's, so true...
"If humans are so rational, why do they start wars for ideology and non essential resources? Why do they pollute rivers? Do wild animals pollute their water supply? The stupidest acts committed on this planet are done by human beings. The cruelest acts are committed by humans. It may be true that some humans will self sacrifice to save another--but other humans will do the opposite, save themselves by putting someone else into harm's way.
And non humans have been documented exhibiting altruistic behavior (both within species and beyond). In vicious experiments conducted on rats and Rhesus monkeys, the victim would spare themselves from a shock if they performed an act that would harm another of their kind, and yet they refused to do so. However, humans in similar situations such as the Milgram experiment, were willing to (simulated without them knowing it) shock another human simply because they were told to by an authority figure.
The most violent domestic cat does not erect arenas or stadiums designed so that other cats can watch and take pleasure from the suffering of mice, knowing that they are causing suffering. Humans are capable of mental torment, verbal abuse, and taking pleasure from knowing that they are causing suffering to someone else. This is uniquely human. It is true of a child tormenting flies in a jar, or a scientist with a PHD who gives a rat advanced notice before being shocked in a learned helplessness experiment. The same capacity for "reason" that allows one to do mathematics can be used to design a torture device or urge a suicidal person to jump from a building."
What a great resource...
Replies
They grazed in silence, until his own words reminded him of something he had wanted to ask.
"The sentries," he asked. "Are we at war?"
She did not understand the word.
"War?"
"Are we fighting people?"
"Fighting?" she asked doubtfully. "The men fight sometimes about their wives and that. Of course there is no blood shed - only scuffling, to find the better man. Is that what you mean?"
"No. I meant fighting against armies - against other geese, for instance."
She was amused.
"How ridiculous! You mean a lot of geese all scuffling around at the same time. It would be fun to watch."
Her tone surprised him, for his heart was still a kind one, being a boy's."
"Fun to watch them kill each other?"
"To kill each other? An army of geese to kill each other?"
She began to understand this idea slowly and doubtfully, an expression of distaste coming over her face. When it had sunk in, she left him. She went away to another part of the field in silence. He followed, but she turned her back. Moving around to get a glimpse of her eyes, he was startled by their dislike - a look as if he had made some obscene suggestion.
He said lamely: "I am sorry. I don't understand."
"Leave talking about it."
"I am sorry."
Later he added, with annoyance, "A person can ask, I suppose. It seems a natural question, with the sentries."
But she was thoroughly angry.
"Will you stop it at once! What a horrible mind you must have! You have no right to say such things. And of course there are sentries. There are the jer-falcons and the peregrines, aren't there: the foxes and the ermines and the humans with their nets? These are natural enemies. But what creatures would be so low as to go about in bands, to murder others of its own blood?"
"Ants do," he said obstinately. "And I was only trying to learn."
She relented with an effort to be good-natured. She wanted to be broad-minded if she could, for she was rather a blue-stocking.
"My name is Lyo-lyok. You had better call yourself Kee-kwa, and then the rest will think you came from Hungary."
"Do you all come from different places?"
"Well, in parties, of course. There are some here from Siberia, some from Lapland and I can see one or two from Iceland."
"But don't they fight among each other for the pasture?"
"Dear me, you are a silly," she said. "There are no boundaries among geese."
"What are boundaries, please?"
"Imaginary lines on the earth, I suppose. How can you have boundaries if you fly? Those ants of yours - and the humans too - would have to stop fighting in the end, if they took to the air."
"I like fighting," said the Wart. "It is knightly."
"Because you're a baby."
thank you very much dangermouse for posting what you did!!
if i might add some of the ending, for it relates to those 'imaginary lines' quite appropriately for these apply not only to those between races and nations of humans, but also between species which is probably why merlin educated arthur the way he did.
the story concludes with arthur's dream in ruins, his table in broken and his knights set to do battle with each other. however, arthur finds a young page whom he entrusts with carrying on the dream of camelot. and so, before going into a battle he can find no way to stop, he reflects back upon what merlin had taught him:
The imaginary lines on the earth's surface only needed to be unimagined. The airborne birds skipped them by nature. How mad the frontiers had seemed to Lyolyok, and would to Man if he could learn to fly.
...
The old King felt refreshed, clear-headed, almost ready to begin again.
There would be a day - there must be a day - when he would come back to Gramarye with a new Round Table which had no corners, just as the world had none - a table without boundaries between the nations who would sit to feast there ... If people could be persuaded to read and write, not just to eat and make love, there was still a chance that they might come to reason.
may the human species be able to do just that - to reason and to fly!
in friendship,
prad
Take Care,
you can see several examples of animal altruism here:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/amazing-animal-altruism
all animals aren't altruistic just as all humans aren't altruistic. for instance, not all the monkeys in the masserman experiment refused to go without food to prevent the shock to their friend. in this way, animal personalities are similar in their composition to human personalities - some are selfish, some are apathetic, some are altruistic.
there are some links in one of the 30badigos posts which will help to illustrate this:
here is some info on the rhesus monkey experiments (and more) for those interested. some humans could learn much this:
from masson's when elephants weep
altruism in animals article by maneka gandhi
human morality: innate or learned
i've also uploaded the jules masserman 1964 rhesus monkey experiment which was published in the american journal of psychiatry.
kel's contributions here (and elsewhere) are worth studying. he provides not only much ammunition, but also a tremendous amount of insight. here's is one of his recent essays:
http://www.towardsfreedom.com/AntiHumanSupremacyAnimalRightsArgumen...
in friendship,
prad
masserman.pdf
I mentioned the Milgram experiment to show how, if you are using competing shock-altruism experiments, humans can come off looking very bad. Although I wonder how biased that experiment was--since it meant getting willing volunteers--would all people really respond the same?
But the whole experimental concept is flawed to begin with--it really just proves how calculated human sadism is. I recall walking on the University of BC campus and a couple of students were saying matter of factly: "today we gave rats advanced warning before we shocked them."
The Roman Coliseum is the best example because people who wish to highlight the cruelty of domestic cats overlook the spectator aspect to cruelty--as well as mental torment--which are exclusively human traits as far as we know.
The value of these examples is to attack the notion of human arrogance or supremacy---which is omnipresent when discussing conduct of behavior.
But the whole experimental concept is flawed to begin with--it really just proves how calculated human sadism is.
ya this is the whole point of course.
as bela lugosi said in the much cut movie "the raven":
"yes i like to torture"
in friendship,
prad