06-13-2005, 06:01 AM
Obi2Kenobi,Jun 12 2005, 08:02 PM Wrote:...
[right][snapback]80282[/snapback][/right]
Well the first couple are standard case studies in psychological experimental design, and also in ethics courses. Neither of these experiments would get ethical approval any more (in Western Societies).
"humans are the only creature that exhibit immorality"
And what would immorality be? Wouldn't it require an understanding of the effect of an action?
"The cat gains nothing out of this"
Well, I would put forward two possibilities.
1) The cat gains a training benefit.
2) The behaviour is an artifact of the Cat's genetic wiring, that does not have a strong enough negative effect to have an influence on survival (therefore it passes on genetically), or the near genetic 'jumps' that don't include moth swatting reduce survival (can be quite likely since extra logic requires extra energy = less efficient)
"But how to explain and bacteria, who survive only by destroying other life? What about army ants, who devour anything in their path (which is why they have to keep moving, they destroy all usable resources in the area)? How are humans different?
"
Not sure where you get bacteria surviving only by destroying life. Perhaps you mean viruses that survive only by destroying *cells*. Humans have tons of symbiotic bacteria that are vital to life (particularly in breakdown of food).
As to the ants, how would it be efficient to leave food behind??? If any predator became 'too good' it would make its prey extinct, and hence itself. Evolution does not occur to single organisms, it occurs to a system of organisms.