Nyxmyst
Posts: 58
Joined: 5/22/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MarcusofAr Tal. Of course, the comment of mine you quoted was based upon this one: quote:
"What is it, Bran Loort, that separates men from sleen and larls?" asked Thurnus. "I do not know," said Bran Loort. "It is the codes," said Thurnus. --Slave Girl of Gor It is quite true that Bonobos, like chimpanzees, have much in common with human beings. All three of those species share something like 98% genetic similarity. Hence the relevance of studying them from the sociobiological standpoint. But I would think that in order for a set of behaviors to qualify as "codes," they must be "codified." Meaning they must be extracted and set down. Once they have been so set down, those to whom they apply would need to make a conscious choice whether or not to abide by them (if they had no such choice, then again we're dealing with instincts). So in that sense, the "social codes" to which you refer aren't social "codes" at all. They are behaviors. Instincts determine the behaviors to which we are prone. The act of codifying them and determining which are correct in what situation, however, is a conscious choice, and seems to be the prerogative of a rational mind, capable of advanced thinking in the abstract. Codes are law, and laws are a code. While Bonobos and chimpanzees have displayed repetitive choice of action in response to particular stimuli, neither species has evinced significant behavior that suggests they have chosen or codified a formal set of laws among themselves. IWYW _Marcus_ Good day, I'll use another example from a species that is much farther removed from us. It has to do with ostracizing others from a group for a particular act. Mark Becoff, an ethologist at the University of Colorado, had an interesting article done on him in Time Magazine in July of 2005. He believed that dogs, as well as other animals, showed a rudimentary morality and acted upon it. He noticed that dogs always used signals in their play. However, if they cheated and signaled falsely (such as signaling a playful bite and then delivering a harsh one) they would then be excluded from the group in the future. Moral of the day - don't cheat. Granted, this is all done in a much more simplistic fashion than we do because their methods of communication are very different. He believes that many animals have morals and ethics and while they might be different from ours they are very much in evidence. Now if you take it that our Codes come from our basic morality than the only real seperation is their inability to communicate it, at least with us. Since mammals tend to raise their young, often for several years, and education is part of that raising experience it is possible that basic morality is passed on. In fact, it's likely. Goodall also discovered times where a member of a group would be ostracized for unusual behavior. And yes, this is likely a survival trait but we ostracize for similar reasons. The survival of the group, be in actual survival or more metaphorical, becomes more important than the individual. Going back to our closest cousins, Chimpanzies do have methods of communication and language of their own. Certain signals, learned as youths, are used to impart knowledge. In Primate Cognition by Michael Tomasello he explores the idea of complex social structures amoung primate species. It's a pretty fascinating read, actually. While many things are instinct he believes that the social aspects of primate life are not only instinct. That they have complex social codes that adapt and change based on the environment they find themselves within. Granted, until we find a real common language there's no way of asking but it is possible that they are not quite the blind beasts that people believe they are. Are some animals? Surely. Are all? Not necessarily. It is possible that we are not the only fully sentient species nor the only complex one. In the end, our nifty thumbs might be the real seperation between the species.
|