[RD] Why is there so much suffering in the world?

they do not appear to be at all aware that death is a thing.
:huh: Of course they are. There's a reason why animals do or don't do a whole host of things. The reason is because they've learned that doing/not doing them leads to being dead.

There are animals who mourn their dead, and some animals mourn the dead of other species. Elephants are especially notable for this, and when Koko the Gorilla was told of Robin Williams' death, she mourned him (the two had bonded as friends in an earlier encounter).
 
I was simply making the point of anthropomorphism - We can only imagine animal experience as analogous to human experience. So we project all kinds of things onto animals: When they whince we conclude that they're sad, when they waggle their tail we conclude that they are excited. We can never know their experience though.
Yeah, but actually, how is it different than with other humans ? It's a common philosophical question : "is what I see green the same than someone else would see as green ?". For what I know, maybe you see green as I see red.
Of course we can communicate, but our own perceptions are unique to ourselves. We can never be sure that other experiences are actually the same as ours.
Yes, we can communicate and we are the same species (so the same stimuli should logically cause the same perception) so it's a much closer guess, but we still base our interpretation on external clues.
 
:huh: Of course they are. There's a reason why animals do or don't do a whole host of things. The reason is because they've learned that doing/not doing them leads to being dead.

There are animals who mourn their dead, and some animals mourn the dead of other species. Elephants are especially notable for this, and when Koko the Gorilla was told of Robin Williams' death, she mourned him (the two had bonded as friends in an earlier encounter).

I said "most" :)
 
Sounds to me like you're thinking of the short story, 'The Last Question', by Asimov... ;)

It does sound very familiar, it was basically on the lines of humans becoming so intelligent in the future that we create everything from the beginning.
 
primates are capable of abstraction, mental representations, of issuing warning calls and solving conflicts, they never (as far as we know) go beyond the "words" (not exactly accurate) and sentences already established.
(If I've understood you correctly) I'm not sure that this is strictly true. The famous Koko the gorilla, who had learned a basic handsign-vocabulary, was then able to combine those signs in ways that she hadn't been taught, to describe unfamiliar things.
Wikipedia said:
Patterson reported that she documented Koko inventing new signs to communicate novel thoughts. For example, she said that nobody taught Koko the word for "ring", but to refer to it, Koko combined the words "finger" and "bracelet", hence "finger-bracelet".[40]
Which is not unlike the way that small children combine known words (or invent new ones) for things that they don't know the names of yet.
 
(If I've understood you correctly) I'm not sure that this is strictly true. The famous Koko the gorilla, who had learned a basic handsign-vocabulary, was then able to combine those signs in ways that she hadn't been taught, to describe unfamiliar things.

Which is not unlike the way that small children combine known words (or invent new ones) for things that they don't know the names of yet.

Yes, that bit about Koko is true. Though linguists differentiate between words and lexigraphs -- most great apes deal exclusively in the latter.
 
I'd ask you to please sit and think on this for a while; and get back to me if you have realized how much of an entitled, ignorant, sociopath this makes you sound like.
Existential ennui is emphatically not of the same level of suffering as dying from malaria or fleeing your home due to armed conflict.
Hmm, aside from what should be a "common sense" -duh- , this sounds a little judgy, i mean, if someone tells me they are suffering, should i just dismiss them by telling them there is always someone who has it worse?
 
Hmm, aside from what should be a "common sense" -duh- , this sounds a little judgy, i mean, if someone tells me they are suffering, should i just dismiss them by telling them there is always someone who has it worse?

Only if you can handily point to someone who very clearly "has it worse" and yet is not suffering themselves.
 
But who am i to judge?

A human. That's a much more common experience than most people give it credit for...especially in USian culture where everyone wants to believe in their own irredeemable uniqueness.
 
What's a much more common experience, being human or being judgy?
 
There's a difference?
Not much, but here's the thing...as the observer, can i judge that a man who has not been able to initiate a fulfilling relationship is suffering more or less than some man who lost his home in a war zone?
 
You can't tell me that the pets I had who died of cancer weren't suffering

I never did say that. You don't have to actually think about your future in order to suffer, but be aware to some degree that there is time and that you exist in it. I think animals do have some understanding of time, for example they can recognize aged individuals in a group, or they pick a specific place to die. And in that regard I disagree with you, I feel (though I have no proof) that animals are indeed sometimes aware that they're going to die.

That's where I draw the line with suffering vs. experiencing pain. They're different. I think one could succintly argue that plants feel something analogous to pain (they react aversely to negative stimuli is all we know), but I'm not sure whether I can say that plants suffer.

It is one problem with (most?) animals (if we don't count humans as animals) : they do not appear to be at all aware that death is a thing.
.

not a super serious source but here we go:

But today, thanks to scientists investigating the origins of human behavior in nonhuman species, Becker’s view is becoming outdated. A growing body of evidence suggests that at least some species recognize death’s special nature. “I believe we are now justified in thinking that chimpanzees have some kind of awareness of death,” says psychologist James Anderson of Scotland’s University of Stirling, who has been studying chimp responses to the dying.

In one case, chimpanzees in a Stirling safari park reacted to the demise of an elderly female with behaviors that included tending to the dying chimp and, later, avoiding the place where the death occurred. The dead chimp’s daughter also conducted what Anderson calls a “vigil,” staying by the body the night the older female died. “At least they have some understanding of the irreversibility of the transition from being alive to being dead,” he says.

Intimations of a special reaction toward the dead appear in other species, but their significance remains elusive. Elephants commonly linger over the bones of their kind, especially tusks, becoming agitated and touching the remains with trunks and feet, which bear sensitive receptors. Crows and ravens sometimes gather around but rarely touch their dead, though they quickly eat the dead of other species. Orcas and bottlenose dolphins may try to keep dead calves at the surface of the sea, as if giving them a chance to breathe. Quite possibly, none of these behaviors means that the animal is “aware” of death. A dolphin trying to keep a dead baby afloat may even suggest a lack of such awareness.

Teresa Iglesias, a biologist at the University of California–Davis, studies how western scrub-jays gather in shrieking groups of 2 to 10 around dead birds of their own or other species. “The calls attract other scrub-jays, and they either join in calling or watch silently in the trees,” she says. Aggregations, which last from a few seconds to 45 minutes, don’t necessarily mean the birds understand death, Iglesias says. Perhaps aggregations fulfill another purpose: Seeing a dead bird and its surroundings may give jays (and perhaps crows and ravens) clues about risks to avoid.

Even if long-lived creatures as intelligent as elephants and chimpanzees do recognize that the dead are gone for good, they may not recognize that death eventually will come for all, a knowledge that may be solely human. Still, Anderson says, “Pining or grieving for a dead relative or friend is possible without any knowledge of death.” An important point, because if some species share our painful awareness of the permanent loss mortality brings, then death may be a greater equalizer than anyone previously suspected.

basically I do think that some animals have some sort of understanding of the process that we describe as death, but it's probably wildly different from our conception of death.
 
I never did say that. You don't have to actually think about your future in order to suffer, but be aware to some degree that there is time and that you exist in it. I think animals do have some understanding of time, for example they can recognize aged individuals in a group, or they pick a specific place to die. And in that regard I disagree with you, I feel (though I have no proof) that animals are indeed sometimes aware that they're going to die.

That's where I draw the line with suffering vs. experiencing pain. They're different. I think one could succintly argue that plants feel something analogous to pain (they react aversely to negative stimuli is all we know), but I'm not sure whether I can say that plants suffer.



not a super serious source but here we go:



basically I do think that some animals have some sort of understanding of the process that we describe as death, but it's probably wildly different from our conception of death.
And cats have been known to "seek out" dying people and snuggle next to them.
 
Well, cognitive capacity will vary based on the neuro architecture. Some animals will have deeper concepts than others
 
as the observer, can i judge that a man who has not been able to initiate a fulfilling relationship is suffering more or less than some man who lost his home in a war zone?
Yes.
A failure to be in a fulfilling relationship is nowhere near as much suffering as someone who had to flee their home after seeing their family chopped up.
As I said to Mouthwash, attempting to equate the two or throwing up your hands in a sort of "who among us can judge" strikes me as somewhere on the continuum between ignorance and sociopathy.
 
Yes.
A failure to be in a fulfilling relationship is nowhere near as much suffering as someone who had to flee their home after seeing their family chopped up.
As I said to Mouthwash, attempting to equate the two or throwing up your hands in a sort of "who among us can judge" strikes me as somewhere on the continuum between ignorance and sociopathy.

And as I said to you, there are people who go through horrific events and don't suffer. So when you say "well, yeah, that's terrible, so go ahead and suffer 'til your guts burst" do you think that you are doing someone a favor?
 
Top Bottom