You must log in or register to comment.
Capitalism wants us to believe that it’s the only stable solution, because it comes close to the natural order, and that in nature there is only selfish behaviour, eat or get eaten, homo homini lupus and so on. The truth is, this supposed natural state is completely made up and animals and human beings naturally behave much more selflessly than what is expected from us under capitalism.
Thing is, even the phrase homo homini lupus predates capitalism significantly, and the sentiment dates back to before even the phrase. ‘Naturally behave’ is a very questionable phrase.
We have the ability to be better and build better societies than we currently have under capitalism. I just don’t think an appeal to a state of nature is useful or accurate.
I think there is definitely a line from early modern natural state theory and today’s justification of capitalism, although the argument has somehow reversed itself.
Actual natural behaviour is not even important, since we abandoned that some time ago, and it probably isn’t desirable to go back. Its just easier to sell an ideology when you disguise it as natural order.
I think we shouldn’t underestimate human empathy. The problem is just that we build structures to avoid it. Rich people choose to not see poor people too much or they would feel empathy and be inclined to help them. If the poor are far away, merely an abstraction that is said to exist, then their existence is not felt strongly enough to trigger an empathy response. Surely there are exceptions to some degree, but I think humans are very empathetic and that’s one of our great powers.
I like the one where they gave rats a lot of food and space (rat paradise) and let them breed till they were crawling over eachother till there wasnt enough food for them all. When most of them died and food was available once more, the remainders stopped eating and all the rats died.
Rats are interesting but I think the guy that programmed them left in some bugs.
Couldn’t this be explained by the “tit-for-tat” hypothesis? That selfless behaviour is learned in communal animals, and that its implied it will be you who need help next time?
There is a bat species that I think feeds on blood, and they share the food they managed to get in a night, if a bat refuses to share one night then the next time they get left out of the sharing.
Don’t think there has ever been much dispute of a rat’s intellect
They’re known to be the only animal on the planet more intelligent than dolphins. IIRC only two of them survived though, while the dolphins all left in time.
I don’t think this was about the intellect either, just about empathy. Sure, the free rat could learn to open it quicker, but the point is that it did. It didn’t eventually figure “eh, nothing in it for me”, it repeatedly went and freed the other to the point of routine.
That sounds eerily similar to a situation in Secret of NIMH (the book, not the movie), when the rats
Tap for spoiler
being taught how to read discover how to open their cages at night and decide to free the caged mice next to them out of empathy, who then aid in their escape.
Rats. Can’t use the term as an insult anymore considering they’re more human than we are.
Seems that’s an insult to the rat.
I wonder about this in animals all the time. Like, many animals seem to really enjoy being loved on and getting scritches, have a relationship with their owner or caregiver, are happy to see them and snuggle up… but in the wild they might be mostly solitary, only interacting with their own kind for mating and maybe raising young. Yet they’re often very different from the (eat sleep reproduce survive) basic wild animal when given the opportunity. They have personalities, happiness, etc.
A lot if it is selection bias. Humans prefer animals that show those traits. We instinctively understand how they are thinking/feeling, and that makes us more comfortable with it.
It’s also worth noting that complex mental pathways take a long time to evolve. Nature tends to play with there tuning, rather than strip it out when unnecessary. Most solitary creatures had ancestors that formed groups. There’s no reason to risk breaking useful instincts. They just get overriden by newer ones.
It’s called domestication. In the Soviet Union a scientist domesticated foxes by selecting for “niceness”. It only took a couple of generations for the typical domestication signs to appear: longer childhood, friendlier face, smartness etc
They’re talking about fully wild animals. Grab a baby squirrel, and it will enjoy human company in no time. Same with raccoons, ravens, mountain lions, etc.
You’d be hard pressed to find an animal that doesn’t take to human companionship when given a real chance. And it has nothing to do with breeding.
Let’s domesticate squirrels then! Not sure how we’ll use them, but we can worry about it later.
Foxes are fully wild animals.
ravens
How about no? Domestication of one of smartest species sounds stupid.
Problem is they then go around quothing.
Rats are more compassionate than insurance companies CEOs.
CEOs of publicly traded companies doesn’t have the option to show empathy, they are there to maximize the company value for the shareholders.
Going against that would be a crime.
This is not an excuse for not doing it, this is an explanation of a faulty system.
Insurance companies should not have shareholders.
And not a “that was a bad business move and we’re going to vote to fire you” crime, but an actual white collar prison crime.
It is against US law to prioritize customers (remember, in matters like health insurance, food, and housing, “customers” means literally everyone. you cannot opt out and you must be a customer to live) over shareholders.
Although the term “shareholder fraud” is mostly about CEOs themselves stealing from their shareholders for their personal piggy banks, there are plenty of lawsuits from shareholders claiming the company and/or CEO made decisions that didn’t directly generate value for shareholders or didn’t generate the maximum value it theoretically could have.
Cordyceps is more compassionate than insurance company CEOs.
Ok, but let’s say they is a toy train and it splits into two tracks and put the rat at the lever.
I’m always mildly concerned about how shocked people are about animals being conscious beings with feelings. Do people really think we are mentally that different from other animals with brains?
Yes
I’m more concerned that people believe it’s rare, in both humans and the animal kingdom
Predators will share territory if there’s enough to go around, even forming close relationships across species, sometimes even raising their young together
Empathy is the natural state, unless there’s enough scarcity. Humans are naturally generous, unless we’re raised in an environment of eternal artificial scarcity…
Predators will share territory if there’s enough to go around, even forming close relationships across species, sometimes even raising their young together
Some predators(and scavengers) have special move “Recruit!”, which allows them to invite members of another guild(species) into their party.
All those rich bastards that are not generous at all must have been raised in a lot of artificial scarcity then. Really artificial since most of them grew up well to do as well.
They spend all their damn lives not even fully comprehending they’re not living in scarcity, because the only resources they’ve ever been taught to focus on are those which are inherently scarce - competing for attention, fame, social status, etc.
To be fair, with academic types running experiments like this, the question is usually more along the lines of “At what point does instinct become empathy as we would recognize it?”, and depending on how high the criteria is set for empathy there, the level of premeditation may be geniunely surprising in some animals.
Yes, they do. And Christian types often believe that we have “souls” and animals do not.
Yes, they really do.
Almost every creature that lives in a harsh environment understands about looking out for your buddies. The next day, it might be you snapped into the trap. Allies are a precious thing. A lot of people prominent in our society have forgotten, but the rats have not, nor many of the people, either.
Remember this when they start deporting your neighbors next year.
Yeah, without empathy our current society would never have had existed, sadly greed is often more powerful once basic needs and safety are met.
Today you, tomorrow me.
You made me a little nostalgic, reminding me of when reddit was good. Right around that timeframe was the last days of when it was a human place.
https://aroundincircles.net/tales-from-a-dishonest-used-car-dealership-stories/
Yeah, I sometimes miss Tales From Tech Support. There were some damn good stories in there. The car dealership ones were some of the best.
I like how it started with “lol the car ID has the wrong number of digits” and keeps evolving to the point of sawing cars in half, the car that runs on recycled grease, pure madness.
mutual aid: a factor of evolution
rb>c
Well, every social creature. There are plenty of species that don’t give a fuck.
Perhaps most mammals and birds understand empathy, but plenty of animals in classes like reptiles, insects, amphibians, don’t exert almost any empathy as humans understand it.
The rats don’t live in a system that exacerbates and encourages the worst excesses of the worst people. The rats that don’t help are our billionaires.
Yeah, pick any two humans and put them in a similar situation, and I truly believe that you’ll see similar empathy 99.9% of time time. But that fucking 0.1%, they’re ruthless and they’re rewarded handsomely for that behavior.
they’re rewarded handsomely for that behavior
It’s more just that they aren’t punished for it. They don’t have the empathy to give a shit, and thus will do things regular people won’t. If society doesn’t punish them for being a piece of shit, then there’s no downside to being a piece of shit for them, only upsides from taking advantage of situations others won’t.
A lot harder to punish when you can start making the laws as well. Society won’t just reward them sometimes they will let them write what everyone else should do as well.
This is why you have to introduce the concepts of mimics or demons that have access to change shape. Otherwise the party always frees the chained up maiden in the dungeon without asking any questions. Alternatively, if there is a rogue, you don’t have to worry. They’ll try their best to convince the others that they’ll get xp for stabbing the prisoner.
deleted by creator
You might be curious to find that in many animal species studied, from pack animals down to ants, there is always a large percentage that contribute nothing and are a net-drain on the larger life-structure or colony. Humans and all other forms of life seem to share this commonality.
And yet the groups survive anyway. So does it really matter?
Why do you say the rats are better than us? Humans can be observed doing the same in similar circumstances.
SomeMost humans. The notable (but not exclusive) exceptions being people who manage to become ultra-wealthy.Some
I disagree, from what I have seen, the vast majority of people are empathic, we just focus on those who are not
I agree. That should have said most, though some is still accurate but it sounds smaller.
I do agree, but the thing that really defines your worldview is what you think the ratio of “good” to “bad” people are, along with how much you think people can change.
Personally, I think a lot of humans are largely interested in maintaining the status quo and avoiding large amounts of change. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re bad or evil or unredeemable, it just means that they’re influenced by the systems that we’ve built and take comfort in what is known.
Be careful of diving too far into cynicism. Why would you try to change anything if you think it’s impossible? Understand that the world is frustrating sometimes and give grace whenever you can when people make mistakes (as long as you make it clear when boundaries are crossed).
I’m sure if you lock somebody in what used to be a filing cabinet or toolbox in a rich man’s office and they start wimpering for help then the rich guy will get up and go let them out (unless he put them there).
Might even share his chocolate chips with them.
I think is also shows the potential that empathy can be instinctual aswell as trained and reenforced
A rat may save another rat purely on instinct. Aswell as being able to be rewarded for either action and be influenced in the future to embrace a particular ethos
That’s clearly not the point of the post.
The post title says exactly:
The rat bastards are better than us
Which is why rats never built empires and conquered the world
In many cities, there are more rats than human. And yet, who feeds who?
or destroyed it
Tell that to the rat king
