Cool. Just... cool.

Thank you for sharing, man.

This is a thing of beauty!

Or alternatively, the people who feel the need to ascribe to animals things they DON'T have as a way of making them "equal" to humans. Like claiming your cat is a super genius because it can open a door. I find animals impressive on their own merits and I don't need to anthropomorphize them to make them equals to people. (this recalling a classmate who once claimed her dog was smarter than most people because he could open a fridge door, a cool feat for a dog but even the most mentally handicapped people seem to accomplish with ease).

That's true, the effort should be towards acknowledging and appreciating what is alien, not making imaginary buddies out of other autonomous beings because of own limits of imagination.

Sort of related - I'm a bit repulsed by the common dog lovers' arguement for why a dog is better than a cat: "A cat will only come to you when it wants to.", as if they need another creature constantly brownnosing them, the fact that an animal may have needs and wants of its own seems like rocket science?

Dog's have been domesticated for longer, they need human's in a way, cat's aren't as attached to their owners in most cases.
Just like you'd call a good friend one you hang around a lot and enjoy their company as opposed to a friend that's only around when they want something.

You may be forgetting that canines are social (pack) animals, while most felines are solitary. That has more to do with it than domestication, imho.

Good friends have to be equals, not one subordinate to another.

without domestication we wouldn't have been able to take the position of pack leader in their eyes, not really subordinates, dogs naturally need pack leaders and humans often fill that role for pets.
Kind of interesting to read, not sure of the accuracy but interesting nontheless.
http://webspace.cal.net/~pamgreen/d.....symbiosis.html

I didn't read the whole thing yet, I'm going to sleep.

Precisely. It's like people need a dog, so they can be this "leader" and thus feel good about themselves, when they get back from a whole day of sweeping floor at the local supermarket...

and what's wrong with that?

It's pretty pathetic that you feel the need to enslave an autonomous being so you can feel better about your own life. That's what's wrong with it.

so wolf pack leaders are pathetic? And enslaving atoms to keep your body functioning is pathetic?
your argument is moot.

Lol, what an absurd argument. You aren't a wolf pack leader, and atoms aren't thinking, feeling, autonomous beings. You're a member of a species that has genetically enslaved another species through domestication forever binding them to your will.

A more apt comparison would be master and slave. A wolf or a human working within their respective societies doesn't compare to the life of a dog owned by a human. A wolf is free to roam, to catch a rabbit and eat them if they choose, to associate with whom they will, and to leave if their company doesn't suit them anymore. A dog has no such options, we even tell them when and where they can shit.

If you thought about it for a moment, you'd realize your argument is the one that is moot.

A dog isn't necessarily a slave too, it's a companion/guardian, however there are people who treat them as such, most don't,
Humans don't even have as much freedom as you're suggesting dogs should have, go take a shit on a restaurant counter and see what i'm talking about.
dogs have adapted to their role as a companion/guardian/slave, and it works out for them, a sort of symbiosis.
Nothing wrong with that, it happens in nature eg. http://waynesword.palomar.edu/acacia.htm
I'll say moot again because I like the word. Moot

A dog is purposefully bred into a human society that s/he has little comprehension of, and is bound to whatever family buys him/her, whether s/he likes them or not. They have little to no say in anything that happens to them, and since humans cannot understand dogs, they can't easily communicate their needs to us. How is that beneficial to an animal? I'm sure you'd say something about food and shelter, but these things can be obtained by any animal of good health in the wild. It's survival, and all animals are capable of it. And if you actually believe animals would choose basic comforts over freedom, then why do we have cages, collars, fences, chains and tethers and all manner of other implements to keep domestic animals from getting away? If their will is to stay and have virtually every aspect of their life under the control of another species, then we wouldn't need to restrain them from leaving.

Why is it that people insist on keeping animals like this instead of respecting animals enough to try and form real, meaningful relationships with wild animals on equal terms? Why do people insist on these relationships of dominance, rather than mutual respect? Well, it's easier. A human doesn't have to respect animals, or wait for a mutually satisfying relationship to develop, they can instead go to a pet store and buy a relationship. What the "pet" thinks of the whole situation doesn't matter. And since humans can legally "own" animals, people can do whatever they wish with them so long as they aren't going outside the bounds of animal cruelty laws. But even then, it's still permissible to "euthanize" healthy animals if they're no longer desired. Like so much trash, an animal is brought into the world, and discarded.

And please, don't talk to me about human freedom. Obviously humans are enslaving others and forcing them to do things for them everywhere in the world, but how does it make it right to go and do that to an animal? Humans have it WAY better than animals and you know it. If what is happening to animals were happening to humans, we'd call their prisons concentration camps.

Dogs have adapted because they're forced to. We've forced them, both genetically, and through our treatment and laws about keeping animals. This isn't to say that companion animals can't love people, but it's the wrong way to foster such a relationship. It smacks of Stockholm Syndrome.

What we have with dogs isn't a symbiotic relationship, it's slavery. Animals with symbiotic relationships in the wild don't keep each other in crates, or tie them in yards, or keep them locked in homes. They don't manipulate their genes so they can never be returned to the wild. If you want a relationship with animals, make friends with a wild animal, don't breed them for that purpose.

i'm not reading that, have fun with yourself

Yay! I won by default! :D

meh, doesn't matter to me

That's very well put.
Nicely sums up what I feel about it, too.

<Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+S>

You are awesome. <3

I'm always happy to meet another person that doesn't enslave others to feel better about themselves.

Actually I much prefer dogs that aren't constantly at your beck and call. I like dogs with a bit more independence as pets, who are smart and enjoy your company but don't view you as the beginning and end of the universe. Basically I like working dogs that can think for themselves. That said while I do love cats, I just hate that litterbox :(. Even automated ones or special litter (and we tried them all) does nothing to mitigate that smell for me. Something about cat leftovers really makes my nose go "WHY?!" (and I can walk into a stable and feel just fine). So unless I had a farm or some sort of other environment that required regular pest control, I'm forsaking cats for a while. As it is, I'm happy with my parrots currently and don't need other pets for a while.

Are the banners barcodes and if so what do they read?

Actually, I intended them to be more reminiscent of DNA staining.

Wow that is a great idea! Respect points for that!

I absolutely love this and the message you've imbued in it! Very touching quotes which I've saved to my memory and really embody a lot of emotions that I feel for nature. Just overall a really good experience!

Thanks a bunch.
I hope you'll enjoy the others aswell. :)

I'm sure of it.

this is boss, fantastic work as always

>>As the late evolutionary paleontologist Jack Sepkoski used to say: "I see intelligence as just one of a variety of adaptations among tetrapods for survival. Running fast in a herd while being as dumb as shit, I think, is a very good adaptation for survival."

>>the effort should be towards acknowledging and appreciating what is alien, not making imaginary buddies out of other autonomous beings because of own limits of imagination.


Western culture still seems haunted (polluted? plagued?) by The Great Chain of Being, and even though biologists have spent entire careers (like Stephen Jay Gould's) in demolishing that chain, it still chokes our thinking.

But if we accepted -- if we truly believed -- that (for example) earthworms, in their own ways, in their fitness for their own environment, were just as evolved as we are, how would that change our attitudes, our relationships to the world?


>>I intended them to be more reminiscent of DNA staining.


Now that's a beautiful detail!












Mark

I think it's a leftover of Lamarckism. So many people still think that's how evolution works still and you even see it in mainstream media.

It's the lingering idea that organisms can be placed on a scale from "higher" to "lower," with the related idea that evolution "strives" for greater complexity -- or even intelligence. Yet earthworms have managed quite well without eyes or limbs or complex brains; bacteria fill every niche on the planet; viruses have thrived even without cell structures of their own. In evolutionary terms, they're incredibly successful.

Ya, Lamarckism was more than just "giraffes stretch their necks, thus their babies have longer necks". It also subscribed to the idea that organisms could be placed on a hierarchy and that humanity was inevitable and the pinnacle of evolution. Somehow life "wanted" to turn itself into humanity.

"I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll grow a pair of thumbs!"

real life giggles were produced

Hahah! That's a good one.

Lamark's ideas (not the chain of being, though; I'm not even sure Lamark put much emphasis on it) are sort of on the comeback in the epigenetic field. Although it's a lot more subtle than what Lamark was rooting for.

Incidently, it's what annoyed me when I was making this series - Bergson put too much emphasis on Lamark's ideas and based too much of his philosophy on the now horribly outdated dodgy science of that time, which makes applying his categories of "Intuition" and "Elan Vital" now a bit hard. Though Bergson didn't hold intellect anything special or a "pinnacle of evolution" - he handled the topic much more elegantly.

Barcodes!

DNA staining.

Beautiful work!

talk about surrealism.

That's a telling set of comparisons by Alice Walker :)

I would add that the value of human intelligence as an evolutionary adaptation has yet to be really proven. Our species hasn't been around that long, and we may yet outsmart and destroy ourselves.

"I see intelligence as just one of a variety of adaptations among tetrapods for survival. Running fast in a herd while being as dumb as shit, I think, is a very good adaptation for survival."

Very true. Although most people tend to look at intelligence as a good adaptation, it isn't necessarily. The brain consumes alot of calories, so in an environment that the intelligence isn't necessary for survival and food is scarce, "being as dumb as shit" would be better. Their are no good or bad adaptations, it all depends on which is more useful for the circumstances.

Deffinately. The rate at which our brains burn energy would be a huge burden for any individual that would end up in the wild without any of the cultural "cheats" (making fire, fishing, clothing, hunting, setting traps, knowing what to eat how, etc.). A human being sepparated from others and from the accumulated cultural inheritance is just dead meat.

it sorta has that woodkid - iron epic feel to it (be it coincidence or intended).

gratz

This is absolutely beautiful, both in aesthetic and in concept.