174-175: Got milk?

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Overkill Engine
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:51 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Overkill Engine »

Arioch wrote:
RockB wrote:By the way, what about squids and octopuses? More manipulators than humans with very fine control. Or the small rodents (like rats and mice) or squirrels? They look so cute when they handle seeds and nuts with their little hands...
Well, like I said, cephalopods would be good candidates were it not for the inherent limitations on the size of their brains.
I seem to recall that lifespan is an issue for them as well.

So there are at least two traits that would have to be bred out somehow that so far naturally occurring selective pressure has not.

Then there is that issue where the environment they occupy does not allow for fire-making and thus advanced tool making....as we know it.

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Arioch »

RedDwarfIV wrote:Total brain size doesn't neccessarily determine intelligence... otherwise we'd be dumber than whales. Corvids have tiny brains, but they're very smart, with tool use and socialisation.
Corvids and parrots have the largest brains among birds, relative to body size. Total brain size alone doesn't determine intelligence, but both total brain size and relative brain size do correlate to intelligence.
Overkill Engine wrote:I seem to recall that lifespan is an issue for them as well.
So there are at least two traits that would have to be bred out somehow that so far naturally occurring selective pressure has not.
Lifespan and total body size can (presumably) be altered through selective breeding, but the fundamental configuration of the brain and gut would be pretty hard to change. I think that the more sophisticated an organism becomes, the harder it is to make adaptations to the basic systems (as with code, the lower-level the code that's changed, the more likely it is to cause fatal errors).

Overkill Engine
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:51 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Overkill Engine »

Yeah some things once set, aren't going away easily even if the reason that they were originally selected for is no longer relevant. Hell, humans still have an appendix, despite the frequent problems that those can have.

So an optic gland whose secretions cause the parent organism to die *after* reproducing is not probably going to get *naturally* selected against any time soon, especially since the offspring are able to survive without parental attention.

Edit: and the size and scope of the breeding program you'd need to artificially select against it would be staggering.

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by RedDwarfIV »

Overkill Engine wrote:Yeah some things once set, aren't going away easily even if the reason that they were originally selected for is no longer relevant. Hell, humans still have an appendix, despite the frequent problems that those can have.
Apparently the appendix is important as part of our immune system, and as a reserve for gut bacteria in the event that the gut gets cleaned out by something.

Not what it was originally for, but still useful.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

User avatar
RockB
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2020 5:09 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by RockB »

boldilocks wrote:Perhaps the best way to describe a human-like intellect is
"Would you, as a european or american, feel comfortable cutting this being up and eating it"
And then:
boldilocks wrote:
RockB wrote:How was that supposed to work in any case O_o?
- There may still be cannibals somewhere in the jungle. Not sure about Europeans or Americans...
- Even if not, IMHO humans have done worse to each other than slaughtering and eating each other. Not only in wars.
- Even if you consider only happy, mentally healthy and well-fed Europeans and Americans*, their also well-fed and happy animals also often act human-like and don't eat each other.
1. That is how it was supposed to work. By european/american moral standards, ie, not according to the moral standard of some stone-age 3rd world savage.
By that you imply that only Europeans and Americans have the moral standards that enable "human-like intellect". :shock: EW! :( I so hope that was a joke. Not wanting to discuss this any further, just in case it was not :(

boldilocks
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by boldilocks »

RockB wrote: By that you imply that only Europeans and Americans have the moral standards that enable "human-like intellect". :shock: EW! :( I so hope that was a joke. Not wanting to discuss this any further, just in case it was not :(
Firstly, I don't imply, I'm explicit. European and american moral standards are the highest ideal, preferably pre-20s european and american moral standards.
Secondly, the implication is not that inferior moral standards don't enable "human-like intellect", it's that inferior moral standards give a different answer to the question.
For example
By the proposal I set forth, a 1920s german gentleman would look at a loroi and say "here's an alien species with a human-like intellect",
whereas a fictional stone-age savage might say "here's some blue meat".

gaerzi
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2020 5:14 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by gaerzi »

Arioch wrote:"Sapience" just means intelligence, and a being (such as an AI) can very intelligent without being "self-aware" or having "free will", or the various hard-to-define characteristics which separate humans from AI or other animals. Which is why science fiction literature uses the term "sentience" instead, presumably because of the element of "experiencing subjectively". It's not a perfect term, as befitting a subject which no one knows exactly how to define, but it's what we have.
Yeah but a housefly is sentient... And sapience is unlikely to appear naturally without sentience first. Even if a sapient AI is not considered sentient, its creators probably are.

By the way: are Historian AI sentient?
boldilocks wrote: By the proposal I set forth, a 1920s german gentleman would look at a loroi and say "here's an alien species with a human-like intellect",
whereas a fictional stone-age savage might say "here's some blue meat".
I wouldn't be so sure about your 1920 German gentleman.
Overkill Engine wrote:I seem to recall that lifespan is an issue for them as well.

So there are at least two traits that would have to be bred out somehow that so far naturally occurring selective pressure has not.

Then there is that issue where the environment they occupy does not allow for fire-making and thus advanced tool making....as we know it.
The ability to transmit knowledge -- especially abstract knowledge, beyond "this is good to it, this isn't" -- is important, and squids do not have that because squid mothers barely live long enough to see their eggs hatch, then they die. Baby squids have to learn all by themselves. They're intelligent, but they're a species that chose an r strategy instead of a K strategy. It's hard to imagine a K-selected species forming a civilization, each generation having to start from scratch.

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Mr.Tucker »

boldilocks wrote: Firstly, I don't imply, I'm explicit. European and american moral standards are the highest ideal, preferably pre-20s european and american moral standards.
Oooooh, I really shouldn't say anything, but I'll say this: while you are MOSTLY correct (and by mostly I mean that higher moral standards tend to originate in european or european-derived cultures), there are some caveats:
1) 20s morals are not that different from 50s morals (apart from being less bloody). Major shifts tended to occur during the 60s-70s.
2) I agree on 20s morals with regards to oneself (reflexive) but NOT to others.
3) All morals up until this point don't take into account psychological mechanisms (or if they do, they tend to try to coerce them, which causes damaged individuals).
4) Access to information will have a major impact on morals. Thus comparing different ages means little.
gaerzi wrote: It's hard to imagine a K-selected species forming a civilization, each generation having to start from scratch.
I could jump through some hoops and imagine that mothers could leave their children tools and shelters for use and improvement (and the children could compete for them). Perhaps developing writing at some point.
But it's a VERY alien lifestyle, would take a really long time to evolve, and is applied to a species that is aquatic (which makes evolution even more hard to imagine).
I'd be interesting to see how mothers interact with their children if they were modified to survive longer. Not necessarily MUCH longer, but say three years instead of one.

Here's an interesting tidbit though: while looking into squids for the above-mentioned worldbuilding, I looked into their evolution. Apparently, modern cephalopods (coleoids) evolved from ammonoids (shelled squids) which split from older shelled cephalopods (nautiloids) during the Ordovician. Nautiloids live for over 15 years (around 18-20), and reproduce after about 15 years of age (when they are mature). They regenerate their gonads and reproduce yearly. The reason modern squids do not is attributed to their ancestors, the ammonoids, which adapted a live-fast breed-fast strategy to cope with competition from jawed fish in the Devonian, thus splitting from their nautiloids predecessors. In time, the shell got smaller, allowing them to migrate to deeper waters, from whence they rose after the K-T impact killed the ammonoids in the shallows.
So....squid ancestors COULD live for much longer, and produced fewer offspring with more dedication. It might be possible to somehow turn the switch on again, but it's tricky since some genes are lost (for instance, they may not be able to regen their gonads). Nautiloids, unfortunately, are not nearly as smart as squids and cuttlefish (and have quite different brains, limited by their shells).

User avatar
RedDwarfIV
Posts: 398
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 12:22 am

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by RedDwarfIV »

boldilocks wrote:
RockB wrote: By that you imply that only Europeans and Americans have the moral standards that enable "human-like intellect". :shock: EW! :( I so hope that was a joke. Not wanting to discuss this any further, just in case it was not :(
Firstly, I don't imply, I'm explicit. European and american moral standards are the highest ideal, preferably pre-20s european and american moral standards.
Secondly, the implication is not that inferior moral standards don't enable "human-like intellect", it's that inferior moral standards give a different answer to the question.
For example
By the proposal I set forth, a 1920s german gentleman would look at a loroi and say "here's an alien species with a human-like intellect",
whereas a fictional stone-age savage might say "here's some blue meat".
Of all the examples you could have used, why on earth did you think "people from that part of German history when nazis and communists were fighting in the streets, and antisemitism was rampant" would demonstrate the pinnacle of western moral ideals?

You couldn't have pointed to the abolition of slavery (a practice used by most cultures throughout human history, and still practiced by some places today)? Or the development of the trading-partner method of colonisation used by the British Empire that, rather than totally subjugate a local population and use them to extract resources, instead built up countries that could generate far more wealth while not treating the locals like chattel slaves? It should tell you something that despite the bad things about the British Empire (Malthusianism resulting in mass starvation, the general authoritarian nature of empires which resulted in the massacre of peaceful protestors), many of our former colonies have a friendly relationship with us today.

The west is not perfect. But its had a lot longer as a successful, wealthy area to spend on thinking about how our societies might best be structured to serve the people living in them. That has often gone disastrously wrong, but we did come up with the concept of the liberal democracy, which works very well.




... to try and salvage your argument for you: "savages" are neurologically just as capable of advanced morality as westerners. But because they haven't had the benefit of an industrialised society that can divide labour enough to support dedicated academic facilities where people can spend their time thinking about how to be nicer to one another, they don't know about advanced morality, and may be living in conditions dire enough that they cannot afford to live by our moral standards. (Consider that even in first world countries, it is not illegal to eat human flesh in a survival situation, because it is acknowledged that it may be your only option.)

So the "savages" give a different answer because their situation is different, not because they are in any way less human than westerners.
If every cloud had a silver lining, there would be a lot more plane crashes.

boldilocks
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by boldilocks »

RedDwarfIV wrote:Of all the examples you could have used, why on earth did you think "people from that part of German history when nazis and communists were fighting in the streets, and antisemitism was rampant" would demonstrate the pinnacle of western moral ideals?
Because 1920s europe was literally the pinnacle of moral ideals. The fact that germans and italians were willing to violently defend themselves against bolshevik oppression while their liberal establishments simply sat back and did nothing demonstrates the superiority of the illiberal moral view of 1920s europeans over the liberal moral view of the 1920s european ruling caste.
RedDwarfIV wrote:You couldn't have pointed to the abolition of slavery (a practice used by most cultures throughout human history, and still practiced by some places today)? Or the development of the trading-partner method of colonisation used by the British Empire that, rather than totally subjugate a local population and use them to extract resources, instead built up countries that could generate far more wealth while not treating the locals like chattel slaves? It should tell you something that despite the bad things about the British Empire (Malthusianism resulting in mass starvation, the general authoritarian nature of empires which resulted in the massacre of peaceful protestors), many of our former colonies have a friendly relationship with us today.
Because neither of those are the pinnacle of moral ideals. Neo-colonialism is not an improvement on colonialism, it's merely a subjugation of it to allow it to continue in a different form.
RedDwarfIV wrote:The west is not perfect. But its had a lot longer as a successful, wealthy area to spend on thinking about how our societies might best be structured to serve the people living in them. That has often gone disastrously wrong, but we did come up with the concept of the liberal democracy, which works very well.
No, liberal democracy is worse than fascism or dictatorship. The 1920s european ideal is a non-liberal, even anti-liberal, democracy.
RedDwarfIV wrote:... to try and salvage your argument for you:
You reveal your liberal priors. There is nothing to salvage because there is no weakness in the position. The fact that you had to resort to a presumed lifeboat scenario as if this is a demonstration of moral character only serves to explode your own position.
RedDwarfIV wrote:So the "savages" give a different answer because their situation is different, not because they are in any way less human than westerners.
Again, this simply further shows your liberal priors. It is utterly unrelated to my position, but because you have spent your life being brainwashed by universalist progressive liberalism, the concept of having different moral standards between 1920s europe and the stone age must imply that stone age humans weren't human. It is as if your brain simply switches off and your resort to spouting off empty platitudes.

User avatar
Werra
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:27 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Werra »

RedDwarfIV wrote:Of all the examples you could have used, why on earth did you think "people from that part of German history when nazis and communists were fighting in the streets, and antisemitism was rampant" would demonstrate the pinnacle of western moral ideals?
The street battles were more of a thing of the 30s, I believe. Btw, anti-communism appealed far more to the German population than anti-semitism. Unsurprising since there was an unsuccesful civil war in Germany to install communism as well as a series of soviet invasions in East Europe in that decade.
You couldn't have pointed to the abolition of slavery (a practice used by most cultures throughout human history, and still practiced by some places today)?

That abolition was and is a purely European matter. There are now more slaves worldwide than ever.
But yeah, the Brits essentially making war upon slave traders was pretty great.
we did come up with the concept of the liberal democracy, which works very well.
Our democracies are right on track into oligarchies. We can't even maintain replacement level fertility, something which should be a non-issue with western surplus. The Greeks described democracy in its entirety two millenia ago.
The first thing every liberal democracy does in times of trouble is cut back liberties. In Europe we're seeing it now under Covid, but it also happened under islamic terrorism and pressure from the US.
... to try and salvage your argument for you: "savages" are neurologically just as capable of advanced morality as westerners. But because they haven't had the benefit of an industrialised society that can divide labour enough to support dedicated academic facilities where people can spend their time thinking about how to be nicer to one another, they don't know about advanced morality, and may be living in conditions dire enough that they cannot afford to live by our moral standards.
Europeans domesticated themselves in the process of developing our modern nations. That doesn't mean non-Westerners aren't human, it just means they took a different evolutionary path. There is no reason to believe that something like hormone levels, which are largely genetic, don't affect morality.
boldilocks wrote:Because 1920s europe was literally the pinnacle of moral ideals.
Bomd claim, but the 20s were also a degenerate time. There was a wide split between the poor, the crippled and the well-off who could enjoy the golden 20s. The degeneracy pushed the people into the cultural conservative pushback the fascists enforced.

My suggestion for the most moral time period would be the 1840s, specifically the student movement. At least in Germany that was a period of idealism reaching for very good, very strong moral principles. Yeah, it ended in a bloody uprising and largely failed, but no upheaval is without resistance.
Other countries have their own high points, of course.

But other question, what time period is the best dressed? What would the Loroi say?

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Arioch »

I think we have strayed a bit too far off-topic here.

User avatar
bunnyboy
Posts: 543
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 9:21 pm
Location: Finland

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by bunnyboy »

I disagree with that as highest moral standard.
boldilocks wrote:1920s german gentleman would
...look at woman, foreigner or poor people and said: "Neither human or intelligent."

Wasnt their measure of bravery and swordmanship to stand unmoving while opponent tries to cut your face.
Supporter of forum RPG

User avatar
Werra
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:27 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Werra »

bunnyboy wrote: ...look at woman, foreigner or poor people and said: "Neither human or intelligent."
Come on, that isn't even true for gentlemen of the 1520s. Well, except for upper-class English, who seemingly hate the poor.
bunnyboy wrote:Wasnt their measure of bravery and swordmanship to stand unmoving while opponent tries to cut your face.
The "Schmiss" was, well is, a sign of membership in a student group, so called "Verbindungen" (Connections). There are three types. "Schlagende Verbindungen" (striking..) " nicht schlagende Verbindungen" (non striking..) and "Schlagende Verbindungen mit Schmiss" (striking with cheek scar)
Those student groups have been breeding grounds for democratic, national unifying sentiments in the 19th century in Germany. Before they attempted actual revolution, these student groups volunteered to fight the French dogs under Napoleon and then spent around 30 years being oppressed by the reconstituted nobility of the various German states. Which they evaded either by moving abroad, to the US mostly, or organizing in gymnast clubs and publishing subversive, democratic, egalitaeian ideas coded into gymnast handbooks.
So in the 1920s, the Schmiss was still a sign that the man before you was willing to shed his own blood for the liberal, egalitarian, unified Germany, in theory.

There are two ways to get a Schmiss. Either you join a striking Verbindung and willingly get hit with a rapier or your parry is too slow. In both cases it's a ritual all students practice and rehearse beforehand and a rite of passage within the Verbindung.

Arioch is asleep, so this is on topic, right?

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Mr.Tucker »

Werra wrote:
bunnyboy wrote: ...look at woman, foreigner or poor people and said: "Neither human or intelligent."
Come on, that isn't even true for gentlemen of the 1520s. Well, except for upper-class English, who seemingly hate the poor.
Once again, not taking into account psychology. Yes, a 19th century gentleman would categorise a poor fellow countryman and an african as being different... but still inferior. Because "inferior" is what the subconscious (call it "The Elephant") tells you it is (and it's a very loose, general term; more like a "taste" than a true set of objective characteristics), and "poor"/"savage" is what the conscious mind (call it "The Rider") interprets/rationalises. Even if in two categories, there is no essential difference between them.
boldilocks wrote:Because 1920s europe was literally the pinnacle of moral ideals. The fact that germans and italians were willing to violently defend themselves against bolshevik oppression while their liberal establishments simply sat back and did nothing demonstrates the superiority of the illiberal moral view of 1920s europeans over the liberal moral view of the 1920s european ruling caste.
And here I was hoping your were referring to the self-sufficiency of the 1920s....You could point to Patrick J. Deneen's "Why Liberalism Failed”. But praising the replacement of one type of oppression with another seems boneheaded. You do realise there is a difference between what we call today liberal and what was considered liberal?Let me embolden this: Old school liberals talked about control over ones' appetites and control over one's desire for political power, modern ones are more along the lines of fulfilling them.
boldilocks wrote:Neo-colonialism is not an improvement on colonialism, it's merely a subjugation of it to allow it to continue in a different form.
So those italians which you were lauding just above were also colonial?

Right, as per Arioch's comment, I will now shut up on every non-elephant related matter.
EDIT: And if anyone is interested, here are some papers that I used with regards to elephant intelligence:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... e_Behavior
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00046/full

User avatar
Werra
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:27 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Werra »

@Mr. Tucker
The claim I denied was stronger than mere inferiority. The humanity of women and non-europeans was never in question. Even after Darwin only a minority ever thought of non-whites as not human.
Have a look at the type of debates that were going on in the 16th century, for example.
https://history.sfsu.edu/sites/default/ ... nandez.pdf
Faith and christianisation were far bigger issues than race. Inconceivable for modern Westerners.

If modern man has this much trouble with interpreting the mindset of their own ancestors, how much more of a challenge will it be to treat with species biologically completely different to us?
Alex is lucky that his misunderstandings are just about milk so far. What if the Loroi were to treat him like one of their pampered but patronized males with the same zeal current day Jihadis treat their holy book?

It's a good thing that the Loroi have specialists like Tempo around. These sort of cultural institutions are invaluable tools, which the Loroi have, for dealing with the space age that they're ahead of 2160s humanity by centuries.

Catching up will not be easy or speedy, as much of it will need to be cultural, which requires generations to be born and others to die off.

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Mr.Tucker »

@Werra
Correct, but I just stress the fact that just because they SAID they did not consider poor whites as being non-human doesn't mean they didn't FEEL that way. I mean, people still do it all the time today with political opponents, kids, the opposite gender, members of different nations/religions. They just don't WORD it that way. Words and names are meaningless to the subconscious (the Elephant), because said domain is about as clever as an average green iguana (don't confuse stupidity with weakness, though; being such an ancient part of our brains, its' absurdly more powerful than the rational neocortex).

Interestingly enough, though, it might be easier to be neutral about a species that is less human looking. You might be tempted to look at a rubber-forehead alien as a god, or exemplar of some kind, or as a savage... but that get really difficult to do if the alien in question has five arms, three eyes and is radially symmetrical.
Biases, after all, are rooted in our genetic memory, and said memory is only transmitting cues when we talk to other humans (since evolving a way to relate to starfish made no sense to our ancestors).

boldilocks
Posts: 669
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:27 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by boldilocks »

bunnyboy wrote:I disagree with that as highest moral standard.
boldilocks wrote:1920s german gentleman would
...look at woman, foreigner or poor people and said: "Neither human or intelligent."
This is simply a lie.
Mr.Tucker wrote:Correct, but I just stress the fact that just because they SAID they did not consider poor whites as being non-human doesn't mean they didn't FEEL that way.
And this is inane. Yes, if we assume that every man is a demon, can we really assume that every person we ever meet, doesn't actually have a deep love of satan in his heart? Gee, I don't know. Do you think that foreigners aren't human, Mr. Tucker? I mean, how do we know you don't FEEL that way?

But as per Arioch's wishes I will refrain from going on.

raistlin34
Posts: 270
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:46 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by raistlin34 »

Back to topic, I find hard to belief none of the races allied or known to the Loroi developed animal husbandry for the same reason as us. Maybe they don´t get milk but there are other secretions available (like the equivalent of jelly).

Image

User avatar
Mr.Tucker
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: 174-175: Got milk?

Post by Mr.Tucker »

raistlin34 wrote:Back to topic, I find hard to belief none of the races allied or known to the Loroi developed animal husbandry for the same reason as us. Maybe they don´t get milk but there are other secretions available (like the equivalent of jelly).
Even if they did, how familiar would an average Loroi be with, say, Pipolsid fish farming?
Also, their biota is non-natural and pretty reduced in diversity. Not all their ecological niches are filled (insects? non-coniferous trees? ). We chose our animals from a great deal many that produce milk or meat, but only chose a very select few. The rest were too much trouble. Had they been dinosaurs, it might have been even less (no milk, small juveniles, dangerous size and requirements).
They DO raise miros, but not for milk. Probably do hunt and fish as well.

Post Reply