Response to Corbin's Post: Human Nature?

Corbin posed the question, it is human nature to consume meat even if we find it morally wrong? To my knowledge humans are still considered omnivores, which means they eat both meat and plants. Based on this I would assume that if humans didn't have the capacity for complex thought, language, and the other attributes that separate the human animal from the nonhuman animal, they would eat meat on the basis of instinct much like apes have been observed to do. So is it human nature? I would say yes, but at the same time, the fact that humans can think like they do complicates having a definite answer.




(Link to Corbin's Blog: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/)

Is it Possible for Nonhuman Animals to Evolve into More Human Like Creatures?

This week I read H. G. Wells' The Island of Doctor Moreau and it got me wondering about where the evolution of animals is going. It also made me wonder if creating creatures like the ones in the book was even remotely possible (probably not). Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to complete, but I wonder where it will lead the nonhuman animals of the world.....if there are any left long enough for that to happen; after all we are currently experiencing the largest mass extinction event in history. It is also the first extinction event where the rapid climate change is not caused by geologic or extraterrestrial influence (extraterrestrial meaning meteors etc). After reading the book I couldn't help but wonder if people's ideas about assigning significant moral status to nonhuman animals would be changed if the animals looked more human like and/or communicated in the same languages. Under the protagonist's original assumptions, his views on the creatures of the island gave them moral status. However after learning the truth, his ideas of their moral status changed. Humans choose humans over nonhuman animals in scenarios where both need rescuing because humans relate to and feel more of a connection with each other over other animal species. In these scenarios, the loss of the nonhuman animal makes no difference to the rescuer than if the nonhuman animal was spared. My question then is, if the communication barrier is removed, does that make nonhuman animals more relatable? Could a deeper connection be made? Could the question of moral status for nonhuman animals get answered?

What do the Cases of “Feral” Children Teach Us About Nature vs Nurture?

The unanswerable question, is it nature or nurture that define who we are? Looking at the few incidences of "feral" children gives further insight into attempting to answer this question. A commonality between all of them is that they do not know language and for the most part are unable to learn it. On rare occasions, if they are taught the basics of language before becoming "feral," they stand a chance at learning more, but never can obtain the full vocabulary of a "civilized" person. What does this say about nature vs. nurture? Is it nurture that allows us, or teaches us, to speak? Well it could be said that nature gives humans the capacity to learn language, but it is only through nurture that we can acquire language. In the case of the Ukrainian girl who lived with dogs from the age of three to age of eight, through nurturing from the dogs, she learned to bark and growl just like them. In all cases where the child is "taken in" by animals, they imitate the animal's sounds and behaviors. This points to nurture as the predominant influence on making humans who they are because it is obviously not in our nature to bark or growl. So which factor determines who humans are, nature or nurture? I couldn't honestly tell you, however, in looking at "feral" children, it seems to me that nurture does indeed have a good amount to do with it.