A thought about amphibian driven evolutionary feelings.

[shmifty5]

i've been mulling this idea over for quite some time already, is it possible that our feelings of affection towards small colorful creatures could be based on amphibians.

most colorful and small amphibians tend to have some type of poison, whether it be fatal or just detrimental it is still bad and could pose a serious risk to any individual in a wild setting (especially our primitive ancestors). could it be that we developed these feelings as a way to avoid all small creatures (hamsters are cute and small but don't have any poisons) just in case they may prove fatal? it can't just be that our parental instincts are what drives us to love small creatures, and even then maybe our parental instincts developed with these feelings for smaller creatures, think about it, a pair of mating humans that didn't care for their young and saw small creatures as a good snack would probably die off before establishing a large population, a pair of humans that did care for their young but also saw small creatures as an easy snack would suffer some loses if not large wipe-outs, but a pair that both cared for their young and found small creatures just too cute to eat would do very well (no culturing of small creatures (both poisonous and not) that could lead to a wipe-out, no consuming small creatures that may prove fatal, no bothering with wounds and bites that may turn nasty without proper care from a small mouse, etc).

surely the many, many, many species of poisonous amphibians and reptiles and fish (and occasionally mammals) would lead us to develope certain feelings towards smaller critters as not good eats, i can't imagine us evolving this far without some form of instinctual care towards small and colorful critters, and in my opinion a feeling of love is far better than a feeling of fear in creatures (humans) that tend to attack and challenge feared creatures as a way of gaining worth within a society or tribe.

i only consider this as it seems plausible that we have our affinity towards our pets (whether it be a harmless lab mouse (nasty bity things if ya ask me) or an extremely venomous poison dart frog (cute)) because we developed these feelings via evolution (the dumb humans that ate poisonous frogs vs. the dumb humans that loved poisonous frogs far too much to eat them).

i dunno, maybe im just crazy, maybe in 100 hundred years it is discovered these feelings were developed as per my idea (love is better than fear in an evolutionary setting), or maybe they find out that god does exist and i will roast in inferno because im a P.E.A.R.List, i can't say for sure at all, it's just a simple thought to ponder.

P.S. if they have already found out why we developed our feelings of connection and closeness towards otherwise alien creatures, please tell me.

 

[mifune]

Hello,

Erich Fromm was the first to come up with the term Biophilia as a "psychological orientation" towards other living systems, an attraction to all that is alive. Edward O. Wilson proposed the Biophilia Hypothesis which he has described as "an instinctive bond between human beings and living systems." This instinct is rooted in our biology as "refined by culture." Wilson, Richard Dawkins and others give different explanations for these instincst and feelings that may help explain why we like to be surrounded by plants, animals and perhaps in its highest expressions life likes to cultivate and nurture life for different reasons. Nonetheless, I have found humans to be completely lacking in these feelings or instincts, maybe they are more accentuated or "developed" in some and not others. I believe that Lynn Margulis has also contributed to the Biophilia Hypothesis. However, it is possible that a child can develop these nurturing relationships if exposed at an early age to animals and plants although I also think that in some individuals this is something present in their biology and that little nurturing is needed. All very interesting and probably in need of refinement or verfication but certainly present in humans perhaps as part of their evolution meaning change and not necessarily progress. It may simply be that we like to perpetuate that which we tend to like and that the selfish genes (Dawkins) may be at work in the whole process. I read once that one can "only save that which one loves" and perhaps there is some truth to it. Maybe we recognize biodiversity as a need and that it is part of our survival needs as a species.

 

[blueberlin]

We have a natural curiosity about cause and effect and in exploring our surroundings and discovering that living things will thrive under our husbandry is certainly a powerful head trip as well as creating practical applications (farming, ranching). I would guess that the affection is environmental/cultural, though. Look at how children explore their world. One child discovers a line of ants and starts squishing them, another child follows them back to the nest. One child discovers a dead animal and buries it with ceremony, the other dissects it to learn what is inside. I know several people who had no pets as children and they find the idea of an animal in the house somehow suspicious. On the other hand, I have never known a child yet to find some small animal and not want to take it home. I would definitely guess that affection for rather than fear of other life forms is something we learn from others.

-Eva

 

[shmifty5]

mifune, that is fascinating, im not too big a fan of dawkins (not with his work, brilliant stuff that is, it's him as a person) but i love the idea of biophilia.

blueberlin, good points, maybe it does just vary from person to person, culture to culture.

maybe someone somewhere in the history of whatever culture just did something strange which started the entire chain of events so that nowadays it isn't weird to keep animals in the house, i wonder who it was, i wonder how it all started, was it genetic or was it learned, and from who did they learn it from? how did it catch on? what was the individual thinking about at the time? are we as a species driven to keep pets just because someone else did it?

why is it that we are the only mammals to keep other animals for companionship? (in a natural setting, a gorilla with a pet kitten at some zoo doesn't count because it is an unatural environment and the species would normally never come into contact with each other) what makes us so unique and different?

 

[blueberlin]

Other animals share living space with different species - I mean like those birds that live on the backs of other animals or the fish that hang out with sharks for leftovers. We call it a symbiosis - but our keeping pets/plants is a sort of symbiosis as well and maybe we just romanticize it?

-Eva

 

[shmifty5]

maybe, but thats more of a willingness to live beside them, in most if not all cases of symbiosis it is simply mutual, each benefits from the other. with pets however, one creature willingly takes complete care of the "pet" creature with no clear benefits to the "owner" creature.

 

[blueberlin]

... with no clear benefits to the "owner" creature.

Oh I disagree! Never mind animals like cows or horses; the benefits of pets are proven. In New Orleans (my hometown), for example, there was an organisation that drove around with pups and kittens, visiting old folks' homes and burn victims, people like that. The people got to hold and cuddle the pets, and there was a notable improvement in their health. Heck, even my worm farm helps me dispose of garbage and make compost to grow more and better food. Dogs help hunt, cats are great pesticides, newts are a charming conversation piece at the best of parties... If we had no benefit from keeping an animal in or around our home, we wouldn't do it.

-Eva

 

[shmifty5]

lol, that's not quite what i meant Eva, i meant that the newt doesn't really do anything for us physically, like my newt doesn't clean my body or provide a source of nutrients for me, it just sits there and gets fed and gives me some company...well i suppose i could cook and eat it, but thats nasty and wouldn't be a symbiotic relationship at all.

im talking hard benefits, those fish that cling to sharks feed on the parasites and mites that feed on the shark, thus the shark gets cleaned up and the fish get fed, if the fish were just for company or to make the shark feel better i doubt that the shark wouldn't eat them.

 

[mifune]

Perhaps we romanticize. I do think there is some aesthetics or appreciation of forms, shapes, colors in nature. At least in my case, as I have gotten older, I am fascinated my forms in nature, find them irresistible, intriguing, mysterious, even beauty in form. Ernst Haeckel's work and prints in some ways denotes my subjective notions of one of the reasons why I am attracted to the natural world and keep animals and plants. Although Haeckel is controversial, was wrong on several things and perhaps is not popular these days, he addressed some matters of interest to me or which I find appealing and I quote:

"Art Forms in Nature is a glorification of function and form, a demonstration of organic symmetry that has nothing--and everything--to do with nature as it actually exists."

I do enjoy paradoxes and the later is one which I find aesthetically appealing; the nothing and everything to do.....maybe this is one reason why some of us may be attracted to plants and animals although I can think of many of a more practical nature. But the beauty and diversity of life, of the beautifully sime or complex lifeforms....Quantum sufficit....

 

[electronfusion]

Biological drivers for pet-keeping and nature-loving... such an cool topic I've never considered!

Humans seem to consistently exhibit preference for certain types of plants and animals over others. Here are some factors I would imagine have to be involved in it:

1. Round faces are very appealing to humans. This is so we don't discard our crying, pooping babies.

2. Smiling faces are very appealing, because they indicate people who are friendly, happy, and amiable toward us.

3. Fuzzyness/softness are consistently appealing features. I have no clue why this is.

4. Bright colors generally illicit more interest (positive or negative) than dull ones. For example, red can mean blood (personal injury or meaty food), or attractive fruit (food).

5. Of course, there's also the factor of how easily we can take care of and how closely we can keep plants/animals.

 

[shmifty5]

i think our love of fuzzy/soft things stems from the days that we were still covered in hair, the infants would need to stay close to the mother or they risked being eaten or harmed, so maybe the babies that actually liked the feeling of the hair were more inclined to stay with the mother and as such they didn't wander off like the infants that didn't like the feeling of hair. also the soft thing could apply to the days when we were less hairy, as a child that loves the feeling of soft "milk holders" will be more likely to stay with the mother and again the children that didn't would be more inclined to wander off and get eaten, this could also explain why i love breasts and if i might say so a nice big cushion (you guys know, the kind of cushion for pushin! lol, don't ban me!).

but that is just a guess, it could be that we are just an evolutionary freak that always loved fur, even when we were primordial slugs, or for any creationists out there, when we were little balls of mud being sculped by god (snicker).

 

[shmifty5]

you are so good with words mifune, it isn't even funny, i was always told i had a wonderfully complex vocabulary but everytime i meet someone that actually does have a good vocab on them it always makes me smile! i love when people aren't ignorant or just a little "dumb", i have met my fair share of dumb people (teachers included unfortunately) and they always praise me for the stuff i find redundant or rudimentary, so it's always refreshing to meet people that aren't so "common", lol.

sorry for not mentioning this way earlier, i just kind of forgot about this thread, lol, i have terrible memory sometimes.