• deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      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.

      • deikoepfiges_dreirad@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        55 minutes ago

        I think there is definitely a line from early modern natural state theory to 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.

  • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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.

  • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • Frostbeard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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?

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

  • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 hours ago

    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.

  • grimpear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Rats. Can’t use the term as an insult anymore considering they’re more human than we are.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    7 hours ago

    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.

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 minutes ago

        I’ll take the risk of sounding like Willard here, but rats make delightfully playful and affectionate pets.

        It sounds counter intuitive but once your rats(need to have at least two) bond to you they treat you like a giant one of them. They’ll groom you for hours, and you can play chase with them with your hands like you would with a kitten(without the scratches!) They’re like a cat and dog together in a much smaller animal. One of mine played fetch.

        I just wish they lived longer and weren’t so prone to cancer. Maybe one day science can fix that.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          24 minutes ago

          Only 4 or 5 years, right? I don’t think I could handle loving a pet who’s lifespan was that short. But I do know people who have pet rats and they really love them. Doesn’t really surprise me, guinea pigs are similar. And you need to have at least two of them as well.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

    • stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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

  • MeatPilot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Ok, but let’s say they is a toy train and it splits into two tracks and put the rat at the lever.

  • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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?

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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…

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

        https://youtu.be/QaKwqsSIbIo

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          11 hours ago

          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.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

  • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    ·
    13 hours ago

    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.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Why do you say the rats are better than us? Humans can be observed doing the same in similar circumstances.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Some Most humans. The notable (but not exclusive) exceptions being people who manage to become ultra-wealthy.

      • TheSambassador@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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).

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        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.

    • Shawdow194@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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

  • desktop_user
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    12 hours ago

    have you considered that no longer hearing cries of healp is reason enough