| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | Extinct languages: lamentable, or simply the natural order of things? Thread poster: Orrin Cummins
|
|---|
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
In this respect we are different from animals. We can sacrifice for others, which no animal does, we can feel the sorrow of others (which again is exclusively a human ability), and we can look into the future and see what is good for us (no animal can do this, too).
I completely disagree. Even the owner of any pet, and especially those who have seen their pets have offspring, knows that this is not true. Isn't depriving yourself of food and strength to feed your offspring, or allowing them to harm you while they play, or suffering when one of your puppies is taken from you a sign that animals have feelings? Having your pet try to cheer you up in a bad day is a very common experience. Owning a pet suffices to know all these things, which happen constantly in nature and are very well researched.
| | | | neilmac
Spain
Local time: 10:55
Spanish to English
+ ...
Although I have nothing constructive to add to the debate myself (just pasing through, I should really be working right now, even though it's a sunny Sunday in July), but would like to raise my hat to you all for this fascinating discussion - it certainly makes more interesting reading than anything in the Sunday newspapers I've looked at so far today!
| | | | Orrin Cummins 
Japan
Local time: 17:55
Japanese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER
Every time that I hear about a trampling death, I wonder about how far humans have really managed to separate themselves from the animal kingdom. For example:
"Suddenly, witnesses and the police said, the doors shattered, and the shrieking mob surged through in a blind rush for holiday bargains. One worker, Jdimytai Damour, 34, was thrown back onto the black linoleum tiles and trampled in the stampede that streamed over and around him. Others who had stood alongside Mr. ... See more Every time that I hear about a trampling death, I wonder about how far humans have really managed to separate themselves from the animal kingdom. For example:
"Suddenly, witnesses and the police said, the doors shattered, and the shrieking mob surged through in a blind rush for holiday bargains. One worker, Jdimytai Damour, 34, was thrown back onto the black linoleum tiles and trampled in the stampede that streamed over and around him. Others who had stood alongside Mr. Damour trying to hold the doors were also hurled back and run over, witnesses said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/business/29walmart.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Here is a much more severe example:
"At about 5 o'clock in the morning of the celebration day, several thousand people (according to Jay Leyda, estimates reached 500,000[1]) were already gathered on the field. Suddenly a rumour spread among the people that there was not enough beer or pretzels for everybody. A police force of 1,800 men failed to maintain civil order, and in a catastrophic crush and resulting panic to flee the scene, 1,389 people were trampled to death, and roughly 1,300 were otherwise injured."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khodynka_Tragedy
I have a hard time reconciling events such as these with your statement here, Balasubramaniam:
Civilization has tempered many of our animal instincts, has refined our sensibilities, and has made us tolerant, wise and able to see our ultimate self-interest.
I know that we would really like believe that we have come a long way over the millennia, and of course we have in many respects, but I think that perhaps you are underestimating how quickly a human being can regress to a primitive, instinctual nature. It might seem like these are simply isolated, unfortunate incidents, but yet:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/01/us-ivorycoast-stadium-idUSBRE90003Z20130101
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-11/lucknow/37038680_1_allahabad-railway-railway-station-foot-overbridge
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/02/women-trampled-at-madrid-halloween-party-stampede/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Jodhpur_stampede
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/30/nyregion/stampede-at-city-college-inquiries-begin-over-city-college-deaths.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Need I go on?
These actions do not speak of creatures who have transcended the biology of their ancestors; they tell of base animal instincts such as fear, survival, and fight-or-flight responses.
What about survival cannibalism? As humans, we claim to have the utmost respect for the lives of our fellow men and women. Yet when it comes down to it, we will do anything to survive, including the consumption of our companions. It is actually much more common than most people think. For instance:
"Evidence of widespread cannibalism was documented during the Holodomor.[42] The Soviet regime printed posters declaring: "To eat your own children is a barbarian act."[43]:225 More than 2500 people were convicted of cannibalism during the Holodomor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#Scope_and_duration
These are all extreme situations, to be sure, but we have become quite good at hiding our true animal instincts over these many years. It usually takes quite a shocking experience for a reasonably normal person to show his or her "true colors," as it were. But no matter how far we have come with our art and our technology and our languages, I don't think that I can make the logical leap that we are essentially and fundamentally separated from the natural world. We share too many things in common with other life on this planet. We are born, we live for a finite period of time, and we die. We have certain biological needs (water, food, etc.) that, if not met, will greatly shorten our lifespan. We seek out mates and we reproduce. In fact, we are probably driven much more by these basic motivations and instincts than by any higher intellectual pursuits such as art or technology. What do these things make us, if not a part of the natural world?
And this is the crux of the argument. If humans are indeed a part of the natural world, then the birth and death of languages, cultures, and civilizations are nothing more than natural processes to which no more thought should be given than the decline of an animal or plant species due to climate change or cataclysmic natural events such as volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes. But if one takes the position that humans have risen above any real, tangible connection to the natural world, then we cannot consider anything that humans do to be natural processes at all, but rather something else.
It should be noted that just because something is a natural process does not mean that it cannot be reversed. If language extinction is a natural event, then by the same logic so would be successful efforts to revive that language. As would be the birth of new languages or the evolution of existing ones. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | I think you are overstating the matter | Jul 7, 2013 |
I think you are overstating the matter when you say man is completely governed by natural instincts and millennia of civilization has not conditioned him or has not made more of a noble entity.
The reason is simple enough. We revert to savagery only in times of stress or emergency. In normal times we play by ethics, morals and other higher values. If that were not so, we would be murdering each other no end, like the chimpanzees of Ty, and we would have perished as a species long ag... See more I think you are overstating the matter when you say man is completely governed by natural instincts and millennia of civilization has not conditioned him or has not made more of a noble entity.
The reason is simple enough. We revert to savagery only in times of stress or emergency. In normal times we play by ethics, morals and other higher values. If that were not so, we would be murdering each other no end, like the chimpanzees of Ty, and we would have perished as a species long ago.
The fact is, as our numbers increase and we begin to run into each other more often on the limited space in this planet, the need to moderate our savagery and temper it with civilization will be all the more necessary, especially since several of the nations are nuclear armed, and climate change and other global threats can be addressed only by cooperation and not by conflict.
So it would be pessimistic and counter-productive to deny or belittle civilizational influences on us.
Because what we believe we tend to become. If we believe that we are nothing if not savage animals, then that is what we would become, but if we believe that we are noble beings playing by high ideals and morals and ethics, then we would become such noble creatures.
Let me remind Ty, Tomas and Orrin that by their own argument, if humans become noble, then that too is nothing but natural behaviour. If civilization tempers us, then that too is natural behaviour. So why aspire to be savage brutes when we can become noble beings, all in the course of perfectly natural processes? ▲ Collapse
| | |
|
|
|
Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:55
Hebrew to English
| I think you are arguing with yourself | Jul 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
We revert to savagery only in times of stress or emergency. In normal times we play by ethics, morals and other higher values.
I think not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Delhi_gang_rape_case
...maybe the perpetrators were "stressed"?
like the chimpanzees of Ty
I don't own any chimpanzees. A dog and a cat are enough hassle.
So it would be pessimistic and counter-productive to deny or belittle civilizational influences on us.
Nobody is.
Because what we believe we tend to become.
In the words of R.Kelly "I believe I can fly"....checked for wing growth.....nothing! :-|
So why aspire to be savage brutes when we can become noble beings, all in the course of perfectly natural processes?
Acknowledging human nature and its connection and similitude to "lesser" animals and to the natural world is not aspiring to be "savage brutes". I certainly wasn't advocating killing a deer for lunch and dragging it back to my cave.
| | | | | It is a lot easier | Jul 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
We revert to savagery only in times of stress or emergency.
Seems that I am condemned to disagree with you all the time. Believe me, I really respect you as a professional and would love to agree on something. I think people don't necessarily need a big crisis to be dangerous to others. All it takes is a large group, an alleged prolongued ofense, and bunch of leaders who are good manipulators and know --by learning or innately-- how to lie in a 100% credible way and galvanise people against each other. With these simple drivers, people are ready to discriminate, abuse, rob, and even kill their neighbours, as part of a bigger chess game they do not even comprehend. This is not just fiction. It happens all over the world in this very minute.
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
More on savage behaviour being unnatural for man.
Ty, you had mentioned Naked Ape (Desmond Morris), so you would also have perhaps read his other books on human behaviour, particularly Human Zoo, in which he clearly talks about humans, as well as other animals, becoming excessively savage and abnormal in their behaviour when stressed or overcrowded. Most humans live in overcrowded, stressed cities (at least in the developed world) and this could explain the perception you and some o... See more More on savage behaviour being unnatural for man.
Ty, you had mentioned Naked Ape (Desmond Morris), so you would also have perhaps read his other books on human behaviour, particularly Human Zoo, in which he clearly talks about humans, as well as other animals, becoming excessively savage and abnormal in their behaviour when stressed or overcrowded. Most humans live in overcrowded, stressed cities (at least in the developed world) and this could explain the perception you and some others here have of humans as whole being savages at heart. For example, the lengthy list posted by Orrin about trampling and such things.
Desmond Morris clearly predicts in his book Human Zoo that we can expect more violent behaviour in our cities where overcrowding and stressful life are the order of the day. And this bears out my thesis that savage behaviour is not normal for a civilized man, but is more a characteristic of a stressed-out person, and it also reinforces my argument of civilzation winning over nature.
Ty wrote:
We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait. But it’s something apes and other animals demonstrate as well, says primatologist Frans de Waal...rhesus monkeys refused to pull a chain that delivered food to themselves if doing so gave a shock to a companion. One monkey stopped pulling the chain for 12 days after witnessing another monkey receive a shock. Those primates were literally starving themselves to avoid shocking another animal.
Clearly, the poor monkey was mortally afraid of getting a nasty electric shock to itslef if it pulled the chain, just as it sees its companion getting, and this was what prompted it to choose starvation rather than pull the chain to get food. The monkey is clearly associating the electric shock with the pulling of the chain by seeing the other monkey suffering from the shock as soon as it pulls the chain, and fears that it too could meet the same fate by pulling the chain.
This is a more plausible explanation than the one that it is driven by altruistic feelings towards the other monkey. In this case at least, this is a clear case of self preservation, an instinct that is strong in all species. Only man overcomes this to some extent and put himself on the firing line for the benefit of some other person with whom he might not even be sharing any blood bond such as that of mother and child.
The mother animal risking its life to save its progeny is also no altruistic behaviour, but simply self preservation (on a species level) and it is governed by instinct. Curiously man is weak in this behaviour, which is borne out by the cases of poor parenting that we are increasingly seeing in our times!
So all these cases don't prove that man is an animal, but quite the reverse. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER
Tomás Cano Binder, CT wrote:
I think people don't necessarily need a big crisis to be dangerous to others. All it takes is a large group, an alleged prolongued ofense, and bunch of leaders who are good manipulators and know --by learning or innately-- how to lie in a 100% credible way and galvanise people against each other. With these simple drivers, people are ready to discriminate, abuse, rob, and even kill their neighbours, as part of a bigger chess game they do not even comprehend. This is not just fiction. It happens all over the world in this very minute.
But again, clearly this is not normal human behaviour. It is manipulated human behaviour influenced by the wily politician.
And that precisely is my argument. We need more civilization, not less, because our innate animalness surfaces so easily. Civilization with great difficulty keeps the lid on it, and we should reinfornce such actions that strengthen civilization - such as lamenting dying or dead languages, instead of ignoring them or treating them as routine or normal or natural events.
| | |
|
|
|
Orrin Cummins
Japan
Local time: 17:55
Japanese to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | I gotta admit | Jul 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And that precisely is my argument. We need more civilization, not less, because our innate animalness surfaces so easily. Civilization with great difficulty keeps the lid on it, and we should reinfornce such actions that strengthen civilization - such as lamenting dying or dead languages, instead of ignoring them or treating them as routine or normal or natural events.
I do find myself agreeing with you when you state it in this way, Balasubramaniam. I'm still not 100% convinced one way or the other about whether civilization itself is an inevitable natural evolution of life on this planet or not, but I think we can all agree that it is currently the only thing holding us back from true chaos. So in that sense, I suppose that we have to at least give some kind of thought to a part of culture which ceases to exist. And language is certainly a cornerstone of any culture, no matter how big or small its sphere of influence may be.
[Edited at 2013-07-07 16:20 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:55
Hebrew to English
| Dubious thesis you have there.... | Jul 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And this bears out my thesis that savage behaviour is not normal for a civilized man, but is more a characteristic of a stressed-out person, and it also reinforces my argument of civilzation winning over nature.
Stress as justification for rape and murder? Hmmmm....
For a minute there, I thought you were justifying what happened to that poor girl, oh wait.....you just did.
Clearly, the poor monkey was mortally afraid of getting a nasty electric shock to itself [sic] if it pulled the chain
Nope, this wasn't an experiment in altruism but empathy. The monkeys understood they wouldn't get shocked themselves, but that it would be inflicted upon another of its kind.
The mother animal risking its life to save its progeny is also no [sic] altruistic behaviour, but simply self preservation
That could explain kin altruism (although not entirely, not all species demonstrate altruism to their own kin yet still thrive) although altruism in the animal kingdom isn't limited to kin:
Again:
"Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for the benefit of another animal."
| | | | Balasubramaniam L.
India
Local time: 14:25
Member (2006)
English to Hindi
+ ...
SITE LOCALIZER | It is a lot more complicated issue than you understand | Jul 7, 2013 |
Ty Kendall wrote: Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
And this bears out my thesis that savage behaviour is not normal for a civilized man, but is more a characteristic of a stressed-out person, and it also reinforces my argument of civilzation winning over nature. Stress as justification for rape and murder? Hmmmm.... For a minute there, I thought you were justifying what happened to that poor girl, oh wait.....you just did.
This event that you are harping on since the last few of your posts is a lot more complex than you seem to understand. You seem to imply that all the 12 million people in Delhi are brutes like the one which committed this crime. You perhaps did not follow the story as it unfolded, how this brutish act instigated a swell of civilized response which brought out thousands of Delhites from all walks of life into the streets and which forced an unwilling government to take decisive action, and how in the end, the shamed criminal committed suicide in his cell.
So this incident again illustrates the force of civilization on human behaviour, not otherwise.
Again:
"Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for the benefit of another animal."
You forgot to mention that in animals altruistic behaviour is restricted to their own species. I am yet to hear of a case of a deer surrendering its flesh willingly to a tiger because the tiger had cubs in its cave that were starving with whom the deer felt an empathy.
Before you cite the case of dogs and other domestic animals, in most cases these are conditioned to believe that their human masters are part of their social groups and are members of its own band or herd. Try entering a house guarded by a fierce watch dog and you will know what I mean. The dog will not show any altruistic behaviour towards you. But if you venture to murder its master, it will fight tooth and nail to save him, because it thinks its band member is being attacked. So the dog's altruism is restricted to its human master, not to all men and women generally.
No Ty, altruistic behaviour found in humans has no comparison with what you can find in the animal world. Man can have altruistic feelings even towards creatures of other species and even towards inanimate objects like religions, languages, cultures, countries, etc., for all of which he would easily lay down his life or undergo untold suffering or personal loss. This kind of behaviour is not found in animals.
[Edited at 2013-07-07 17:15 GMT]
| | | | Ty Kendall
United Kingdom
Local time: 09:55
Hebrew to English
| Just to clear up.... | Jul 7, 2013 |
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
You forgot to mention that in animals altruistic behaviour is restricted to their own species.
Nope, I didn't forget, because it's not true.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/hero-dog-risks-life-to-pu_n_1502887.html
Don't invoke pets you say, ok....
"Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks, and even tigers
Chimpanzees will help humans and conspecifics without any reward in return."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_in_animals#Examples_of_animal_altruism
Also:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-533571/Animal-magic-Why-species-helping-hand-flipper.html
http://www.heavy.com/entertainment/2013/02/animals-helping-animals-photos-pics-stories/
Balasubramaniam L. wrote:
No Ty, altruistic behaviour found in humans has no comparison with what you can find in the animal world. Man can have altruistic feelings even towards creatures of other species and even towards inanimate objects like religions, languages, cultures, countries, etc., for all of which he would easily lay down his life or undergo untold suffering or personal loss. This kind of behaviour is not found in animals.
[Edited at 2013-07-07 17:15 GMT]
Guess you've never heard of feral children. Many of them were cared for and/or "raised" to a degree by the animals they were left with.
http://theweek.com/article/index/235216/6-children-raised-by-animals
And as Tomás noted earlier, anyone who owns a pet can attest to the fact that animals can demonstrate altruistic and self-sacrificing behaviour towards their owners that can't be explained away by training or conditioning. So yet another fail in demonstrating a uniquely human trait.
[Edited at 2013-07-07 18:21 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Extinct languages: lamentable, or simply the natural order of things? | Wordfast Pro | Translation Memory Software for Any Platform
Exclusive discount for ProZ.com users!
Save over 13% when purchasing Wordfast Pro through ProZ.com. Wordfast is the world's #1 provider of platform-independent Translation Memory software. Consistently ranked the most user-friendly and highest value
Buy now! » |
| | CafeTran Espresso | You've never met a CAT tool this clever!
Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer.
Accept jobs from clients who use Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools.
Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free
Buy now! » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
