From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: animals in research
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:40:44 GMT


Martin Hulsey writes:
mh> Despite a couple of challenges, no one has disputed my claim that there 
mh> is no (non-extinct) species that would sacrifice its own members to save 
mh> members of another species.

In article <1992Nov4.190627.24936@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
rb> Maybe the scope or sophistication of the question has not been fully
rb> appreciated, but how does your hypothesis deal with actual recent events
rb> like these occurring near my home:
rb>
rb> 1.Woman and children escape burning house.  Woman then dies of smoke 
rb> inhalation, after running back in to save pets.

From article <1992Nov4.215643.19998@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> Not a particularly good example.  First, the woman didn't KNOW 
ry> she'd die in the attempt.  Had she known, she might well have 
ry> made a different choice.  Second, she didn't attempt the rescue 
ry> to save the pets, she did it because she wanted to avoid the bad 
ry> feelings which would result from not making the attempt, i.  e., 
ry> she wouldn't have been "able to live with the knowledge" that she 
ry> might have been able to save the pets, but hadn't tried.  

Please explain the source of your long distance insights into the 
psyche of this woman whom you've never met.  Yes, yes, we know
that some people always behave selfishly, but to the best of my 
knowledge, no one's presented any evidence to show that all 
behavior is selfishly motivated.

Incidently, you've invoked your "guilt avoidance" theory in the 
past, but subsequently refused to discuss it after telling us that 
the topic was irrelevant to the particular thread.  Is it still 
irrelevant?  If not, I'll be happy to dredge up the questions that 
remain unanswered.  

Robert Black writes:
rb> 2.Pit bull attacks young girl while horrified family looks on.
rb> Family German shepherd intervenes between pit bull and girl,
rb> thereby slowing the attack long enough for help to be summoned.
rb> Shepherd dies but the girl's life is saved thanks to the extra
rb> time provided by the shepherd for help to arrive.

Rich Young writes:
ry> Another unfortunate example.  First, the German shepherd thinks that its
ry> human companions are just strange-looking fellow members of the pack (at
ry> least as far as anyone can tell).  Given this, it simply reacted in the
ry> way ANY dog would act when a pack member is attacked by a member of a
ry> different pack.  Second, the German shepherd didn't know that the result
ry> of its intervention would be its own demise.  Given a choice, many species,
ry> and most who actually raise their young, will even abandon offspring if
ry> that is what's required to maintain the life of the parents, so the
ry> German shepherd's actions might well have been different had a threat to 
ry> life been perceived as certain.

Gee, I'm surprised you didn't make the claim that the dog didn't 
really want to rescue the girl, but had behaved as he did simply 
because he wanted to avoid the "guilt" feelings that would have 
resulted from his failure to make the attempt.  

As long as you're going to gloss over species boundaries, I suppose
you could have claimed that the woman considered the pets to be 
members of her "human" family, and hence, simply acted the way
any human female might behave when a member of her own family is 
threatened.   Perhaps you could persuade Martin to modify his 
hypothesis to exclude humans that can't distinguish themselves
from dogs, and dogs that can't distinguish themselves from humans.

ry> Martin's claim stands.  

Martin's claim remains unproven.   Your attempts to dismiss 
contrary evidence assumed that we'd be willing to accept your
circular notion that there's no such thing as altruistic
behavior.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals