# Miraculous relationships; ¿Es posible la amistad entre enemigos naturales?



## heidita

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4153000/4153189.stm

En las noticias este aviso sobre la amistad milagrosa entre un hipopótamo y una tortuga gigante. ¿Increíble o un milagro?



http://www.elporvenir.com.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=117025

For our English speaking friends: 

http://www.elporvenir.com.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=117025

¿Y qué decir de esta amistad: unos cachorros de tigre con varios cachorros de orangutan?

Eso nos debe hacer pensar: *la amistad entre enemigos naturales no sólo es posible sino un hecho. *

¿Qué opináis?

*Frienship between natural enemies is not only possible but a fact*. What do you think??


----------



## Sallyb36

es posible, tenia un perro y una gata que estaban muy amigos.  siempre estaban juntos y el perro protegia a la gata de otros perros.


----------



## Mate

heidita said:


> Eso nos debe hacer pensar: *la amistad entre enemigos naturales no sólo es posible sino un hecho. *
> 
> ¿Qué opináis?
> 
> *Frienship between natural enemies is not only possible but a fact*. What do you think??


 
Summary: these cases have been reported in animals held in captivity (not living in their respective natural environments).
These animals frequently show aberrant/deviant behaviours, completely different from their usual behaviour that is only to be seen in their respective natural environments.
I think that (at least partly) this issue has been already discussed in a thread called "Should zoos be abolished?" or something like that.

For us humans it is hard to tell wether these behaviuors have something to do with friendship at all; we tend to judge animal behavioural patterns comparing them with our own.

It was Borges who said _"No nos une el amor, sino el espanto"_ 
(I would not dare to translate Borges, sorry) 


Spanish version: 

Mi querida Heidi: Estos casos se han dado en animales en cautiverio, no en sus hábitats naturales. 
Los animales en cautiverio a menudo muestran conductas aberrantes, (a no alarmarse, que ese es su nombre técnico) que difieren por completo de su comportamiento habitual, en libertad. Creo que, al menos en parte, esto ya ha sido discutido en un hilo: "Should zoos be abolished?".

Es difícil discernir si las conductas exhibidas por los pobres bichos tienen o no que ver con la amistad; los humanos tendemos con frecuencia a valorar la conducta de los animales según nuestros propios parámetros.

Borges decía _"No nos une el amor, sino el espanto"_

Mateamargo


----------



## gotitadeleche

Not only friendship, but motherhood!!---My brother used to have a cat that had kittens and for some reason rejected them. His Irish Setter (dog) took over the job. She had previously been spayed, but somehow the kittens' suckling brought down her milk and she nursed them.


----------



## faranji

Mateamargo tiene toda la razón. Se trata de conductas aberrantes. Esas muestras de altruismo interespecies no pueden ser más que anomalías y en absoluto constituir la norma. Son instintos desviados. Si un animal pierde tiempo y recursos en atender miembros de otra especie, su propio legado genético se verá perjudicado. 

Querer ver en esas aberraciones indicios de amistad o sentimiento fraternal es una falacia antropocéntrica. Nuestra eterna y _disneyana_ obsesión por humanizar la naturaleza.


----------



## Etcetera

gotitadeleche said:


> Not only friendship, but motherhood!!---My brother used to have a cat that had kittens and for some reason rejected them. His Irish Setter (dog) took over the job. She had previously been spayed, but somehow the kittens' suckling brought down her milk and she nursed them.


I've heard such stories, and I can easily believe in them.
They say if a cat and a dog live in one home since early months of their lives, they usually grow up сlose friends.


----------



## .   1

I just watched such an interaction.
Two blokes were about 30 kilometres off the Australian coast when a whale-shark swam up to the rear of the boat.
The whale-shark is the world's largest fish and weighs up to 15 tons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_shark

These blokes were fascinated as the big fish just lay there looking at them.
Eventually one fella jumped in with just a facemask and snorkle and started to swim around the fish which did nothing. Every now and then the fish swam a couple of laps around the boat and then came back to the stern of the boat and waited. 
The bloke in the water noticed that the fish had a heavy rope tied around it about half way along it's body so he called for his mate to throw him a knife. 
For the next fifteen minutes this 55 year old bloke hacked and sawed at the rope. Every now and then the fish gently shook him off and swam a few laps around the boat (presumably to allow it to 'breathe') and then came back to the bloke with the huge knife waiting at the back of the boat. At one point this heavily built fella was actually standing on the fish's back to get more purchase to saw at the rope. It must have been hurting the belly of the fish but it just floated at the surface and waited as he jumped about and went through a total of three knives as he sawed at the rope.
It became too much for the bloke in the boat who was a poor swimmer but felt compelled to dive in and help out so for the next quarter of an hour both of these blokes attacked the rope with the fish swimming around the boat periodically to breath. The fish was so big that it could have killed both men with a single swipe of it's tail but it was so quiet and gentle.

After half an hour the rope finally parted and both blokes climbed wearily back into the boat but the fish just waited until they noticed that the rope had not fallen completely away but was dangling from one one fin. One bloke dived back in and kicked the rope off, I think that he was too buggered to dive down by this point, and the whale shark raised one giant fluke in the air and seemed to wave then quietly swam off into the depths.

Is this an example of interspecies communication?
It is definitely the most miraculous relationship I have ever seen.
I am sure that it will be on you tube and such shortly.
Do yourself a favour and take a squiz.


.,,
May your god go with you


----------



## gotitadeleche

Etcetera said:


> I've heard such stories, and I can easily believe in them.
> They say if a cat and a dog live in one home since early months of their lives, they usually grow up сlose friends.



They don't even have to be brought up together. It depends on their personalities, but I have introduced cats/kittens into my home when my dogs were already adults. In fact at one time my dogs found a kitten that I subsequently adopted. The dogs got along with it fine, it was the older cat that I had that objected to the competition.


----------



## heidita

What about us? Can we be friends with our worst enemies best friend?


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  This thread began by referring to one particular (and artificial, as Mateamargo has already pointed out) friendship.  It has already led to some rather chatty posts.

If it is to remain in the forum, while the topic of cooperation and friendship of unlikely species is up for discussion, the exchange of anecdotes is not.


----------



## RIU

Hola, 

Vale Chaska, no te diré que hacen mi perro y mi gatita... pero en mi opinión su conducta sería muy diferente si tuvieran que buscarse las castañas en la campiña en vez de esperar a que yo les llenara el cuenco. 

Opino como Mate y cia, son conductas que se dan en cautiverio, o en animales domesticados.


----------



## heidita

RIU said:


> Hola,
> 
> Vale Chaska, no te diré que hacen mi perro y mi gatita... pero en mi opinión su conducta sería muy diferente si tuvieran que buscarse las castañas en la campiña en vez de esperar a que yo les llenara el cuenco.
> 
> Opino como Mate y cia, son conductas que se dan en cautiverio, o en animales domesticados.


 
No es cierto. Se dio el caso hace unos años de una leona que "adoptó" una gacelita como hija suya. La defendió de los demás leones. Su hija fue "comida" por otros leones mientras dormía.
Ocurrió en un parque natural. O sea, en vida salvaje.


----------



## Mate

heidita said:


> No es cierto. Se dio el caso hace unos años de una leona que "adoptó" una gacelita como hija suya. La defendió de los demás leones. Su hija fue "comida" por otros leones mientras dormía.
> Ocurrió en un parque natural. O sea, en vida salvaje.


 
No es que quiera echar más leña al fuego pero, en honor a la honestidad intelectual -y no es que me jacte de poseerla- un parque natural (supongo que te refieres a un _wildlife park_) no es un ámbito natural sino un remedo de este último; un zoológico más grande que los demás. 
El oso Yogui y su inseparable amiguito Bubu viven en el parque Yellowstone. Se lo pasan ideando argucias para robar los alimentos que los turistas traen en sus cestas. Los osos de verdad hacen lo mismo en los verdaderos parques nacionales estadounidenses (como Yellowstone) y en otros lugares que no son santuarios de la naturaleza.
¿Qué sería de los osos sin los turistas? Sobrevivirían, te lo aseguro.

_Wildlife parks are like zoos but larger; no more than an imitation of natural environments. _
_Yogi Bear and Bubu, his inseparable little friend, live at Yellowstone. _
_They are always outlining plans in order to steal food from the tourists’ baskets. _
_Real bears do the same thing in some U.S. national parks (Yellowstone among them) and places other than natural sanctuaries._
_What would happen to bears without tourists? They would survive, no doubt._

Mate

_"La excepción confirma la regla"_​


----------



## alexacohen

Hi:
I have two dogs and three cats living together. They carry on well. You say this is due to the fact that they are domestic animals. Maybe.
But I saw a cheetah (in Tanzania) pick up a prematurely born lion cub and try to raise it with her two cheetah cubs. The lion and the cheetah are natural enemies. Why should she bother? But she heard it pitifully meeeeowing at the side of its dead mother, and went out of her way to save it.
Alexa


----------



## Mate

alexacohen said:


> Hi:
> I have two dogs and three cats living together. They carry on well. You say this is due to the fact that they are domestic animals. Maybe.
> But I saw a cheetah (in Tanzania) pick up a prematurely born lion cub and try to raise it with her two cheetah cubs. The lion and the cheetah are natural enemies. Why should she bother? But she heard it pitifully meeeeowing at the side of its dead mother, and went out of her way to save it.
> Alexa


As far as I know, cheetahs and lions are natural competitors rather than enemies. But that's not the point. 
Your example describes a natural instinct common to many mammals: survival instinct. 
A nursing feline female would most likely respond in that way to the meeeeow of a feline cub, even if it belongs to another species. It's just a matter of instinct, survival instinct in my view. 



Hasta donde yo sé, guepardos y leones no son enemigos sino competidores naturales, pero ese no es el punto en cuestión. 
Tu ejemplo describe un instinto natural común a muchos mamíferos: el instinto de supervivencia.
Un felino hembra en lactación probablemente responderá de ese modo al miaaaau de un cachorro felino, aunque sea de otra especie. Es solo una cuestión de instinto; instinto de supervivencia, según creo.


Saludos - Mate


----------



## alexacohen

Mate:
Tha survival of whom? If the cheetah raised a lion cub, she was diminishing her own cubs chances of survival. Plus it would be a competitor when they became older.
Alexa


----------



## Mate

alexacohen said:


> Mate:
> Tha survival of whom? If the cheetah raised a lion cub, she was diminishing her own cubs chances of survival. Plus it would be a competitor when they became older.
> Alexa


The survival _per se_, the strong instinct that is triggered in almost every highly evolved mammal when it hears some particular sound, the meeeeow in this case. The female cheetah doesn't "know" what could possibly happen regarding her own cubs survival chances. It's only reacting to a maternal genetically inherited/transmitted instinct which is essential to survival, especially in such a hostile and competitive environment.

La supervivencia _per se_, el fortísimo instinto que se dispara en casi todo mamífero altamente evolucionado cuando oye un determinado sonido, el "miaaaau" en este caso. La gueparda no "sabe" qué es lo que podría suceder a su propia lechigada en lo que a supervivencia se refiere. Solo responde a un instinto materno heredado genéticamente y que es indispensable para la supervivencia, especialmente en un medio tan hostil y competitivo.


Saludos - Mate


----------



## geve

I too remembered the story about the lioness and oryxes in Kenya in 2002. Unfortunately the BBC only has part of the story, so here's a link in French too, and my summary: the lioness adopted a first oryx baby, that was later killed by another lion. She adopted a second one that wildlife experts took away by fear the oryx would get hurt. The third oryx she adopted was retrieved by its mother. I don't know what happened next - maybe the lioness entered a behavioral therapy.  
Unlike the cheetah and lion story, the oryx babies had mothers who were perfectly able - and willing - to feed them.



Mateamargo said:


> _They are always outlining plans in order to steal food from the tourists’ baskets. _


So do you reckon all this fuss was just a marketing operation from the part of the lioness?  Or, maybe she was carrying around her pantry, in prevision of bad times .
I don't know if that can lead to any generalization about lions, lionesses, animals or beings in general. Maybe it was just that lioness. Maybe not. I think I would go with Mate's "La excepción confirma la regla" - and it makes nice pictures, too!


----------



## heidita

geve said:


> I don't know if that can lead to any generalization about lions, lionesses, animals or beings in general. Maybe it was just that lioness. Maybe not. I think I would go with Mate's "La excepción confirma la regla" - and it makes nice pictures, too!


 

Geve, I am really grateful for this link. I wasn't able to find one. And the picture! Great! I am just sending it to everybody. 
Well, I think this shows , that animal behaviour can certainly enhance a miracle sometimes. I never knew that this lioness adopted any other wild animals. Well, truly fascinating.


----------



## Mate

Concuerdo con la visión de faranji (ver post #5), pero hay una palabra estrechamente relacionada con "antropocéntrico/a" (derivada a su vez de "Antropocentrismo") que define con precisión esta particular percepción humana:

I agree with faranji's view (see post #5), but there is another word related to "antropocentrico/a" (derived from _Anthropocentrism_) which accurately defines this particular human perception:

_"*Anthropomorphism*: Assigning human qualities and traits to non-human animals. Because most of us were nurtured on programs like Walt Disney, many of us grew up believing that wild animals have human thoughts, feelings, and emotions. In reality, they don't. To say that: "My Purple Martins feel sad when it's time to migrate back to Brazil" is to speak anthropomorphically. Still, many martin landlords enjoy their martins primarily because they perceive the natural world in an anthropomorphic way."_

Fuente/_source_: http://www.purplemartin.org/main/Terminology.html

_*“Anthropocentrism* (Greek άνθρωπος, anthropos, "man, human being", κέντρον, kentron, "center") is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of regarding the existence and/or concerns of human beings as the central fact of the universe. This is similar, but not identical, to the practice of relating all that happens in the universe to the human experience. ...”_
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism


----------



## Joca

Maybe this is an off-topic observation/contribution, but here's a saying (said to be from a Japanese source) that I am particularly fond of. Forgive me for the possibly poor translation.

*Don't ask the gods to kill your enemy, because without knowing it, you may be asking for two graves to be dug.  *

JC


----------



## aleCcowaN

Though almost everything was said, I couldn't resist posting in this thread because I read the word "miraculous". This word and "miracle" can trigger in me an overreaction on what is the trend of this times. It seems to be that the traditional definition of miracle (something that can't be explained by natural laws) has became synonym of "what we don't even bother to explain", what is proof that one of the most strong instincts in nature is  human relish about their own sense of marvel. TV networks and Hollywood make substantial profits from this.

About 4% of human beings have psychiatric troubles, and any reasonable person can notice this on the streets, classrooms, offices and even web forums. Are animals different about this? Surely not, specially those animals in captivity, the very ones zoos and circus call properties and private citizens pets. Birds in small cages, hens under 24 hours light to promote egg laying, apes in chains, cats constantly scolded for lying in ambush of birds. All this sort of neurotic human-tied animals have amazingly abnormal behaviours, and for instance, many human legs have lost their virginity before a lustful dog, a behaviour I can't imagine a wolf in nature might have with another species. Among these zillions of strange animal conducts we decide to disregard almost all of them and keep the few that resembles Mother Theresa reincarnated and suit in this way the purpose of satiating our hunger for marvels.

Animals will continue to show sometimes behaviours that seems to follow human values, the same way lightnings will continue to strike without a Zeus behind them. Be there to watch it, and your needs for marvel will be fulfill. Get a camera, and you'll have also good business.

I have hundreds of anecdotes about my pets, other pets, animals in general, and I could carefully select any set to argue on any angle of this discussion; but it is no use: animals will be stay always animals, and humans...too.


----------



## alexacohen

Hello:


> Animals will continue to show sometimes behaviours that seems to follow human values


But, free or caged, wild or domestic, no human can know what these animals are thinking, or feeling. Human values are human because humans have decided so.  We have not the least idea why the animals behave this way, nor what their values are. And don't tell me they have none. Because no one can know. And no one can ask!
Alexa


----------



## aleCcowaN

Quoting oneself is not good, but I need to put things clear


aleCcowaN said:


> Animals will continue to show sometimes behaviours that seems to follow human values, the same way lightnings will continue to strike people now and then without a revengeful Zeus behind them (fifty a year in my country because it is flat, prone to electric storms and people think it wouldn't happen to them -a few have bad luck, most are simply  stupid-). Be there to watch it, and your needs for marvel will be fulfill. Get a camera, and you'll have also good business.





alexacohen said:


> Hello:
> 
> But, free or caged, wild or domestic, no human can know what these animals are thinking, or feeling. Human values are human because humans have decided so.  We have not the least idea why the animals behave this way, nor what their values are. And don't tell me they have none. Because no one can know. And no one can ask!
> Alexa


It's amazing the lot one can end up without knowing departing from the lot what is not known. That nothing can be said about something unknown not only is amazing, it's conclusive too.


----------



## alexacohen

aleCcowaN said:


> Quoting oneself is not good, but I need to put things clear
> 
> 
> It's amazing the lot one can end up without knowing departing from the lot what is not known. That nothing can be said about something unknown not only is amazing, it's conclusive too.


Sorry, I don't get your meaning. I quoted your sentence just because it seemed appropiate, not because I wanted to contradict it. I don't see what lightning has to do with anything. We don't know why the animals behave this way. It can be compassion, instinct or whatever you want to call it, but we can't ask them why they did it. So you may call it whatever you like, you may be right or you may be wrong. There is no way of knowing.
Alexa


----------



## heidita

alexacohen said:


> We don't know why the way animals behave this way. It can be compassion, instinct or whatever you want to call it, but we can't ask them why they did it. So you may call it whatever you like, you may be right or you may be wrong. There is no way of knowing.
> Alexa


 
I can't but agree with Alexa, there is simply no way of knowing. 

There have been many voices claiming that these animals were simply disturbed. Some, that no animals behaves but led by instinct. It has been shown though that some animals behave with "human" cruelty to their own kind, which hopefully has nothing to do with instinct.


----------



## .   1

heidita said:


> It has been shown though that some animals behave with "human" cruelty to their own kind, which hopefully has nothing to do with instinct.


If another species exhibits similar behaviour patterns to us and then this is repeated by yet a further species or even taxonomy what else are you going to call it except instinct?

.,,


----------



## alexacohen

. said:


> If another species exhibits similar behaviour patterns to us and then this is repeated by yet a further species or even taxonomy what else are you going to call it except instinct?
> 
> .,,


Robert.... I have yet to know of any animal who becomes a serial killer...
Alexa


----------



## aleCcowaN

alexacohen said:


> Sorry, I don't get your meaning. I qouted your sentence just because it seemed appropiate, not because I wanted to contradict it. I don't see what lightning has to do with anything. We don't know why the way animals behave this way. It can be compassion, instinct or whatever you want to call it, but we can't ask them why they did it. So you may call it whatever you like, you may be right or you may be wrong. There is no way of knowing.
> Alexa


I didn't think you were trying to contradict what I wrote. I simply tried to show that the famous "the lack of proof is not proof of lack of existence", a variety of negative proof asserted, negative proof denied, argument from ignorance, argument from silence, tiny teapots orbiting the Sun (Russel's Teapot) and a whole battery of logical fallacies that let us play with arguments as if we were arguing, won't cast light on this or any other subject. In a thousand cases of animal showing "behaviours compatible with human values" there'll be at least a thousand and one causes of them. Some superior minds (apes' and human's) will gladly reduce this 1001 causes to one "some animals have tender values" and will fight back what other apy and human minds think -reduce them to "instincts"- offering to comply this task multiple targets, including fallacies, because they don't like this taxonomy and prefer theirs. I always teach that when the observer jumps to the center of the scene and the observed is put quite aside, we abandon any trace of science, even intellectual interest, to fall in the common place of over-indulgence.

I think that everyone can do what is proper doing with all the greyish areas: believe what he or she pleases or needs believing. 

Yesterday, the nasty appetite for morbidity made its turn of the World -the untempth time- with the info about the crocodile which ripped out the arm of its caretaker. At the same that crocodile became killed and the arm re-implanted for the pleasure of the masses, we were locally informed, here in Argentina, that Melisa died before uncountable hours of suffering as a consequence of Ramón's attack. Ramón is the American aardvark this sweet girl was tenderly taking care of in Florencio Varela Zoo. Unlike the anonymous crocodile which didn't consent to return the arm, Ramón will continue to live because he is consider an animal, dangerous, but animal in the last.


----------



## heidita

aleCcowaN said:


> At the same that crocodile became killed and the arm re-implanted for the pleasure of the masses,


 
I suppose it was especially for the caretakers pleasure, don't you think? 





> that Melisa died before uncountable hours of suffering as a consequence of Ramón's attack. Ramón is the American aardvark this sweet girl was tenderly taking care of in Florencio Varela Zoo. Unlike the anonymous crocodile which didn't consent to return the arm, Ramón will continue to live because he is consider an animal, dangerous, but animal in the last.


 
Can you give a link to this. It was not easy to understand.


----------



## Mate

heidita said:


> I suppose it was especially for the caretakers pleasure, don't you think?
> 
> Can you give a link to this. It was not easy to understand.


Los dos primeros enlaces llevan a la infortunada noticia:
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/04/12/um/m-01398438.htm
http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/04/13/sociedad/s-04801.htm

Este enlace describe el proyecto de conservación del oso hormiguero gigante en el zoo de Fcio. Varela, Pcia. de Buenos Aires.
http://www.florenciovarelazoo.com.ar/Proyectos.htm


----------



## alexacohen

aleCcowaN said:


> I didn't think you were trying to contradict what I wrote. I simply tried to show that the famous "the lack of proof is not proof of lack of existence", a variety of negative proof asserted, negative proof denied, argument from ignorance, argument from silence, tiny teapots orbiting the Sun (Russel's Teapot) and a whole battery of logical fallacies that let us play with arguments as if we were arguing, won't cast light on this or any other subject.


My English is not that good. I don't understand the teapot orbiting theory. I can't follow you.
We use human words for describing animal behaviour; OK, so we are human, whatever language we use to describe something will always be human. 
A dog certainly can't put a name to what he feels the way we do. He wags his tail and barks. It's another kind of communication. It's up to us to translate it as we wish.
Alexa


----------



## Mate

alexacohen said:


> Hello:
> 
> But, free or caged, wild or domestic, no human can know what these animals are thinking, or feeling. Human values are human because humans have decided so. We have not the least idea why the animals behave this way, nor what their values are. And don't tell me they have none. Because no one can know. And no one can ask!
> Alexa





alexacohen said:


> We don't know why the way animals behave this way. It can be compassion, instinct or whatever you want to call it, but we can't ask them why they did it. So you may call it whatever you like, you may be right or you may be wrong. There is no way of knowing.
> Alexa


Querida Alexa: Escribo esto en mi lenguaje materno porque es mejor ser bien comprendido por unos pocos que mal por muchos. 
No es del todo cierto que nadie puede entender el comportamiento de los animales. La etología incluye varias disciplinas científicas que han hecho mucho por descubrir la naturaleza de estos fenómenos. 
Como veterinario, yo mismo he tenido que estudiar bastante etología para poder manejar animales enfermos sin correr riesgos, o para saber cual es la mejor manera de hacer pastorear el ganado en función de mejorar aspectos productivos. Además, lo hice por interés personal. 
Un veterinario no puede preguntarle a un animal con palabras qué es lo que le pasa, dónde le duele o cómo le gustaría ser tratado. De ahí que para arribar a un diagnóstico, implementar un tratamiento o establecer alguna forma de manejo, tenga que saber aunque más no sea un poco de etología. 

No podemos preguntar, pero debemos intentar saber. Y las más de las veces, afortunadamente, lo logramos. 

Aparte, algunos humanos tenemos un don que nos permite intuir qué les pasa, independientemente de los estudios formales que hayamos realizado.




heidita said:


> I can't but agree with Alexa, there is simply no way of knowing.
> 
> There have been many voices claiming that these animals were simply disturbed. Some, that no animals behaves but led by instinct. It has been shown though that some animals behave with "human" cruelty to their own kind, which hopefully has nothing to do with instinct.


Querida Heidi: Me gustaría conocer la fuente de tu aseveración (la que he subrayado). La crueldad no es sino un concepto humano. El universo, y por ende también la naturaleza, no saben de crueldad, de bondad, de sufrimiento, de placer y así _ad infinitum._
Claro que podemos trasladar todos los sentimientos humanos en función de interpretar fenómenos naturales tales como el comportamiento de los animales, pero esto no ayudará a la verdad, o a un enfoque más objetivo y fructífero de la realidad.

Saludos - Mate


----------



## alexacohen

Mate:
Claro que sí. Punto por punto.
Yo comprendo qué me dicen mis perros, mi lobo (sí, lobo), y mis gatos. Perfectamente. Y mi veterinario, que es de Cuba, también (mira si será internacional su lenguaje). Ellos tienen su lenguaje y su manera de expresarse. Yo no soy veterinaria, ni etóloga (me he tragado a Desmond Morris y Gerald Durrell y hasta ahí), pero sí que comprendo qué me quieren decir. Incluso los que no son míos... 
Lo que quise decir (probablemente fatal, o me habrías entendido) es que no veo por qué no podemos aplicar los valores "humanos" al hablar del comportamiento animal. Utilicemos las palabras que utilicemos, siempre serán humanas. Ellos tienen otra manera de expresar sus sentimientos. Que los tienen. Mis perros no pueden decir como yo " te quiero". Ellos mueven el rabo y ladran. Yo traduzco "yo también te quiero". No veo por qué no. Mis perros no van a poder explicarle a nadie qué es el amor, pero que cualquier humano me lo explique. Ya veríamos si acertaban con una definición mejor 
que "guau, guau".
Alexa


----------



## Mate

alexacohen said:


> Mate:
> Claro que sí. Punto por punto.
> Yo comprendo qué me dicen mis perros, mi lobo (sí, lobo), y mis gatos. Perfectamente. Y mi veterinario, que es de Cuba, también (mira si será internacional su lenguaje). Ellos tienen su lenguaje y su manera de expresarse. Yo no soy veterinaria, ni etóloga (me he tragado a Desmond Morris y Gerald Lawrence y hasta ahí), pero sí que comprendo qué me quieren decir. Incluso los que no son míos...
> Lo que quise decir (probablemente fatal, o me habrías entendido) es que no veo por qué no podemos aplicar los valores "humanos" al hablar del comportamiento animal. Utilicemos las palabras que utilicemos, siempre serán humanas. Ellos tienen otra manera de expresar sus sentimientos. Que los tienen. Mis perros no pueden decir como yo " te quiero". Ellos mueven el rabo y ladran. Yo traduzco "yo también te quiero". No veo por qué no. Mis perros no van a poder explicarle a nadie qué es el amor, pero que cualquier humano me lo explique. Ya veríamos si acertaban con una definición mejor que "guau, guau".
> Alexa


Alexa: Tu inglés no es ni más ni menos fatal que el mío (ambos deben ser un poco fatales). Veo con agrado que hayas aceptado mi propuesta de hablar en nuestro propio idioma, y creo que ambos coincidimos en que es más fácil entenderse con los cánidos que con gente, por más que esta hable el mismo idioma.

Los perros -y hasta cierto punto también los gatos- son casos muy particulares. 

A diferencia de otros animales domésticos el perro es compañero de cacería del hombre desde hace al menos 14.000 años. Restos fósiles de lobos han sido encontrados junto a restos de homínidos en yacimientos cuya antigüedad se calcula en 400.000 años.
Hemos evolucionado juntos durante milenios, como socios y amigos. 
Es fácilmente comprensible el grado de entendimiento al que hemos llegado así como el afecto que ambas especies nos profesamos mutuamente. Pero esto es excepcional. 

Y me temo que el hilo trata de amistad entre enemigos naturales, o sea exactamente lo contrario a lo que hemos arribado. Y por lo dicho también temo que este post sea eliminado antes de que lo leas. 

Saludos (ya olí tu mano asi que sé que puedo confiar en tí) - Mate


----------



## alexacohen

> Y me temo que el hilo trata de amistad entre enemigos naturales, o sea exactamente lo contrario a lo que hemos arribado. Y por lo dicho también temo que este post sea eliminado antes de que lo leas.


Probablemente eliminen nuestros últimos posts, sí. Pero a lo que yo iba es  que la única manera en que podemos explicar un comportamiento animal es con palabras humanas... y tanto "instinto" como "valores" lo son. Si alguien desea creer que todo comportamiento animal es "instinto", pues adelante, yo no puedo contradecirlo. Pero tampoco nadie puede contradecirme a mí si digo que los animales (salvajes o no) demuestran muchas veces valor, compasión, cariño. Por la simple razón de que nadie puede preguntarle a un animal por qué ha hecho tal o cual cosa.
Empate.
Alexa


----------



## faranji

Yo no veo tanta contradicción. Valor, compasión, cariño... no son más que las etiquetas humanas con que tratamos de describir y hacer manejables las diferentes facetas del comportamiento instintivo de los animales. Para mucha gente carecen de valor científico, la mayoría de los etólogos y biólogos desdeñan el llamado 'mentalismo' por juzgarlo antropomórfico, pero es evidente que en un nivel más pedestre nos permiten la comunicación.


----------



## alexacohen

Uff! Que sí, que los "valores" humanos aplicados al comportamiento animal carecerán de todo el valor científico que mucha gente quiera, pero que vengan los científicos y que me demuestren por qué la guepardo adoptó un cachorro de león. Y no me van a poder demostrar nada, porque si por casualidad X número de científicos examinasen el comportamiento de la guepardo, seguirían sin saber qué pensaba o sentía la guepardo cuando lo hizo. Porque no hay un diccionario, hasta el momento, español-guepardo/guepardo-español.
Alexa


----------



## faranji

Alexa, no cabe a los científicos ponerse a descifrar ocultas motivaciones 'mentalistas' que impulsasen a la gueparda a adoptar el cachorro de león. 

Lo que sí te pueden demostrar es que donde tú ves humanidad, o compasión, o maternidad exacerbada, ellos detectan un comportamiento aberrante, un instinto desviado. Por la sencilla razón de que si todas las guepardas que en el mundo han sido mostrasen esa tendencia, ese derroche de recursos en pro de un acervo génico ajeno, la especie del guepardo no habría llegado a nuestros días.


----------



## alexacohen

Que sí... pero eso es lo que ellos demostrarían desde el punto de vista humano... son humanos. Cualquier punto de vista que tengan será necesariamente humano. Ellos verán un comportamiento aberrante, otros verán instinto maternal, algunos veremos compasión, pero veamos lo que veamos y demostremos lo que demostremos, siempre será bajo el punto de vista humano. Porque humani sumus, Faranji. Pero con respecto a lo que sentía la guepardo, no lo puede explicar nadie, excepto la guepardo. Que, evidentemente, no puede. Así que somos libres de pensar lo que nos parezca.
Alexa


----------



## alexacohen

... Y ahora que lo pienso... hasta hace nada estaba científicamente demostrado que las mujeres no teníamos alma, que sólo éramos unos animales inferiores sin raciocinio que existían tan sólo para perpetuar la especie (se sobreentiende que la especie masculina, la única con alma y raciocinio). Así que lo que demuestren los científicos... pues mira, qué quieres que te diga, está por demostrar.
Alexa


----------



## faranji

Alexa, te agradezco las respuestas, es un placer debatir contigo. 

Pero humildemente creo que te equivocas. Una cosa es que la observación científica esté lastrada inevitablemente por nuestra condición humana, algo que los científicos tienen muy presente, y por eso se han escrito toneladas de tratados epistemológicos al respecto, y otra muy diferente es atribuir cualidades humanas al objeto de estudio. Son planos diferentes y me temo que los mezclas. Que los animales tienen instintos es una verdad científica demostrada hasta la saciedad. Que tengan 'compasión' por una cría de otra especie es una presunción antropocéntrica de la que no existe la menor prueba científica. (Y, dicho sea de paso, también me parece arrogante pretender que otras especies hagan gala precisamente de 'nuestros' valores, aunque esto ya es otro tema.) 

Un saludo.


----------



## faranji

Nunca jamás estuvo *científicamente* demostrado que las mujeres no tuviesen alma. Ni que la tengan.

Ni el hombre tampoco, por supuesto.


----------



## Mate

alexacohen said:


> ... Y ahora que lo pienso... hasta hace nada estaba científicamente demostrado que las mujeres no teníamos alma, que sólo éramos unos animales inferiores sin raciocinio que existían tan sólo para perpetuar la especie (se sobreentiende que la especie masculina, la única con alma y raciocinio). Así que lo que demuestren los científicos... pues mira, qué quieres que te diga, está por demostrar.
> Alexa


No dudo de la existencia del alma en las mujeres; dudo de la existencia del alma. 

Tampoco dudo de su capacidad de raciocinio. 

De lo que tengo certeza (y pueden calificarme de cerdo machista políticamente incorrecto, que no me importa) es de que las mujeres son más competitivas que los hombres.

Tal vez esto se deba a razones sociológicas. O puede que esté más bien relacionado con la defensa de la progenie, eso no lo sé.

Y como si esto fuera poco, tengo otro comentario asquerosamente sexista que hacer al respecto, antes de enfrentar mi ejecución pública: las mujeres siempre quieren tener la última palabra (si no me creen, vean arriba  ).

¡Estoy listo! - Mate


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Y ahora, poniendome mi gorro de mod - les presento a uds. el post original, y les agredesco por el favor de volver a leerlo.

saludos

Or, in English ..... we're drifting from the topic.  Please have a look at the original post again.  Thanks.



> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/mis...00/4153189.stm
> 
> En las noticias este aviso sobre la amistad milagrosa entre un hipopótamo y una tortuga gigante. ¿Increíble o un milagro?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.elporvenir.com.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=117025
> 
> For our English speaking friends:
> 
> http://www.elporvenir.com.mx/notas.asp?nota_id=117025
> 
> ¿Y qué decir de esta amistad: unos cachorros de tigre con varios cachorros de orangutan?
> 
> Eso nos debe hacer pensar: la amistad entre enemigos naturales no sólo es posible sino un hecho.
> 
> ¿Qué opináis?
> 
> Frienship between natural enemies is not only possible but a fact. What do you think??


----------



## alexacohen

faranji said:


> Alexa, te agradezco las respuestas, es un placer debatir contigo.
> 
> Pero humildemente creo que te equivocas. Una cosa es que la observación científica esté lastrada inevitablemente por nuestra condición humana, algo que los científicos tienen muy presente, y por eso se han escrito toneladas de tratados epistemológicos al respecto, y otra muy diferente es atribuir cualidades humanas al objeto de estudio.
> Un saludo.


El placer es compartido... pero es que no estoy atribuyendo cualidades humanas a ningún animal; digo simplemente que los animales pueden tener una serie de sentimientos/pensamientos/instintos, como quieras llamarlos, que nosotros, como humanos, no podemos averiguar. 
Por cierto, Mate, sí que se demostró "científicamente" que las mujeres no teníamos alma. Y en el siglo pasado, no te quiero ni contar lo que se demostró "científicamente" de los judíos. Menos mal que las ciencias adelantan que es una barbaridad.
Ladridos cariñosos
Alexa


----------



## faranji

alexacohen said:


> ...pero es que no estoy atribuyendo cualidades humanas a ningún animal...


 
Disculpa si te entendí mal, Alexa, pero (dejando a un lado eso de lo de los 'sentimientos') antes escribiste:




> Pero tampoco nadie puede contradecirme a mí si digo que los animales (salvajes o no) demuestran muchas veces valor, compasión, cariño.


----------



## alexacohen

Sí que lo dije, Faranji. Pero es que a falta de una palabra en vocabulario guepardo (grrrrr gruufff groof) con que identificar los sentimientos/pensamientos/instintos (tachar lo que no guste) de un guepardo yo no veo nada de malo en utilizar una palabra humana. Y tú tampoco. 


faranji said:


> Yo no veo tanta contradicción. Valor, compasión, cariño... no son más que las etiquetas humanas con que tratamos de describir y hacer manejables las diferentes facetas del comportamiento instintivo de los animales. Para mucha gente carecen de valor científico, la mayoría de los etólogos y biólogos desdeñan el llamado 'mentalismo' por juzgarlo antropomórfico, pero es evidente que en un nivel más pedestre nos permiten la comunicación.


Alexa


----------



## faranji

alexacohen said:


> Sí que lo dije, Faranji. Pero es que a falta de una palabra en vocabulario guepardo (grrrrr gruufff groof) con que identificar los sentimientos/pensamientos/instintos (tachar lo que no guste) de un guepardo yo no veo nada de malo en utilizar una palabra humana. Y tú tampoco.
> 
> Alexa


 
Siempre que tengamos clarísimo que estamos cometiendo una falacia antropocéntrica y no se abuse de la visión disneyana de la vida, yo tampoco, en efecto.


----------



## alexacohen

faranji said:


> Siempre que tengamos clarísimo que estamos cometiendo una falacia antropocéntrica y no se abuse de la visión disneyana de la vida, yo tampoco, en efecto.


Yo quería estrangular a Bambi, y al Rey León. Así que no, no es una visión disneyana de la vida.
Alexa


----------



## Mate

Con la esperanza puesta en clarificar y no en enturbiar -y mucho menos descarrilar- esta interesante discusión, les propongo que echen un vistazo a este post. 

En resumidas cuentas, lo que dice es que cada uno transita su propio túnel de realidad.

Walt nos hizo transitar por el suyo desde muy pequeños y la megaempresa por él fundada lo sigue haciendo aún hoy.

Castillos embrujados; dálmatas que sufren, aman, lloran, protejen a sus hijos; leones justicieros; simpáticos pingüinos que cantan y bailan: la lista es casi interminable. 

Creo que el viejo Walt les dió vida hasta a las piedras...

Debo confesar que de pequeño disfruté mucho de algunas de sus creaciones, pero eran solo fantasías. 

El problema es que muchos grandes no tienen claros los límites que existen entre la realidad y la fantasía*. Y Disney, queriéndolo o no, tuvo mucho que ver en eso.

*Esto no debe ser interpretado como un ataque personal hacia nadie en especial. Por favor.


Saludos - Mate

Ps: en algunos _grafitti_ de la época se leía: "Yo no me caliento más" - Walt Disney.


----------



## aleCcowaN

In these perilous times of personal autonomy, we are to be careful with the ideas we promote. My intention wasn't discuss with our friend Alexa about what is in the animals' minds (minds in their scale) but avoid extending any analysis beyond where logic reaches. [Russel's teapot is explained here in English and Spanish].

I started objecting strongly to the use of the word "miraculous" here, because today nobody makes the slightest logical effort before shouting "miracle". Now I object here the overuse of the word instinct. The same way that a miracle is something that can't be explained by natural laws -supposing somebody tried to do so-, instincts are programmed and stereotyped conducts cast in our genes, and no animal "value" comes from instincts. We have to look at learning and intelligence -and animal madness-, the further steps beyond instincts to analyze this human value resembling behaviours.

The day I accepted how stupid animals are -though Lassie seemed to understand what all humans told her while no human understood all of what Lassie was saying-, that day I start discovering animal intelligence. The top is the intelligence test where common roman pigeons defeat constantly human beings. The other test including the concept of equality produces triumphant humans and pigeons defeated without exception.

It's not a novelty that learning and mostly intelligence can overcome instincts, taxes and reflexes. Paradoxical animal behaviour product of captivity can also twist natural conduct. I think a person learns much more paying attention to his or her own animalism and primitive background than trying to recognize -mostly by force and falsification- human values in humble animals. The multiplicity of animals that seems to follow things similar to human values only rub in our faces how needed we are to follow our own intelligent, non instinctive, product of our culture, values.


----------



## alexacohen

I was not trying to "recognize" human values in animal behaviour. I was using human words to describe it. So if something looks like friendship, I can describe it as friendship.
Just the same you are saying animals are stupid. Human word.
I'd rather confront an hungry wolf "instinct" than the "civilized", and very human behaviour of a rapist.
Alexa


----------



## .   1

aleCcowaN said:


> In these perilous times of personal autonomy, we are to be careful with the ideas we promote.


What is perilous about personal autonomy?



aleCcowaN said:


> My intention wasn't discuss with our friend Alexa about what is in the animals' minds (minds in their scale) but avoid extending any analysis beyond where logic reaches. [Russel's teapot is explained here in English and Spanish].


This statement lacks logic. It is not possible to intelligently analyse beyond logic. Once logic is abandoned facts evolve into theories.



aleCcowaN said:


> I started objecting strongly to the use of the word "miraculous" here, because today nobody makes the slightest logical effort before shouting "miracle".


Nobody said 'behold a miracle!'
The Collins dictionary;
*miracle* _n_ *1 *an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause. *2* any amazing or wonderful event. *3* a person or thing that is a marvelous example of something: _the bridge was a miracle of engineering_. *4* short for miracle play. *5* _(modifier) _being or seeming a miracle_:_ _a miracle cure._ [C12: from Latin_ miraculum, _from _miari_ to wonder]
*miraculous* _adj_ *1* of, like or resembling a miracle; marvelous. *2* surprising. *3* having the power to work miracles.

I wonder which surprising part do you marvel at or which marvelous part surprises you?
I will show you as many marvelous or surprising or wonderful examples of current logical usage as you want.
Can you show me even one example of your type of miracle?
This is not a word that is owned by a cult.



aleCcowaN said:


> Now I object here the overuse of the word instinct. The same way that a miracle is something that can't be explained by natural laws -supposing somebody tried to do so-, instincts are programmed and stereotyped conducts cast in our genes, and no animal "value" comes from instincts. We have to look at learning and intelligence -and animal madness-, the further steps beyond instincts to analyze this human value resembling behaviours.


All animal values come from instinct as do all human values we just codify them and then some twisted individuals try to use them to control others for their own nefarious purposes. That's the only difference.



aleCcowaN said:


> The day I accepted how stupid animals are -though Lassie seemed to understand what all humans told her while no human understood all of what Lassie was saying-, that day I start discovering animal intelligence. The top is the intelligence test where common roman pigeons defeat constantly human beings. The other test including the concept of equality produces triumphant humans and pigeons defeated without exception.


Are there a lot of roman pigeons in your area?
Lassie is a figment of imagination.
We are all equal in some ways but I am just as confused by this paragraph as a roman pigeon would be playing chess.



aleCcowaN said:


> It's not a novelty that learning and mostly intelligence can overcome instincts, taxes and reflexes. Paradoxical animal behaviour product of captivity can also twist natural conduct. I think a person learns much more paying attention to his or her own animalism and primitive background than trying to recognize -mostly by force and falsification- human values in humble animals. The multiplicity of animals that seems to follow things similar to human values only rub in our faces how needed we are to follow our own intelligent, non instinctive, product of our culture, values.


Animals don't follow human behaviour. Human behaviour is animal behaviour. Where's the confusion?

.,,


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Since this thread has drifted yet again from the topic, it is time to put it out to pasture along with the lion and the lamb.


----------

