... smell nice. We are just wrong in assuming otherwise.
At least logic would suggest this to be the case.
Canines and bears love the smell of shit and rotting flesh. Bears can be seen ecstatically rubbing themselves on old stinky whale carcasses, and dogs well, we all know what they're into.
But take into consideration the fact that they're senses of smell are litterally millions of times more sophisticated than ours, doesn't this mean on the subject of smell they are the authority?
People like to make fun of their dogs for finding gross smelling things attractive, but wouldn't they know better than us?
Aren't we just inferior and unable to appreciate a good dump when we smell one due to something lacking in ourselves?
Discuss.

Aren't we just inferior and unable to appreciate a good dump when we smell one due to something lacking in ourselves?
Discuss.

No. I am sure u know already the reasons why preferences for smells have evolved in animals and from that, why differences in these preferences have evolved too.
I won't explain it to u as I get the funny feeling that this is supposed to be a humurous thread and I've just gatecrashed it :D

Lou,

I'm surprised that this thread is in the General Philosophy section.
It must be that something stinks here.

The template that separates good smells from bad is evolution.

Feces and decaying flesh are both very toxic to humans. Any human in the past who happened to find the smell of decaying flesh appealing would have been selected out of the gene pool very quickly. Same for the smell of human feces.

I'm sure the smell of decaying flesh is to a vulture what the smell of fresh baked bread is to most humans; very appetizing.

Repo Man said it :rolleyes:

"... smell nice. We are just wrong in assuming otherwise."

judging from some of the stranger forms of pornography on the internet, you're not the only one.

Repo Man:

Feces and decaying flesh are both very toxic to humans
Decaying flesh yes, but not feces.

Feces are in fact metabolic waste of metabolized food, not cyanide.
They would be toxic only in the sense of a parsatic infection- a dog passes round and tapeworm in his feces, eat it and you too get infected.
(try it)(please?)

Eat his turd if he's parasite free and nothing will happen.


On Topic

Revilement of feces is taught. As infants and toddlers, we used to play in shit and eat shit with delight.
Proof that it has nothing to do with olfactory tissue.

The undeveloped palate of infants is no guide to what is safe to eat. Remember, toddlers have to kept away from the drain cleaner, lest they gulp it down and turn into miniature volcanoes.

I don't think you could teach someone to find the smell of baking bread or other food as repulsive as the overwhelming majority of humans find feces. Coprophiliacs are a very tiny minority of humans.

I've not come across any literature that indicates that human feces (or the feces of other animals) are safe to consume, but I have read plenty that indicates otherwise. The bacteria commonly found in the lower intestines and bowels are not normally present in the upper portion of the digestive system.

But don't let my distaste for the consumption of fecal matter change your mind about it. After all, you are what you eat.

But don't let my distaste for the consumption of fecal matter change your mind about it. After all, you are what you eat.

These people don't advocate eating feces...
But the next closest thing.

The Humanure Handbook (http://www.davidsheen.com/words/humanure.htm)

"There are three ways to use human feces as fertilizer: untreated, as it is in the Far East, where it is called night soil; composted at temperatures of 40 degrees Celsius or less, in which pathogens are gradually broken down over a long period of time; and composted at termperatures of 50 degrees Celsius or more, in which pathogens are broken down quickly and completely."

I've heard of the Asian use of "Night Soil" before...
Seemed kinda wacky to me, but apparently nobody is dying from it, because they keep on using it.

Ultimately, we are all recycled shit.

I was always under the impression the dogs rolled around in fecal matter to disguise their own scent. So that their prey would not smell them coming, or at least, they would not smell a predator coming. I could be wrong, that is just what I always assumed.

Repo:

But don't let my distaste for the consumption of fecal matter change your mind about it. After all, you are what you eat.
Ohh- touche!

For that matter, there is no one lording over children punishing their tasting bread, or butter, or milk, or licorice.
They get punished for tasting mierda.
Behavorism at its finest.

Too, consumption of feces is only lethal or toxic if you guzzle it down with a tear in your mouth.
Try it, godamn you.

No, thank you.

Just watching Divine do it in Pink Flamingo's was more than enough for me.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. You're in B.F. Skinners corner, while I'm in E.O. Wilson's.

MIss:
I was always under the impression the dogs rolled around in fecal matter to disguise their own scent. So that their prey would not smell them coming, or at least, they would not smell a predator coming. I could be wrong, that is just what I always assumed.
This would not explain why coprophagia is primarily a female phenomena.

My theory is simple: I noticed that of all dogs, the pussiest ones roll in shit.
Alpha maless tend to develop this habit after debilitating accidents.
I have linked it to a coping mechanism for weakness.
Shit, to the cananine mind, exaggerates his feeling of power by accenuating his smell.

The way females feel superior with makeup on.

This would not explain why coprophagia is primarily a female phenomena.

No but pregnancy would.

My theory is simple

So it is. Shame on you.

Insult me if you dare oh queen of the wilderness ;)
Dee cee

I was always under the impression the dogs rolled around in fecal matter to disguise their own scent. So that their prey would not smell them coming, or at least, they would not smell a predator coming.
Dogs are not stealthy creatures. They go to great lengths to make their territory absolutely wreak of them.

Gendankens theory isn't that bad actually, taking into consideration that she's a massive fag.
Dogs comunicate through stinks. A dog pissing on a pole is telling all the other dogs everything about himself, including his strength or lack there of. A dogs shit has a similar effect. Perhaps pussier dogs need concentrated versions of themselves to present to the public, or they need to mask their weakness with the stink of a tougher dog.

I guess my theory that shit smells good and we're too primitive to appreciate it was kind of debunked. I hate it when that happens. :mad:

Lola:
Gendankens theory isn't that bad actually, taking into consideration that she's a massive fag.

When will you every quit humping my leg, you leperous chifucking hua-hua?

That was so gay...
And slanderous. Consider yourself reported.

... smell nice. We are just wrong in assuming otherwise.
At least logic would suggest this to be the case.
Canines and bears love the smell of shit and rotting flesh. Bears can be seen ecstatically rubbing themselves on old stinky whale carcasses, and dogs well, we all know what they're into.
But take into consideration the fact that they're senses of smell are litterally millions of times more sophisticated than ours, doesn't this mean on the subject of smell they are the authority?
People like to make fun of their dogs for finding gross smelling things attractive, but wouldn't they know better than us?
Aren't we just inferior and unable to appreciate a good dump when we smell one due to something lacking in ourselves?
Discuss.

I've been thinking: What if the reason for us liking to smell rotten things, feces, sweaty socks (Who doesn't like to smell the socks once taking them off after a long hard training?) -- is not so much enjoyment, but rather a check-up thing.

Like, if the smell check says, "yes, this poo smells as a healthy poo should", or "yes, these sweaty socks smell as a sweaty socks from a healthy person should smell like" -- then it is okay. But it would worry us if the smell check would say, "no, this poo does not smell right, something isn't well with you".

So smelling feces and sweat and other excecrements (I can tell by the smell of my snot how bad my cold is) could be just gathering feed-back information?


Could this be possible? It seems reasonable to me.

how is this philosophy? isn't it, like, biology?

That was a really disgusting post rosa.

But I suppose you might be right. Its wierd how much more offensive the stinks of rivals are to those of your own. Also the ass sweat of a potential mate seems intoxicating whilst resting in the ass crack of a potential mate, but if my fries were served tasting like that I'd be furious.
Now you mention it I'm ashamed I didn't realise it and am reminded that I'm still a simple instinctive animal. Ofcourse we subconsciously recieve information from smells. Why else would we smell? Thats the reason for every single one of them, good or bad.
And I would assume finding our own stinks pleasant, is like you said a way of ticking off an invisible checklist.

This is becoming helpfull to a subject I've always wanted to talk about but didn't know how to explain.
These sorts of things(instincts checking stinks) indicate that we humans aren't the smartest things we know of. We aren't thinking "better check my pit-stink to see if I'm healthy", we just do it and don't know why but are rewarded by something greater with endorphins when we "do good". The underlying instincts of all animals, and plants and probably planets and more seem to "know" more than our conscious minds, there is something thats more clued in to the real universe. We only occassionally tap into this river of knowledge, briefly and it quickly becomes too overwhelming to think about. Just 50 years ago no one really had tapped into it, we see lions have territories, but only when you put it together that the territory's boundaries are to ensure each group has enough to eat, and wonder if the lions visciously defending their territory realise thats why they're doing it, do you start seeing this hidden code of nature that the chess pieces that are living organisms are oblivious to. Since well before the dinosaurs this "intelligence" has existed in the background. But only in the last hundred years has a living organism gradually started acknowledging it, and only passively without really thinking about what it means. Most so called super intelligent homo-sapiens function under its governance without any awareness of it controlling their lives.
What is it? I've called it "nature" in the past, only to be boo'd by sciforumers, which is fair enough because the word doesn't pin it down adequately. But it shouldn't be ignored, its something that has proven it knows more than we do, so we should be tracking it down to learn as much as possible from it.

This thread about shit might prove the existence of some kind of god yet.

how is this philosophy? isn't it, like, biology?
It became biology because some people have no imagination.
The original question was kind of philosophical even if based on faulty science. The point was not why dogs like the smell of shit, but merely the fact they do means it isn't a fact that shit smells bad. Why are we always the correct ones? The canine's sense of smell is millions of times more sophisticated than ours, if there is an opinion on shit's odour that is closest to being truely accurate then surely it would be their opinion before it would be ours. This is one area where we have to concede our inferiority.
The topic was more about a way of thinking than dogs and shits.

The point was not why dogs like the smell of shit, but merely the fact they do means it isn't a fact that shit smells bad. Why are we always the correct ones? The canine's sense of smell is millions of times more sophisticated than ours, if there is an opinion on shit's odour that is closest to being truely accurate then surely it would be their opinion before it would be ours.

The interpretation of smell has nothing to do with how many smell receptors u have in your nose.

IMO, u could argue humans are probably better at interpreting (albeit fewer) smells than dogs becasue they have a bigger brain. We are still the more correct species :D

Wrong, dogs and bears have a larger part of their brain dedicated to smell than we do. They can get complicated details from smells where we can just get a vague feeling.

Yes but detail of smells does not change ones feelings toward the smell. We do not hate the smell of shit because we can't smell it enough to make a good decision. In fact, if we had a greater sense of smell, we would probably hate it even more!

There was an interesting article on disgust I read a while back. Unfortunately, the magazine is buried at the moment, so all I have is this interpretation of it that I posted elsewhere. It fits rather well with interpretation of disgust.

I have also found an interesting article on disgust and humour. It seems that if you look at an image with a smile on your face it seems funny, but if you look at the same image with a grimace of disgust on your face, then the picture looks disgusting. Interesting... Another interesting article on disgust that I found linked disgust to the insula within the brain. The insula is the center of taste. Stimulating the insula during brain surgery causes nausea and a foul taste in the mouth. They give an example of a man who had his insula damaged by a stroke, after this, he would eat soup stirred with a flyswatter. No disgust whatsoever. It goes on to relate disgust to disease prevention. Here's an interesting quote from the article: "Lower castes and kissing in public aroused disgust in India, whereas the British were particularly repulsed by dead sparrows and cruelty to horses; politicians and dog saliva revolted the Dutch, while airport travelers named everything from "wet people" to being eaten alive by insects." Strange creatures we humans are. But, there was a common thread in all these various disgust patterns. "Every region considered feces disgusting, while vomit, sweat, spittle, blood, pus, and sexual fluids inspired nearly universal loathing, closely followed by body parts and animals such as pigs, rats, maggots, lice, and fleas."

Disgust is a cultural more. And, it also seems to be physical. If you sneer in disgust at something then that thing becomes disgusting. Cause or effect? The brain is so odd sometimes.

As to the larger olfactory bulbs in a dog's brain as opposed to a humans. Detail of smell does in fact change feelings towards a smell. Somewhat. That's what smells do. Smells is a direct chemical connection with the physical world. No other sense other than taste (which is practically smelling) takes in pieces of the outside world to interpret. Rather, they interpret our sensory impression of them. Smell takes chemicals directly inside. A direct physical interaction.

And, what does it interact with? The lymbic system. The lymbic system is where feelings arise. It stands to reason that the more nuance one might gather from a smell would mean more nuance in the emotions and reactions evoked by the smell. By the greater depth of smell.

If we had a greater sense of smell would we hate it more? Maybe. We are creatures of the cortex rather than the amygdalla after all, and yet, it is possible that we would not necessarily hate it. We might be able to seperate the foul aspects of the odor from the pleasant. The disease causing from the not.

This brings to mind the image of eunuchs gathered about the last Emperor of China's chamber pot. Smelling his royal turd for signs of sickness.



You know. This worldwide phenomena of feces disgust is interesting. Why is it so widespread? As Gendanken says, it must be beaten into the children. And is often forgotten in the elderly. It's not deeply physical. Not entirely. It's a learned behavior. But, it's a learned behavior that is worldwide.

This suggests that the learning of shit disgust was began at a very early stage of human development. Before the cultures diversifed. This disgust was carried with the travelers to every corner of the globe (although, it's possible it might have also been carried by later colonists and/or missionaries, etc...)

So, what might have caused it? It's known that primates take great pride in their shit flinging abilities. Many monkey and ape wars are begun with a shit-flinging extravaganza. Might it be that the disgust of shit was instilled to remove this awesome power of self-created weaponry from the masses? Nothing is as personal as shit. NOTHING. Maybe piss, but it's not as holdable as smearable, as flingable, as shit. Shit is the first thing we create. And often the last. It is the sign of a creative force within each and every one of us. It is power. In an animistic society, shit likely has even more uses than flinging.

So, in removing shit from the people by the instilling of disgust, the leaders (shaman, priest, whatever) took the anima of the shit upon themselves.

Yes. Very interesting.

Also, one can never underestimate just how pleasurable it can be to take a healthy shit. There are more nerve endings in the asshole than in many places of the body. (Not sure of the exact ranking. Might be something to look into. Interestingly enough, now that I think of it, there is no overly large representation of the asshole on the diagrams of the homonculous. Why? Does the disgust go so far as to even eradicate the cornhole from the homonculous altogether? Interesting.)

Shitting, pissing, and ejaculation. Three creative endeavors. Each with varying levels of pleasure/pain. Each with varying levels of physicality (something to grasp when it's all said and done.)

Hmm.

Shitting, pissing, and ejaculation. Three creative endeavors. Each with varying levels of pleasure/pain. Each with varying levels of physicality (something to grasp when it's all said and done.)

This was always interesting to me! I think I HAVE worked out their rank!

1) Orgasm 10/10
2) Good big shit (often accompanying diahorrea) 7/10
3) Big piss (after drinking and being on a bus for half an hour) 6/10
4) Powerful sneeze 5/10
5) Ordinary shit 4/10

These are marked in pleasure points (out of 10)

These sorts of things(instincts checking stinks) indicate that we humans aren't the smartest things we know of. We aren't thinking "better check my pit-stink to see if I'm healthy", we just do it and don't know why but are rewarded by something greater with endorphins when we "do good". The underlying instincts of all animals, and plants and probably planets and more seem to "know" more than our conscious minds, there is something thats more clued in to the real universe. We only occassionally tap into this river of knowledge, briefly and it quickly becomes too overwhelming to think about.

We usually are not brought up consciously thinking of all the isntincts that we have. So that when we do get pointed at them, such as in this thread, we become aware of how little we actually consciously know ourselves -- yet we function all the time on the basis of that certain knowledge, those instincts, even though we may not be aware of it.

I take, for example, that you have noticed that when you feel tired, you just crave a certain kind of food. Or sometimes, sweet, or salty. -- This is your body telling you that you need those nutrients at that moment.

You could undergo a high-tech test to figure out that you need some sugar -- but that simple feeling, that craving is just as precise (actually even more). But we just aren't used to listen to ourselves that way.

Same with smells. But with smell, it is even worse as the greatest part of all smell information is processed subconsciously. -- And it is only on careful observation that you figure out why you find some smells pleasing, and why you sniff certain things at all.

Now think of the harm deodorants of all kinds are doing! We smell things for certain (feed-back) information -- and deodorants are preventing us from smelling the actual smell our insitncts are after! How are we supposed to know how we feel, what we need -- if we cut off the information line?!

I have had pisses that beat out a sub-par ejaculation. You know the kind when have to wait forever. Crapping can feel good too.

But, the body knows a pile of poo is useless. Eating it will not give us any nutrition and may cause problems. We are instinctively repelled by things that may harm us such as disease. Added to this is the social order that reinforces these instincts.

Rosa,
You bring up a better question, IMO.

I can see why rotting flesh and shite are repulsive...

But natural body odor? Why has the requirement of deodorant come along recently? You would think the smell of sweat would be attractive to other members of the species. But it definately is not. Well, europeans seem to disagree, they are a smelly lot.

Well, europeans seem to disagree, they are a smelly lot.

Hey! :bugeye: Me and Rosa are Europeans! :mad:

Er no offense there mate! :) Its just that when we had foreign exchange students from spain, we always had to buy them a years supply of deo. It didn't bother me as much as other people. Actually I admire anyone with the nuts to go natural.

This was always interesting to me! I think I HAVE worked out their rank!

1) Orgasm 10/10
2) Good big shit (often accompanying diahorrea) 7/10
3) Big piss (after drinking and being on a bus for half an hour) 6/10
4) Powerful sneeze 5/10
5) Ordinary shit 4/10

These are marked in pleasure points (out of 10)

ROFLMAO!! Ugh, true stuff one can relate to is the most funniest of all, lol.

- N

Good big shit (often accompanying diahorrea) 7/10

Nah that's deffinetly a 9/10 >.> I'll go now -.-

Er no offense there mate! :) Its just that when we had foreign exchange students from spain, we always had to buy them a years supply of deo.

Oh right, the Spanish. Nuff sed!