link (http://www.tdn.com/articles/2003/11/28/nation_world/news02.txt)

apperently it is an easy choice of we are presented with a banana sliced in two unequal halves. We grab the biggest half.

It is not so easy when the two halves are of equal size. It makes us hesitate.

researchers did the same test with some animals, and to their surprise the animals had the same problems of indecision with the equally halved banana.

We were apparently stupid to think we were terribly smart by being indecisive.

I think no animal is as dumb as people seem to think they are.
Many things we consider human would be shared across the entire animal kingdom.
A large percentage of our attributes are just "mammal" and not exclusively human despite popular opinion. Some of them would just be animal and crustaceans would experience them also. Fear for example probably feels pretty much the same no matter what you are. More governed by how much you are required to be afraid than your intelligence or "consciousness".
There would be little things that are exclusively human the same way there are little things exclusively pig.
But we are all related and the basics would be universal throughout the animal kingdom.
I have a large fishtank with many different creatures in it and I am constantly surprised by the allegedly humanesque behaviour they display. Just little things.
When a fight breaks out between 2 clown loaches for example they appear to be experiencing anger mixed with a little fear, excitement and adrenalin, and when its over they are a little awkward around eachother and there is some tension for a while before they eventually become friends again and go back to lying on top of eachother.
Pretty much the same as humans, and these are fish. I think most of what we consider exclusively human was with us a hell of a long time before we actually became human, much of it before there was even such a thing as mammals probably.
Often observing humans around the place I put on my nature documentary goggles and you can really see how we aren't as different as we like to think we are.

I have a large fishtank with many different creatures... I think most of what we consider exclusively human was with us a hell of a long time before we actually became human, much of it before there was even such a thing as mammals probably.

I found this very fascinating, Dr. Lou. I wouldn't expect this of fish. I thought that this behaviour was only limited to mammals.

Maybe fish are more complex than many people believe?

Do you have any more examples like this?

I was having this discussion just today with a friend.

I think the only truly unique human trait is our ability to affect and change our surroundings on the scale that we can.

To make so many and such drastic changes to our environment and irrevocably chage the entire world in such a short amount of time is the only thing makes us uniquely human in the Animal kingdom.

Intelligence, reason and subjectivity are being proven more and more to not be unique to humans.

Daphne Island Finches use twigs to "fish" grubs out of holes in tree branches that they can't reach with their beaks, and will exchange the twigs for longer, more or less flexible or thinner twigs that will work better.

Opposable thumbs (even if it were unique to humans, which it isn't) would amount to nothing.
No more significantly unique than a Beaver's tail, a Chow Chow's tongue or a Cow's stomachs.

What makes humans humans?
Our uncanny ability to alter, change, destroy and kill nature on the scale that we can.
And we take full advantage of that ability.
Be proud to be human! :(

on a side note

one of the the biggest impacts on the world wasn't really by humans but by oxygen producing plants. The environment changed completely with these abnormal increased oxygen levels.

I have heard tales of fish intelligence before... I agree that some fish are very strange that way, the strangest so far it seems to me are the puffer fish they sell in the aquarium.

Little carnivorous things, you feed them ground beef. The thing is, most fish are very fearful and tend to swim away from large objects... puffers sit quite still and watch you intently. I always wonder what they think of us...

Of course, then there was that monkey/fairness experiment, where they discovered that if you trade one monkey's wooden token for a piece of cucumber and the other one for something better, the cucumber monkey gives you the finger and goes and plays with his tire.

My dog could always tell when I was going on a trip. He'd hang close, trying to "convince" me to take him with me, no matter how I tried to disguise the fact.

People treat their dogs like garbage. Think about it from the dog's point of view.

The whole family goes out the door, except for the dog, out to the savage plains. Out there in the wastes, they pull down a wild pizza and tear out its throat.

They come back bearing their prize. Does the dog get any? Maybe when the others are finished. Mostly the dog gets whacked on the nose if he attempts to take part.

Thus the dog, in its mind, has been relegated to a useless, baggage role, maintained as much as necessary for survival but still somehow a pariah, an outcast, who cannot eat with the others, cannot share the others' food, and is of no help.

When was the last time you took your dog shopping?

Speak for yourself, I never doubted them for one second.

People treat their dogs like garbage. Think about it from the dog's point of view.

The whole family goes out the door, except for the dog, out to the savage plains. Out there in the wastes, they pull down a wild pizza and tear out its throat.

They come back bearing their prize. Does the dog get any? Maybe when the others are finished. Mostly the dog gets whacked on the nose if he attempts to take part.

Thus the dog, in its mind, has been relegated to a useless, baggage role, maintained as much as necessary for survival but still somehow a pariah, an outcast, who cannot eat with the others, cannot share the others' food, and is of no help.

When was the last time you took your dog shopping?

You've got to be kidding!?

A domestic dog doesn't have to work or hunt. It doesn't have to spend years at school. It gets to laze about all day.

The most a dog has to worry about is when its master will be serving it its next meal. It also gets a roof over its head.

If aliens came to Earth, they would look down on the humans picking up dog faeces, feeding the dogs, and giving them shelter, and they would think that the DOG is the master, and the HUMAN is the slave.

Do humans possess better natural health than animals, sp. those lives in big cities? Health--I mean in terms of quality not quantity.

that would depend on the living conditions and health care they receive

Just a general idea without any medical treatment to both ,suppose. Pls also compare birds.

humans are animals.

It is ok, but you can follow. I mean Mankind, animals & birds.

Btw, you mentioned 'Animals are smarter......

yes, but the point in the end is that we are not special.

No, we are special--as live unnaturally--clothes,houses,luxuaries etc.

why is that unnatural if that is our nature.

That is not our nature, but the society made it like that. It is a formal aspect not natural. Otherwise we would have not enjoyed by going in to natural nature.

it is our nature to have a society

Society & luxuaries can be two differant aspect. In nature, animals can make a society like Apes, but not luxuaries. I just want to know how the human effected by these luxuaries differ from other animals & birds who live in simlar atmosphere with out luxuaries.

ever seen that particular kind of birds that decorate their nests?

Animals also strive to have luxuries. A chimp will make a nest to rest in. It is not a necessity. It is more comfortable. Our society is just extreme, not different.

Dogs live in a society of luxuries. Some dogs have more luxuries than some people.

I think you are asking for an answer to which you already have formulated the answer yourself.

Any luxuary which can effect health will be unnatural. I know that it effects health, but not know the technicality of same--which I want to know.

:D

the cadences of the dialogue...the give and take... the ebb and flow....the skill in repartee... or perhaps the sheer idiocy...

gets me all hot n' stuff

Originally posted by Kumar
Any luxuary which can effect health will be unnatural. I know that it effects health, but not know the technicality of same--which I want to know.

so what are you going to do to find your answer?

Posted here & expecting the reply. Is it also related to unsolved diseases?

but you already formulated your own conclusion:

Any luxuary which can effect health will be unnatural.


you have to find proof to substantiate your conclusion. There is no point in asking people their opinion.

Your conclusion is based on the assumption though that human activity is unnatural. I think that this is unwarranted.

Is it not a common sense? If we travel in car for short distance instead of walking--will it not effect our health. Other examples may be lifts, air conditioning, unnatural clothes, unnatural heavy foods, computers etc.

You can say it an assumption, because I am asking the type of effects. Do we get some unsolved diseases like cancer which animals & birds don't get-- living in same environment?

They used common sense to solve social problems before 1870. Then scientists thought that this was detrimental. Only rational scientific enquiry could be the basis for making a proper decision.

Since then the views have gotten a bit more sophisticated, but I sense here that you would like to go back to use common sense.

But some origionality should always exist. Is this topic not relevant to examine the origionality?

"We were apparently stupid to think we were terribly smart by being indecisive." Your words.

of course. Do you think we can find originality in common sense? After all the word common would suggest that it is hardly original. Na ja...that is below the belly. Common sense can differ per person.

I do want to point again that you are basing your research on a presumption which could be unfounded. I would go forward by making sure your assumption is utterly correct.

Thanks. Ok just tell me-- If animals & birds in cities are better placed in true health sense or not than humans with out any medical aid to both?

wild animals in cities can look mighty scruffy, but they do not enjoy the benefits of luxuries.

Fox populations in cities however are much denser than in rural areas. That is because there is more food available.

Apparently for certain species you don't have to be so fit in a city. There is an excess in food, which probably limits competition on one level.

I would be careful though to make generalizations from this, since this is just one example.

Do animals lives in cities gets cancer alike humans gets or not?

I think that for instance the fox population in the city has a shorter lifespan and therefore probably less prevalence of cancer.

Cancer is often an old age disease. Well people used to be old when they were 40, nowadays it is well above 60.

Sorry, I asked for--animals lives in cities not fox. Tell me about blood cancer.

"Cancer is often an old age disease. Well people used to be old when they were 40, nowadays it is well above 60."

Is it average age--5+75=80./.2= 40 & 60+60=120 ./. 2 =60? Is it quantity at the cost of quality? Is it the reson of increase in cancer rate as cancer is an old age disease?

foxes live in cities.

there is also an increase in cancer because the diagnosis of cancer has improved.

In common sense pls. Edited previous post. Do the animals foxes not grow old?

I'm not a miracle source of knowledge though. I don't have all the answers. I have more questions than answers usually.

I have more questions than answers usually. Sorry, but it does not match. Do animals not grow older?

of course they do. Did you never have a pet?


But you rarely see really old animals in the wild because they get deleted from the population.

It may not be good to be older, have cancer etc. However city animals get old. Cancer mutation happens instantly, why then these animals don't get much cancer?

Btw, By living in big cities, with clothes, in house/covered places & with other health effecting luxuaries--Do we shed more skin particle or less than animals OR suppose,we without luxuaries? Do we ingest more carcinogens or less? Do we take more unnaturals or less-- than animals& birds?

why do you think city animals get old?

Because they live with us. Please consider this Q-- By living in big cities, with clothes, in house/covered places & with other health effecting luxuaries--Do we shed more skin particle?

are you now refering to pets?

Pets alongwith other animals living in cities -- are with us only.

They are a diverse group of animals. You can't group them together like that and make general statements.

It is ok, but something is common in all city animals which can differanciate them with city humans.

Can you give this reply to the question asked--By living in big cities, with clothes, in house/covered places & with other health effecting luxuaries--Do we shed more skin particle or less than living naturally in cities?

I don't think anyone ever researched that.

May be then something hidden in this. Less shedding may be due to less dying of cells & otherwise.

I doubt that there is a difference in shedding.

How can you say when not yet researched. Skin of sole is thick, may be due to non exposure so less sheding.

Na ja, I don't know how I can say that. I do work in a research group whose topics include skin and tooth development...but that probably means nothing.

No one may be knowing/understanding. Skin particle may be composed of fluoride,silicic acid & sulphur and other. Do you know composition of skin shedded particles?

I'm sure you can tell me.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
I think that for instance the fox population in the city has a shorter lifespan and therefore probably less prevalence of cancer.Some animals have adapted very well to living on the fringes of human settlements. Scavengers like raccoons do best, because they can thrive on our garbage. Small predators like foxes do very well also, because they eat the even smaller scavengers that we are almost incapable of eradicating, like rats.

I wouldn't be so sure to say that camp-followers have shorter life spans than hunters.

I don't know about cancer, but a study was just published on another health risk that comes with urban adaptation. Bears that live on the edges of cities get less exercise and eat more than their cousins in the forest. As a result they are fat and out of shape. Furthermore, since their food supply does not diminish in the winter, they don't hibernate as long as the forest dwellers. All of this may well contribute to a shorter life expectancy.

Other camp followers do very well, however. Deer are thriving; there are more of them in the lower 48 states than there were 100 years ago. Their biggest health risk is being hit by cars. The coyote population is also growing, and they seem to have the life expectancy of similar size dogs. (They just love venison.)

Escaped exotic pets sometimes find an utterly empty ecological niche. There are flocks of macaws in most subtropical US cities such as L.A. The humans have kindly cultivated all kinds of tropical foliage so they have the food that they would have in the rain forest. And there are virtually no predators that can take them on. An eagle or a really big hawk might grab a macaw, but he would be dismayed to find out how well they can fight with their incredibly strong beaks and their prehensile claws. My money would be on the macaw flying away with an amputated eagle claw for his own dinner.

Epithelioma is a major type of cancer. Increase/decrease in skin particles may mean increase/decrease in cell multiplicatins so early death so less chance of mutation & stimulation. My studies & assumptions indicates Sulphur, fluoride & silicic acid or their compounds--Potasium Sulphate, Calcium Fluoride & Silicic Acid may be related to cancer( their physiological/organic not foreign effects). These elements/compounds are not yet researched for cancer.

if the cells die earlier then other cells have to replicate faster to replace them, thus increasing the chance of cancer. Do you have evidence for your claims and assumptions, some of those noted compounds are vital nutrients and salts.

Also no skin flaks are not composed of such compounds in any exceptional quantities. Toxins are release in sweat, urine, excrement and breath, skin flaks are just dead skin.

"if the cells die earlier then other cells have to replicate faster to replace them, thus increasing the chance of cancer."

I think it may only be true in canerous or mutated for cancer condition. Old age, slow replication & cancer may be related & opposite in early age. Cancer cells may not have cellline type replication.

"Do you have evidence for your claims and assumptions, some of those noted compounds are vital nutrients and salts."

In one differant system made by MD qualified doctors, something like this is indicated. Since, it was peculier & unattended, trying to link. However, solid evidances could had solved this issue backed by noble prize & other appreciations. No harm in trying since unsolved, I only think so!! Tell me if wrong?

"Also no skin flaks are not composed of such compounds in any exceptional quantities. Toxins are release in sweat, urine, excrement and breath, skin flaks are just dead skin."

Are these not the constituents of skin,hair,nails, CT,ET etc.? Skin shedded particles may not be dead skin but left out of dead cells. Pls just clarify. I am medically less educated.

I'm sorry to say this but your not even capable of making statement that can be interpreted! like what the hell does this mean:

I think it may only be true in canerous or mutated for cancer condition. Old age, slow replication & cancer may be related & opposite in early age. Cancer cells may not have cellline type replication.

what is not "celline type relication" if am to interpret that as mitosis?

Kumar you must avoid making assumptions based of no proof or assumptions based on assumptions. Let me give you a example: “A witch is a female who burns. Witches burn - because they're made of wood. Wood floats. What else floats on water? A duck; if something has the same weight as a duck it must float. A duck and scales are fetched. The girl and the duck balance perfectly. There for she is a witch.” do you understand that statement because I don't! Some of your statements approach that level of logic!

no once again Skin flaks as in particle that come of the skin is just dead skin! Human Anatomy 130. We produce several pounds of skin flaks as dust in this form per year.

"what is not "celline type relication" if am to interpret that as mitosis?"

Sorry to irritate you. Do the cancer cells replicate in similar type as healthy cells do? I do not mean mitosis but they don't go as normal cellline go.

"Kumar you must avoid making assumptions based of no proof or assumptions based on assumptions. Let me give you a example...your statements approach that level of logic!"

What do you & spurious. feel, should I stop here?

"no once again Skin flaks as in particle that come of the skin is just dead skin! Human Anatomy 130. We produce several pounds of skin flaks as dust in this form per year."

>The epidermis is your interface to the world, and it is actually quite interesting. It has two main layers, the inner of which is living and the outer of which is dead. The dead skin cells of the outer layer are what we can actually see, and they are constantly flaking off and being replaced by new cells being pushed outward.< from; http://travel.howstuffworks.com/sunscreen1.htm

I don't know if this is relevant to Kumar or not, but it seems to me that various emotional/psychological states of humans (and I assume animals) are quite relevant vis a vis health issues.

Specifically, I am thinking of a placebo/nocebo type effect where health can be impacted by people's opinions in re: a treatment. Perhaps, the specific diseases a population of animals are related to a nocebo effect in that unhappiness brought on by the lifestyle of the animals.

Cheers!

Kumar

Theories such as

- City animals live short live or have a higher rate of cancer
- More rapid skin cell replacement means less of a change of cancer
- Basic common compounds may be increasing cancer rates and are the reason for the above.

All of this you must prove first, one step at a time.

your quote on skin production does not run counter to mine you might want to rephrase the if your trying to contradict me.

Ok, let us forget if it does not interest you. However, can you just tell me composition of skin & skin particles? How the shedding of these skin particles increases or decreases?

ask a dermatologist. I can tell you roughly the composition is mostly lipids and protein, some carbohydrates and a little nucleic acid, it going to have concentrations of the substance your looking for in the parts per million if not billion. of course this a just a assumption by a biochemistry undergrad and this is how I made it: look at this quantitatively: the human body sheds a few grams of skin a day now if you wanted to remove toxic chemicals especially ones that you get large quantities of which would be easier?, trying to shove it in a dehydrated cell which due to is dehydrated state cannot store much at all because would be very difficult to pump anything into it or into the bladder were toxins are filtered out constantly???

Many thanks. You have indicated something relevant. All these three can be linked with water. You have not mentioned inorganic constituents. It looks we have seen most of macro elements in body & not finding real causes. It may be then availale in micro/trace elements, hope so.