Activity: Last 10 WeeksMama panda drinks junior’s blood
With Mother’s Day close at hand, the Times published a fascinating article about infanticide and siblicide. In a previous entry, I wrote about cannibalism, which is a closely related subject. For example, the article states that fetal sharks feed on one another because the mother has no placenta. Imagine that happening in humans; having twins and expecting to find one stillborn. For all we have in common with other animals, this is something which makes one rejoice vive la difference!
I doubt siblicide, as it is practiced in other animals, is common in humans, but you do see cases of infanticide, especially in patriarchal societies, where the male is prized over the female. At least sacrificing children to god is on the way out.
It is remarkable how closely related eugenics, infanticide, siblicide and cannibalism are in selective breeding. As is modern birth control; a topic embroiled in debate here in America. First the question was whether or not abortion should be legal. Now the conservatives are debating whether or not birth control should be practiced at all (I kid you not). In other words, sex only as a means of procreation. Whatever one thinks in the abstract, this is never going to work in the real world. No amount of inculcation is going to make people accept that they should only have sex once or twice in their life. I think humans show enough restraint, acting against their basic instincts, by trying to be faithful to one partner.
Finally, I would like to note that Mother’s Day, in the United States, was first proclaimed in the town that I currently live in, as a tribute to peace.
Look ma, no hands!
on May 9th, 2006 at 20:26 Quote
Hmmm, that was one freaky, twisted article for NYT. I am talking about the pictures. Did they hire Georges Bataille’s corpse for an editor or am I getting old?
on May 10th, 2006 at 11:30 Quote
I found the illustrations very poignant. By anthropomorthisizing the animals, it made the reader more aware of the differences between humans and other animals. For example, a woman who allows her children to engage in fratricide would at least be jailed.
I thought the matter some more, and I came to the conclusion that species where siblicide is the norm have a reduced incentive for altruistic behavior. Living conditions have to be pretty good before you can put your fellow “man” ahead of yourself. You can see this in humans, where persons often lose idealism upon reaching adulthood. I attribute this directly to increased exposure to competition and selfish behavior upon leaving the shelter of the family.
on May 10th, 2006 at 14:07 Quote
> For example, a woman who allows her children to
> engage in fratricide would at least be jailed.
Yeah, I get it, but the pictures are still freaky. Not in a completely bad sense — I found the picture of the rabbit-woman rather cute, reminding me of the surrealist collages in a not-so-subtle way, but I was amazed at the fact that pictures of women with animal faces on them went through and got published in this postmodern era of paranoia about objectifying and/or animalizing women.
What one sees as an animal in the form of a human, another will see as a human in the form of an animal, in other words, a reverse metaphor.
Regarding what you said, I don’t know, I guess it depends on what you mean by ‘idealism.’ I think my reference to Bataille still holds, because one day at a Surrealist meeting he left the room proclaiming: “F*cking bunch of idealists.” Also, I think his “Story of the Eye” was marvelously perverse.
on May 10th, 2006 at 14:20 Quote
Strictly speaking, we are animals too. Although some boring people bear a resemblance to plants.
I do not know this Bataille fellow, but I imagine he meant that human nature (e.g., greed) should be taken into account. I just looked up the definition in the OED, and it says the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, especially unrealistically. The “realistically” part refers to human nature.
on May 10th, 2006 at 15:00 Quote
> Strictly speaking, we are animals too.
Sure they are, but there is an arbitrary boundary on which morality is based. The pictures seemed to shun that boundary, although I liked them. Okay, I will shut up now about this.
“Story of the Eye” is available online as a zipped PDF, a link on the following page:
http://supervert.com/elibrary/georges_bataille
It is considered to be one of the better marvels of porngraphic literature.
on May 20th, 2006 at 13:35 Quote
emre: yr mind works in interesting ways. as to yr “Now the conservatives are debating whether or not birth control should be practiced at all” statment, thats nothing new. The Catholic church has never supported birth control. and u seem to be missing some crucial facts about the real world in saying ‘never work in the real world.’ Generally, it takes multiple sex acts for successful conception. So people wouldn’t just be having sex once or twice like u say. What r u thinking, that b4 birth control people who had 2 children only had sex 2x (or 14 had it 14x, for that matter)? and u r biologically inaccurate in claiming faitfulness to partner is against animal instinct. Humans r not the only animals that r generally monogamous. Maybe r u trying to justify yr unfaithful thoughts?
on May 20th, 2006 at 14:38 Quote
Even if you take failures to conceive into account, the number of attempts required to raise a typical family of two is not going to satisfy anybody over the course of their entire life.
I would be interested to learn how polygamy/monogamy affects a species’ social structure. Does polygamy come before monogamy? If so, do species ever revert to polygamy after turning monogamous? Humans seem to carry both tendencies; males tending more towards polygamy than females.
on May 20th, 2006 at 22:38 Quote
Hey, what’s up with all this interest in evolution of sexual strategies? I studied this subject with much attention in Lviv University before coming to the US, now forgot most of it.
If you are indeed interested in life strategies in animals, I suggest you to read on what environmental factors cause one species to be polygamous, others polyandrous. The subject can be fascinating sometimes. In fruitflies, for example, repeated inseminations are fatal to the female because seminal fluid of males is toxic to the sperm of other males and partially to the female,
In humans it is incredibly complicated because of culture which writes its own code, which sometimes persists not because it is biologically advantageous, but simply because individuals can risk social exclusion by not obeying this code.
However, there are people on Earth (more specifically in South Asia, Tibet, Nepal, and northern India) which do practice polyandry. In Na people of China (they lead a subsistence lifestyle in Himalaya), the concept of marriage doesn’t exist, and sexual acts are committed exclusively during furtive visits of males (often through the window) to their female lovers. If I recall correctly, when an anthropologist spoke with these people, someone invited (him?) to be a “visitor.”
on September 4th, 2006 at 23:44 Quote
Here is a new article in the NYT about the evolution of cannibalism in mating: This Can’t Be Love