Evolutionary Basis of Death Awareness?

I suspect it's an instinctive drive to avoid animals bigger than themselves (mostly in the case of sea life). And there is the startle response. But mainly it is a genetic disposition of each species to flee from the shapes and movements and smells of their "traditional" predators.

Point. But in addition to this there is genuine fear. For example, I would not say that the local veterinary surgeon qualifies as a 'traditional predator' but you have only to say the word 'vet' within a hundred yards of my dog to see him cringe and slink under the nearest bed or table.

They learn to fear the vet from experience. Also, the notion that animals can "smell fear" is no doubt true to a certain extent: at least, there are occasions in which they can smell fear in each other. Vets' offices (aside from being strange and generally claustrophobic) must be riddled with fear-stink. People and animals don't just have rational fears -- most fear things that are outside their normal range of experience.

Fortune and Patiodog, very interesting observations. They strongly suggest we should not draw too thick a line between ourselves and other species. I guess it is less a matter of zero-something than it is of degrees. I do think, however, that in addition to our smell brain and other lower level neurological functions, our capacity to imagine dangers in the more distant future (and even to revisit dangers in the past) determine a good portion of our long-term defensive plans. For most animals, their fear stimuli are more of the present than for us; for us, our fear stimuli include present experience but also include the imaginative construction of more distant hypothetical scenarios.

But that fear of the future isn't a trait in itself, as the title of the thread would suggest. It is the result of our (not unique, but very highly developed) capacity for thought.

I read that if a wolf dies of old age or sickness, other wolves from his/her pack will gather around and howl, appearing to grieve for a time.

But when wolves witness a wolf from their pack dying in a fight/battle, the rest of his/her pack will not grieve.

I don't know that the above proves anything about the animals. Just found it to be interesting trivia.

tcis, I found that quite interesting, trivia or no.

Animals may not know they eventually will face death, but they do KNOW when they're dying. I have witnessed that in my own dogs. and in one cat. Animals have different folkways and mores for their cultures. Read an interesting story about two photographers who traveled to Africa to take pictures in the wild for National Geographic. They had their blind all set up in a bread fruit tree, and happened to see a mother orangutan with her baby, appear below. Suddenly, there appeared, out of nowhere, a leopard. The battle that ensued was easily discernible. The leopard was trying to get to the soft underbelly of the orangutan, and the orangutan was attempting to get her strong hands around the leopard's neck which she could easily break. Whether luck or conduct, the leopard got its claws in the belly of the brave mom, and disemboweled her. Then as the mother lay dying, the spotted beast turned his eyes on the baby. The photographers described the sound that the mother made as being like nothing they had ever heard. In one brief moment, an entire tribe of orangutans descended on the leopard, and in a thrice, there was not on piece of that leopard left, that remained bigger than a glove. The baby was then scooped up, and off went the group. The photographers were so caught up in the whole episode, and it happened so fast, that they did not get one single photograph.

Lets say the theory of evolution is strictly correct. (I tend to think it is...)

Okay: Why would we evolve with to have the awareness of our own eventual death? What advantage does that have in the evolutionary scheme of things?

Did humans have knowledge of their own death 100,000+ years ago, or is this something that has evolved?

Does a chimpanzee know it will one day die?

How would this death knowledge help us survive in a strictly evolutionary way?

I can see how a highly developed sense of fear of pain, etc. would help our species to survive. But to have the ability to think about death (which some do a lot), almost seems counterproductive in the evolutinary scheme of things.

This anomaly of evolution almost adds fuel to the argument of the various religous/afterlife camps. That is, there seems to be no logical reason to have knowledge of your death, other than to make one wonder, begin to consider spiritual things/afterlife etc.

first off your no philosopher, i f you believe in the typical we come from monkey's crap then your book smart, not intelligent, you just don't question what is told to you. second, chimpanzees are about as smart as you average joe, have you heard of a book calle Ischmale, i dont know how to spell it, i've heard of it but it's aobut a gorilla philosopher, read it, you'll prob. benefit from it. and no human being on this earth has lived for over a 100,000 years, again, you are learning from man and not life, start thinking you could do it. but it is true, we do evolve, we have to to adapt to our environment, not in the sense you might think, but we have to adapt to smog, build stronger immune systems for diseases, etc, that is evolution and what is your hang up on death, its a logical process, how could we shield ourselves to it, life's a cycle, a balance, as a "philosopher" you should be beyond that and if you don't believe in spiritual things, again your not a thinker so philosphy might not be for you. you obviously let man intrude on your train of thought.

They avoid danger, because of conditioned reflex. The reflex marks the memory of the animal via pain, not the "thought" of death. Animals don't think about their own death ( my opinion).

Re: Evolutionary Basis of Death Awareness?


It may impart no advantage. It may simply be a byproduct of self awareness and intelligence, two things which do impart an evolutionary advantage.



I don't think so. But that's just my opinion based on limited observation.



This is why I suspect that it's just a byproduct of other traits.



Non Sequitir; no anomaly has been demonstrated.

We must not lose sight of the fact that humans respond not so much to the world but to our symbolic representations of the world. We kill and die for symbols: the flag, patriotism, God, the Uniform, the Fatherland, Honor, Justice, Truth, Equality, The Crown, the Cross, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Swastika, and these are only some of the grand symbols; our language, the medium by which we render perceptons meaningful, consists only of symbols. All of our experience indicates that other animals engage the world more directly.

Loren Eiseley called mankind _The Dream Animal_ because so much of our daily lives revolve around the abstract. I often find it entertaining to think about what I would do (or be doing), if all of the rules and responsibilities which affect my daily life didn't exist. But even my entertainment is abstract; as I sit here enjoying and considering the thoughts on A2K.

Yes, Rosborne, it is important to be aware of the symbolic nature of our lives. We think in terms of abstract CLASSES of things, qualities, circumstances and events. I find EIseley's "dream animal" well named. We DO live in a world of dreams, i.e., ideas are ontologically much like dreams. This is why the Buddha is considered "the Awakened One". This does not mean that he did not think abstractly, but that he was aware of the unreality of abstracta. He was aware of his dreaming state (which is a type of awakedness). Like you he was acutely aware of the symbolic and constructed nature of the life he shared with others.
I spend some time each day immersing myself in an awareness of the actual CONCRETE nature of immediate experience. This is one way to appreciate the abstract superimposition of symbols on that experience.

noddy appears to be hitting the target here.

the ability to think about the future, or in abstract ways either is an artifact of human consciousness or is itself an impetus towards such capabilities.

semantically, it is hard to assess which came first, either "I am, therefore I had better protect myself" or "Oh $hit, a lion! Run away!" with the latter environmental stimulus inducing the ability to be creative in running away from that lion, to the point where self-realization occurs.

seems to me this is a chicken versus the egg primacy question. but as with the poltury conundrum the "either/or" analog logic breaks down as the static terms are increasingly defined such that they become part of a dynamic system, ie evolutionary biology.

oh damn, quest for fire is on tv right now and those cavemen are running like hell away from a lion!

they were pretty creative; they climbed a tree.

JLNobody:
No matter where I find your posts, they
are always fascinating in their realistic approach' and in their clarity of expression. You articulate
beautifully , almost word for word, my own feelings on the question you are responding to.
Accordingly, I find it not only paradoxical, but increasingly disconcerting to know that I am constantly taking you to task on the only area where it "appears" that I differ with you about...
on the question of the minute mysticism that somehow inadvertantly creeps in, almost as a compulsory requirement of your "belief system".
This little post is intended to say to you that you are a joy to read, and our little differences
are indeed mystical in themselves.