Life (on BBC)

[the_aphid]

I have been watching the new TV series Life, and just like all the other nature programs produced by the BBC, it is truly phenomenal. The footage is unbelievable, and what people have to go through in order to capture this footage is worthy of the a show of it's own. I suppose that is why they dedicate a section of each episode, titled "On Location", to this task of capturing these glimpses of nature on film.

Watching only the first four episodes I've seen adaptations and behaviour in the animal kingdom that I simply never would have expected to see in this lifetime. Clans of hyenas overtaking prides of lions for a meal, fish that literally climb the rocky cliffs of a waterfall to reach fresh water pools, and geckos that are so small and water repellent that they cannot sink.

And like every other BBC series I have seen on the topic of nature, it is narrated by Sir David Attenborough. In my mind his voice has simply become synonymous with the sensations of fascination and wonder with the natural world.

[MDJoyce]

I know this post is somewhat dated, but I just couldn't pass on it. The BBC nature programs have really been insightful to me as well. A year ago I wouldn't have thought that a nature series could expand my philosophical mind so powerfully, but they really have.

I just recently ordered Life, too! I debated getting it, mainly since these series have become and addiction and like any addiction it can get expensive. I've seen the Life of..., series in it's entirety. For the uninitiated, that's about... Christ I don't know, possibly days of footage. (Ah, handy Wikipedia--yep, over 2 days of video. I'm slightly embarrassed). So I wasn't sure if it would be worth the investment, if there would be much new material. But there is so much information in those 2 days of footage that I'm hoping this one will add a little more to it as well as put all of the rest in context--reading about it, it seems to telescope the whole Life of... series into one theme.

Attenborough did a nice documentary on Darwin (and the Tree of Life) that I give to my more creationist friends, in hopes that it might change some minds and answer their questions about why they don't see fish sprouting legs left and right when they go to release a bluegill from their motorboat. Another great BBC series is Wild China, I highly recommend you watch it if you haven't already. No Attenborough though. I liked it because it really examined the friction between expanding human society and preservation, as well as how alienated we are becoming from the natural world.

In fact, learning that Attenborough was Administrator of BBC2 for a while when he was young got me interested in other gems like Kenneth Clark's Civilization, The Ascent of Man, and the more recent Simon Schama's A History of Britain. I had to swallow quite a few gulps of my inherited Amer-Irish pride to buy that one, let me tell you, but it was assuredly worthwhile.

All of the quality television has got me wondering why here in the U.S. we don't have something like that. I never turn on my television for anything other than to put in some DVD these days. I'm not sure how good the CBC is, but PBS suffers considerably from lack of funding. Surely the United States could disband a few ICBM silos and put a bit of funding into our public television?

Lastly, I have to remark on your avatar. It's weird, but being the atheist evolutionist that I am, I always shy away from chimpanzees. Whenever I pop in The Life of Mammals or Planet Earth I have to resist the strong urge to just skip the section about them.

I think it's the fact that they are so similar to humans that it unsettles me. We can't deny that chimps murder other chimps any longer... and I don't mean in the now old-chimp-news "systematic warfare" way, but rather the premeditated inter-tribe murder and cannibalization way. We're indoctrinated to think that things like "murder" and the connotations of "evil" that murder has are distinctly human. (Look, I even put it in quotes--something I assuredly wouldn't have done when describing an act of murder by humans.) Interesting that we close our eyes to such "evil" acts in the animal kingdom, yet we are all familiar with any "good" stories about elephants or crows mourning their dead and poodles trekking 100 miles to find their owner again--and more, we parade such stories as proof of some sort of soul prevalent in all living creatures.

Clearly altruistic acts/good and murder/evil are not as uniquely human as some believe.

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

I just recently ordered Life, too! I debated getting it, mainly since these series have become and addiction and like any addiction it can get expensive.

This is how I justify my act of downloading the episodes first. If I am impressed by the series then I often go out and buy it to add to my collection.

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

Attenborough did a nice documentary on Darwin (and the Tree of Life) that I give to my more creationist friends, in hopes that it might change some minds and answer their questions about why they don't see fish sprouting legs left and right when they go to release a bluegill from their motorboat.

Yes, I certainly have a great deal of respect for Attenborough's ability to exercise compassion and sensitivity in this series as well. He does not recklessly extinguish the inherent value of the associated religions while he makes a very noble attempt to educate them on the validity of Darwin's realizations.

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

Lastly, I have to remark on your avatar. It's weird, but being the atheist evolutionist that I am, I always shy away from chimpanzees. Whenever I pop in The Life of Mammals or Planet Earth I have to resist the strong urge to just skip the section about them.

I think it's the fact that they are so similar to humans that it unsettles me. We can't deny that chimps murder other chimps any longer... and I don't mean in the now old-chimp-news "systematic warfare" way, but rather the premeditated inter-tribe murder and cannibalization way.

I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head! As unsettling as it might be to recognize something 'distinctly human' in another species, I find it revelatory as it intimately connects us with everything else in the natural world. It takes you out of that comfort zone, shocks you out of that 'anthropomorphic hesitation', that resistance which encourages you to say: "sure, they are killing each other for reasons that are not clearly observable, but that does not mean what they are feeling is human-like." That is the significance of my avatar, however I hope to illustrate the other side of the coin, that 'thought' is similarly not something that is distinctly human.

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

Interesting that we close our eyes to such "evil" acts in the animal kingdom, yet we are all familiar with any "good" stories about elephants or crows mourning their dead and poodles trekking 100 miles to find their owner again--and more, we parade such stories as proof of some sort of soul prevalent in all living creatures.

Clearly altruistic acts/good and murder/evil are not as uniquely human as some believe.

Yes, my girlfriend is one who literally 'closes her eyes' when such 'evil acts' occur in the animal kingdom.

But your last sentence here touches on the reason why I feel morality is absolute. It is not a construct of human intellect and creativity, but rather an understanding of a universal constant verified by subjective experience, not unlike the empirical understanding of gravity that is verified by our experience when we walk out the door. But I suppose that is a discussion for another thread.

[MDJoyce]

Originally Posted by the_aphid

I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head! As unsettling as it might be to recognize something 'distinctly human' in another species, I find it revelatory as it intimately connects us with everything else in the natural world. It takes you out of that comfort zone, shocks you out of that 'anthropomorphic hesitation', that resistance which encourages you to say: "sure, they are killing each other for reasons that are not clearly observable, but that does not mean what they are feeling is human-like." That is the significance of my avatar, however I hope to illustrate the other side of the coin, that 'thought' is similarly not something that is distinctly human.

Indeed, I think it is impossible for what they're feeling to be human-like, as they aren't human! And that's OK. It's not as if humanity has some sort of monopoly over emotion. The school of Evolutionary Philosophy may seem trivial and depressing at first--to think that life is a giant material mistake, but soon the feeling of beauty grows as you marvel at the complexity of life.

Can mistakes not be beautiful too? If the answer is no, then I think my parents have some explaining to do about their children...

Originally Posted by the_aphid

Yes, my girlfriend is one who literally 'closes her eyes' when such 'evil acts' occur in the animal kingdom.

Ha ! Yes, my ex was the one to get me into zoology, yet there was one particular scene (in Planet Earth I believe) where a fox starts stuffing about 5 or 6 snowgeese chicks in its mouth (they bury them for winter)… She actually started crying! She is by no means squeamish about the circle of life, I should add. The whole idea of seeing death filmed for us to watch while sitting on our living room couch and stuffing our face with Cheetos and Pepsi, well, I think that's worthy of some serious thinking.

Originally Posted by the_aphid

But your last sentence here touches on the reason why I feel morality is absolute. It is not a construct of human intellect and creativity, but rather an understanding of a universal constant verified by subjective experience, not unlike the empirical understanding of gravity that is verified by our experience when we walk out the door. But I suppose that is a discussion for another thread.

I think that I disagree with your statement, but I'd have to hear more behind the reasoning to be sure. To me morality is not so much an absolute, as a necessity that arises due to the environment we live in. In this regard, it has as much variability as evolution--yet the end goal is always the same: to survive. In a way, it could be looked upon as a type of social evolution. But yes, a discussion for another thread.

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

Indeed, I think it is impossible for what they're feeling to be human-like, as they aren't human! And that's OK. It's not as if humanity has some sort of monopoly over emotion.

True enough. It could just as easily be suggested that what humans do in times of conflict is very 'chimp-like' or 'primate-like', but ultimately I think you are correct. Perhaps a better way to put it is that the behavior is indicative of common underlying emotions, such as fear, anger, and envy.

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

The school of Evolutionary Philosophy may seem trivial and depressing at first--to think that life is a giant material mistake, but soon the feeling of beauty grows as you marvel at the complexity of life.

Can mistakes not be beautiful too?

Certainly mistakes can be beautiful, but in my opinion this only accounts for the specific variations of species, the diversity of life, and not necessarily life in general. Put another way, evolution via natural selection accounts for the branches on the tree of life, not the tree itself. I feel that the emergence of life is 'hard-wired' into the anatomy of the universe, and whether the probability of life is high or low, I believe that it is inevitable in a universe so vastly heterogeneous.

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

Yes, my ex was the one to get me into zoology, yet there was one particular scene (in Planet Earth I believe) where a fox starts stuffing about 5 or 6 snowgeese chicks in its mouth (they bury them for winter)… She actually started crying! She is by no means squeamish about the circle of life, I should add. The whole idea of seeing death filmed for us to watch while sitting on our living room couch and stuffing our face with Cheetos and Pepsi, well, I think that's worthy of some serious thinking.

Absolutely! In a particular scene in the Life series where a starving polar bear attempts to take down a walrus in an act of desperation, my girlfriend became very upset. She said something along the lines of: "Either way this ends, it is going to be tragic!" The polar bear proceeded to spend every last ounce of energy it had trying to kill this walrus, but ultimately it did not prevail and was left wounded and hungry on the edge of the sea-ice. Such a scene perfectly illustrates the inherent suffering of the natural world. Is it strange that I find such things beautiful?

Originally Posted by MDJoyce

I think that I disagree with your statement, but I'd have to hear more behind the reasoning to be sure. To me morality is not so much an absolute, as a necessity that arises due to the environment we live in. In this regard, it has as much variability as evolution--yet the end goal is always the same: to survive. In a way, it could be looked upon as a type of social evolution. But yes, a discussion for another thread.

Yeah, I certainly have a difficult time adopting such a position when discussions take place amongst friends. But I am contemplating initiating (or recycling) such a discussion in the near future.