| Popis: |
A question is posed: In a treatment of dominance and aggression in humans, why would we devote any time and energy at all to even reflect on the likes of subhuman creatures? A comparative approach is taken to point out that many biological concepts associated with most species are the same or very similar, no matter what animals we are speaking about. An approach to understanding dominance and aggression becomes less threatening when we consider humans as animals, which they most certainly are. This is a concept not well accepted by certain segments of our population, but biologists have realized for years that we can learn much about our own biology from studying lower organisms, even organisms at the unicellular level. It may be humiliating, against religious beliefs, and otherwise seemingly out of line for some of us to consider the idea of comparing humans with other animals. Many humans are still avoiding the concept of evolution and denying that it has anything to do with humans, “the children of God.” With a large and extremely complex brain, we think of humans as being special, uniquely the only beings to possess an awareness of self, the only ones endowed with a complex form of reason. Our arrogant nature forces us to think that everything we do or think about must have an anthropocentric connection. Yet, many of our behavioral expressions are animalistic ones and show that most organisms that belong to the animal kingdom think of themselves first. Self-interest is an animalistic trait, which is beneficial in the process of survival. It is animalistic to ignore other species unless it represents potential food or is threatening. It is also animalistic to be devoted not only to reproducing one's kind but to overproducing them. Each individual and each population is most important to itself, its survival, and reproductivity. Over the years, significant amounts of information have been provided through research on lower organisms that can be applied to humans, including investigations on viruses, prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates. What would we know about human cell biology and genetics without research on a fungus we call baker's yeast, certain bacteria, fruit flies, and certain roundworms? What would we know about molecular genetics and genetically modified organisms without the use of Escherichia coli, fruit flies, mosquitoes, bollworms, fish, and lower mammals? How would we know about transposing DNA without studies on Indian corn? How would we teach each other the fundamentals of comparative anatomy and physiology without the use of amphibians, reptiles, rats, and other mammals (e.g., mice and nonhuman primates)? How could we have experimented with and cured human ailments without investigations on numerous types of subhuman organisms? How would we know about relatedness, evolution, natural selection, and fitness without observations and experimentation on a wide variety of lower organisms? And how would we know about the concept of sociality without comparative studies on insects, mole rats, and a variety of other animal forms? We are thus related not only to other apes but also indirectly to a wide array of organisms—even to plants, if we go far enough back in time. Actually, although plant-like and animal-like organisms split from one another early in the evolution of life on Earth, they remain quite similar in many ways. Using current social invertebrate and vertebrate species and their behavior, the concepts of dominance and aggression are redefined. It is with these concepts in mind that we devote time and space to comparing the major forms of social animals. |
