Love in the Context of Fish Culture

Enrique

We tend to assume that human relationships are unique in displaying an extraordinary level of consciousness, but nature supplies us with some startling antitheses to our rash presumptuousness. Consider the following:

Cichlids, a type of small fish, have three genders that all play a role in mating. The masculine males, of larger and stouter body plan, iron out their territories by aggression, repeatedly chasing away rival males so that once it is time for reproduction, meaningful boundaries have been clearly demarcated by which females can indicate exclusive interest via spatial proximity. Paradoxically, these keyed up males also spend most of the time chasing away the females that will ultimately be their reproductive partners. However, there is an intermediate gender, a more slender male with whom the macho males cannot reproduce, but which establishes a seemingly intimate male-male relationship: the two male genders periodically take part in a mutual courtship ritual, a sort of slow, undulating swim while their bodies are parallel and in contact. This intimate relationship between fish with male sex organs plays an important part in actual mating, as the slender male is a mediator between territorial males and the females: when it finally comes time for coitus, the females accompany the slender males into territories, making an introduction collectively, with all three fish gradually spending some more time together until finally mating, a group effort during which the female and large male do the characteristic slow, undulating swim while discharging eggs and sperm, but with the slender male also participating, sandwiched between them. The ability of males to make these intra-sex bonds is key in determining whether they reproduce, as female interest and consummation depends on the slender male liaison.

There are more than a thousand officially documented gender-bending species, and probably much more variety that has not been accounted for, usually displaying not just sexuality but also a behavioral complexity we might almost be inclined to call cultural. Should humans respect these organisms as perhaps capable of borderline rationality instead of sending unfortunate animal souls to the dinner table en masse?

Pfhorrest

That is fascinating to hear about fish sex and gender, but I don’t see how it relates to rationality, and in any case there are good reasons not to kill other animals for food or otherwise that are totally independent of both rationality and fish sex.

Wayfarer

We tend to assume that human relationships are unique in displaying an extraordinary level of consciousness — Enrique

I think 'level of consciousness' is not the right word here. Humans are unique in being language-, tool-, and reason-using and so exhibit a kind of autonomy and self-awareness that is not found in other animals. Which is not to deprecate other animals! Actually I feel your post is a reflection of the sad fact that modern culture forgets what is human. We alone bear the burden of wonder and regret.

god must be atheist

The ability of males to make these intra-sex bonds is key in determining whether they reproduce, as female interest and consummation depends on the slender male liaison.

There are more than a thousand officially documented gender-bending species, — Enrique

A bit like Keith Richards had been tasked by the group leader of the Rolling Stones to pre-select females via expansive trials and performance evaluation for the ensuing sexual consumption by Mick Jagger of the thus pre-selected females.

Metaphysician Undercover

Bees appear to have three distinct sexes, and gender roles which follow. The queen is the fertile female who lays eggs to populate the colony. The workers are infertile females, incapable of reproduction, they do the work of maintaining the colony. The drones are males who fertilize the queen in reproduction. The interesting thing is that the reproductive capacity of the queen's ovaries is actually created by feeding the chosen larva "royal jelly".

3017amen

Should humans respect these organisms as perhaps capable of borderline rationality instead of sending unfortunate animal souls to the dinner table en masse? — Enrique

If you study the theory of Emergence for example, it would support the notion that basically lower life forms are simply genetically coded to do thier thing through instinct. That would still provide for purposeful existence, amongst the animals in the kingdom for their consumption and survival.

One main distinction then is, self-awareness. To combine both instinct and self-awareness would suggest human conscious existence. And in that context, human consumption of particular animal life would still be relevant there. Are you saying it is wrong to kill an animal to eat?

The idea of romantic love existing in the animal kingdom is intriguing nonetheless. But my only point is that I'm thinking you would first want to draw the distinctions between genetically coded purpose and instinct, verses self-awareness in the human consciousness. (Or maybe consider the role of the primitive limbic system... .)

Enrique

If a fish is making decisions based on perceptions of cause and effect, I think this qualifies as some kind of rationality. Maybe not Kantian, but perhaps a marine biologist could, with some detailed investigation and analysis, outline the conditions of the possibility of Cichlidian experience, a set of approximately rational parameters in fish mentality. If fish are romantic, a conscious flexibility surpassing simple stimulus and response certainly exists. Humans and fish display different kinds of instincts, and it is not necessarily the case that fish instinct is strictly automated while human instinct is not, so why not varieties of reason infused with social meanings? We incline to label nature from our own frame of reference, but perhaps fish also experience love, and wouldn't that be worthy of moral respect, or even moral duty?

god must be atheist

Should humans respect these organisms as perhaps capable of borderline rationality instead of sending unfortunate animal souls to the dinner table en masse? — Enrique

I personally have no problems viewing animals as perfectly capable of rational thought, romantic behaviour, and sentimental emotions. And personally have no problem eating their cooked flesh either.

Your question assumes that we, humans, a rational species, ought not to harm members of other rational species.

I reject the validity of that notion. I eat them, and love the taste and texture of their flesh. Furthermore, I have no guilt, remorse, or any sort of feeling or undertones of wrongdoing when I eat the flesh of animals.

That said, I also contest that it is more sinful to eat a rational animal than a merely reactive and unthinking, unfeeling animal, such as a shrimp, tape-wrom or earthworm. If you, for some to me unknown consideration, stop yourself from eating rational animals, why do you allow yourself to eat rationality-free animals? What is about rationality that makes it a decisional factor whether to massacre and eat, or not massacre?

Pfhorrest

That's why I brought up that rationality is not the criterion for not killing animals. Ability to suffer is. This seems to be the predominant opinion in philosophy today; see e.g. Peter Singer.

3017amen

Humans and fish display different kinds of instincts, and it is not necessarily the case that fish instinct is strictly automated while human instinct is not, so why not varieties of reason infused with social meanings? — Enrique

Sure, to combine both instinct and self-awareness would suggest human conscious existence. But to draw the distinction(s), one would have to demonstrate that 'fish' have self-awareness to the fullest extent that human's have. And so in the case of romantic love, that's a formidable task.

Why not just leave the so-called driving force in nature, to animal instinct/genetically coded purposeful existence? I mean Metaphysical Will in nature can certainly be conducive to biologically Emergent purpose/properties.

Enrique

I also can easily get in touch with my inner barbarian. Some people find certain meats repulsive, but I don't have that reaction at all. At the same time, I think it would be great if society could transition to a fully agriculture-based diet and let all animals live their natural lives, which seem more worthy of respect the more you consider it, especially if we can replace the nutritional contribution of meat with plants.

We would generally call more non-rational animals more non-thinking animals and regard these organisms as suffering less, but I think this is a cognitive bias based on suspect analogy to our own minds. If an organism has nerve endings, we probably shouldn't harm it if at all possible, really being honest with ourselves, and if it appears to experience social meaning, even moreso. Maybe humans would generally become more ethical in all situations if we didn't constantly harm animals.

"Instinct" has a somewhat pejorative connotation, as if the organism doesn't have conscious control, but this seems more unrealistic with every advancement in biology. I think we should view all animals with a nervous system as having some kind of cognitive ability. The implications for ethics and practices are a related but different issue.

Banno

↪Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but what makes the examples in the OP interesting is the active roll played by the third sex.

Banno

↪Pfhorrest

Yep. Well said.

Banno

Maybe humans would generally become more ethical in all situations if we didn't constantly harm animals. — Enrique

I wonder if the opposite might not be true. We buy meat carefully packaged, as removed as possible from the blood and gore of the fact of killing.

What if we only allowed ourselves to eat meat that we had ourselves killed and butchered? There would be more basic honesty involved.

Enrique

↪Banno

What I think we really should do is fully transition to solar power and use the surplus energy to grow our own gardens in residential greenhouses. If we can breed plants to span the entire nutritional spectrum, its very feasible. Creates lots of jobs as well. I think butchering meat might desensitize people to violence, possibly detrimental to human ethics, but surely less people would adopt that practice to begin with.

Banno

↪Enrique

Yeah, but I have this excellent Moroccan recipe for goat or lamb....

I think we can agree that our lives are far removed from our natural food sources, to our moral and aesthetic detriment.

Enrique

↪Banno

Yeah, but I have this excellent Moroccan recipe for goat or lamb....

All that really sustains a large-scale meat industry is probably the expanding range of specialty seasonings in yuppy recipes along with disposable traditions and simple habit. Meat is unhealthier to eat than agricultural products, the quality and taste of most modern meat isn't that great, raising livestock is bad for the environment and more labor than growing crops, and most of our crops are used to feed livestock, so might as well be feeding humans. If we fully transitioned to agriculture and gardening, independent farmers wouldn't be driven out of business by their increasingly unprofitable market for meat products/livestock feed. At our economic stage, you've got to consider certain logistics though, like the cruciality of constant pesticide innovations to the agricultural food supply and climate fluctuations.

Banno

↪Enrique

Yes. But an iron deficiency makes meat a good choice, and the recipe includes plenty of chick peas, beans and dried fruit, so that 400g of goat will provide a hearty dish for a half-dozen folk.

Anyway, shouldn't we be talking about gender in this thread?

Banno

I describe the role of the slender male to Wife. She observed "They're like a sex therapist".

god must be atheist

it would be great if society could transition to a fully agriculture-based diet and let all animals live their natural lives, which seem more worthy of respect the more you consider it — Enrique

I think yours is an individualistic view. It may be shared by many others, but I see no reasonable merit in the proposition you pose.

god must be atheist

I think we should view all animals with a nervous system as having some kind of cognitive ability. The implications for ethics and practices are a related but different issue. — Enrique

Yes, we do view animals a having cognitive ability. That has nothing to do with massacring and eating them. Why do you insist on an ethics-based ban, when there is no indication of anything unethical there? I am asking you the third time, in different words: Why is it unethical to eat the flesh of animals that think and feel?

I am asserting again: yours is an individualistic view, much like mine is. We both share our respective views with many others. You should not try to force behaviour on others only because you have an individualistic view. I, for instance, don't mind that you only want to eat, an probably only eat, veggies. You should not mind that I eat animal flesh. Because there is no ethical principle that supports your individualistic view.

Enrique

↪god must be atheist

I'm not actually a strict veggie guy, but I would convert completely if I could get nutritional equivalence. Killing animals and raising them in squalor causes cognitive suffering and physical pain, and is easy to comprehend as less than the ideal situation, for human health and economy also. I think we can claim that diets of mass-produced meat have universal problems, but any solution could be culturally and logistically complex, why I say its not simply an issue of whether animals are aware of their dire condition. I wouldn't trade the lives of starving or malnourished humans for the well-being of a different species, but we're causing ourselves more troubles with meat than we're probably preventing. Maybe we should work at phasing out products that are detrimental to animals, but still have some mostly recreational animal farming. Is that even possible?

↪Banno

Some humans could probably learn from fish love.

Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, but what makes the examples in the OP interesting is the active roll played by the third sex. — Banno

Do you think that the infertile female bees, the workers, do not play an active role?

Banno

↪Metaphysician Undercover

They are active during the actual fuck?

god must be atheist

↪Enrique

You are switching to other arguments but you are still using your arguments to speak up against meat eating.

Are you... a cow? A very intelligent one? (-:

Enrique

↪god must be atheist

Are you... a cow? A very intelligent one? (-:

I moove towards wherever reason leads me. It is constitutive of my moomanity. lol

Pfhorrest

↪god must be atheist

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_(book)

3017amen

I think it would be great if society could transition to a fully agriculture-based diet and let all animals live their natural lives, which seem more worthy of respect the more you consider it, especially if we can replace the nutritional contribution of meat with plants. — Enrique

I agree. Pragmatically, if I could get all the nutritional value from plants, I would go in that direction myself. Otherwise the concern of course is vitamin deficiencies from same (B vitamins, iron, creatine, carnosine, vitamin D, and other's..). You have to eat a lot more to get the same amount of nutrients. I can't take supplement's, and prefer to get mine through natural means anyway... .

ZhouBoTong

when it finally comes time for coitus, the females accompany the slender males into territories, making an introduction collectively, with all three fish gradually spending some more time together until finally mating, a group effort during which the female and large male do the characteristic slow, undulating swim while discharging eggs and sperm, but with the slender male also participating, sandwiched between them. The ability of males to make these intra-sex bonds is key in determining whether they reproduce, as female interest and consummation depends on the slender male liaison. — Enrique

I can go do a bunch of research, but figured you may have a quick answer. How are more of the slender males born? Can the large male's sperm lead to both large and slender males being born? Or do the slender males occasionally blast some sperm into the mix as coitus is occurring? I have seen other species (cuddlefish come to mind) where the small males use trickery to reproduce. Is that happening in this case? Or are there just three genders that occur due to minor differences during embryo development? (like crocodiles changing sex depending on temperatures)

Enrique

↪ZhouBoTong

The book I read didn't say whose sperm it was. That'd be a lot of sperm to keep track of. lol If I were to venture a guess, it would be that slender males discharge at least some sperm also, but field biology has probably faced extreme difficulties assessing all of that. As for hereditary and developmental mechanisms, the possibilities are vast, though an explanation might be available somewhere. This book was written in the early 2000's, so more knowledge could certainly have been obtained since then.

ZhouBoTong

The book I read didn't say whose sperm it was. That'd be a lot of sperm to keep track of. lol If I were to venture a guess, it would be that slender males discharge at least some sperm also, but field biology has probably faced extreme difficulties assessing all of that. As for hereditary and developmental mechanisms, the possibilities are vast, though an explanation might be available somewhere. This book was written in the early 2000's, so more knowledge could certainly have been obtained since then. — Enrique

Well thanks anyway...interesting stuff. I think it must a specific species of cichlid because google offers surprisingly little help...I am sure it will be captured on "Blue Planet 3" or something, these nature shows are getting all sorts of incredible behaviors on camera (in super high frame rate HD no less), so it should be a matter of time :smile:

Love in the Context of Fish Culture

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions