Multispecies design and interspecies relations

[zoorathustra]

I've been thinking alot about the widening divide between rural natural living and modern city living. I find it fascinating that there are so many people are completely oblivious to nature and spend so much of their time fixated on human to human interaction. With the increased amounts of people living in the city around the world this is becoming increasingly obvious. Throughout history it has also led to a disconnect between rural population and urban population with the political urban elite viewing the rural population something like dirty peasants. I think that there is also a sizable portion of the urban population that like nature and spend free time escaping the urban environment to return to nature to camp and explore. More often I think these types of people try to bring what elements of nature they can into their urban environment by maintaining small gardens or raising pets.

I find some developing countries quite fascinating as it is more common to see a greater diversity of cohabitation with various animal species such as ducks, chickens, goats, cows, street dogs, street cats, etc. In many of these types of environments I see a much stronger connection to nature and the natural cycle. More people have a better understanding of the nature of different animals and the natural cycle of animals. There's a lot of downsides to this type of living such a rabid dog attacks, cows blocking roads, road kill of small animals, and the animal diseases having more possible vectors to spread diseases to humans. That's largely why the developed west was sterilized of all these things. But, I've been thinking what if there was a better way.

My experiences got me thinking alot about how urban development is fully human centric. I started thinking it would be interesting if somewhere developed an urban environment with multiple species in mind. What kind of impact this would have on the mentality of the humans that lived there. The technology is certainly available to make such an idea feasible. Collars could be microchipped so that certain doors could automatically open for certain animals and keep out others. Cattle grates could be strategically placed to keep cattle off maim roads while allowing them to freely roam large parts of the city. Nooks could be created to make shelters for animals. There are plenty of ways to go about it. Taking it even further I believe brain microchipping like nueralink have the potential to facilitate animal to human communication.

After some coaxing I was able to get facebooks ai to give this response regarding interspecies relations. It was trying to avoid discussing the implications of beastiality due to it being illegal in many places. But, I thought it's response was quite insightful and largely in-line with what I've seen on this website. I thought it would be interesting to share the response.

There are a fee similar threads on this website about which animals people would be interested in having relations with. I was kind of thinking how many non aggressive animals could the urban environment be shared with. I was thinking large rabbits, alpacas, capybaras, pigs, sheep, dogs, cats, kangaroos, chickens, ducks, birds, large turtles, cows.

I thought I'd see what ideas other people on here have on this subject and what thoughts they have on this subject.

 

[Cyon]

I don't quite know what to call your proposed city idea except for a cyberpunk utopia: a technologically advanced society that uses their creations to live an existence more harmonious with nature rather than more separated from it. In theory I love the idea. I think that there are human problems inherent with living in cities of any size but that is, perhaps, a discussion for later. For now the question is how that civilization lives intertwined with the natural world which I find to be a much more pleasant topic at any rate. I think that city density should be reduced significantly, partly to reduce overcrowding amongst the human population but also to allow more space for animals to thrive. They will, after all, be competing for resources and the more space that is allowed for those resources to flourish the more there will be to go around and support a larger animal population. Which, on the topic of animal populations, those would have to be checked and balanced as well. Over abundance of one species or another would lead to the decimation of that species' food source for example. Which would inevitably lead to a decline in numbers balancing the scales again, but only after a significant number died off from starvation, disease, and similar unpleasant causes. For this same reason it's important to keep in place the same population control structure that nature already perfected in terms of predators and prey. This comes with the obvious caveat of installing predator species that keep the prey species in check while also providing little to no threat to their human counterparts. For that matter humans themselves can take on that roll for larger species like cattle and sheep, simultaneously reducing the need for commercial farming of animal products and making the introduction of large predators like bears and cougars unnecessary.

From your short list of suggested species I must say (and I think that any Zoos from down under will agree) I think that the inclusion of kangaroos in any such city structure would be a decision you will come to regret.

 

[zoorathustra]

Interesting concept, although the microchipping aspect, is unethical in my perspective, because it forces our technology upon other beings, which has already been done for both illicit and coercive purposes. Very saddening. Rather than bending nature to our wills, we need to work on returning nature back to its original vitality and wholeness, and that means, converting a lot of the land masses back into vast forested areas, allowing wildlife to repopulate and flourish as before. And this should not be accomplished by planting trees in neat rows like cornfields. I see that a lot on google maps. That is not how nature orders and balances itself. When it comes to cities, I think there is a place for both modern humans and wildlife, the thing is, we need to learn to suppress our sense of ego, pride and entitlement, not taking most of planet earth over for ourselves which is counter beneficial to our existence. Cities should actually GROW much larger individually, but then also, decline substantially in numbers. Also picture this. A larger city that is 50 miles across, or more, that has its very own 100K acre forest contained within it which would actually be reasonably huge, for dedicated human recreation, without impeding the fundamental aspects of nature beyond the cities, and there could still absolutely be parking lots, campgrounds, hiking and biking trails through those vast forest areas outside of those huge human establishments. Even though we have evolved into modern beings, we still need to find a sense of unity with nature. As far as telepathy goes, Anna Breytenbach is a phenomenal individual, that has a deep sense of empathy and connection with other living animals. Her videos on you tube are very inspiring and intriguing. The human mind has been poisoned by todays society. Through upbringing, education and conditioning (mind control), there is no easy way to lead people's hearts and minds "back to the rivers and trees". It is important to interact with nature in a closer way, but the biggest problem today, is that the order and balance of the natural world is long gone from what it used to be. A utopian world is one in which all of nature's elements are present, and we are losing more of those elements. It's like a giant puzzle, with so many pieces gone now, that it looks more like swiss cheese rather than a picture. If you zoom into google maps, and see just how many natural habitat areas have been destroyed, this becomes obviously apparent. The structural integrity of life is vanishing. You are correct for implying that most people have been "conditioned" to only care about and feel connected with other people, and that is the fallacy of mankind. People have indeed lost that connection with nature. The difference between thinking that nature is pretty, compared to embracing the fundamental understanding of nature's importance and where our place in life is, constitutes the huge gap between where we are now, compared to what we once were, and for a few of us, for whatever reason, we cling to nature so much more closely, sometimes more than what is comfortable for most people to accept, almost as if our genes express that revolt towards the evolution of humanity and its corrupt dominance. For some of us, that tail, snout, fangs and fur, is more than just a visual attraction, it is our primal connection to something that most have mentally evolved away from. Occasionally a person is born into this world, with these earthly feelings intact, and not only feels interconnected with other species outside of humans, but also has a keen understanding for how corrupt human society has become, compared to the natural world that we live in.....(what is left of it). Unfortunately, I fear, it will take a frightening consequence, created from humanities corrupt ways, the effects of which have culminated over several centuries, before people finally lament, and come to a universal understanding as a civilization, as a whole, to do better things, and to strive towards regaining that lost psychological connection with nature. It's like watching a run away train going down a hill, and only a few of us can see where the tracks end, and the Rockies lie, where the biggest crash in human history is just a few 100 years away or less. I see my own species for what it really is, and it is very disheartening for me. And the way that I seek relief, is to spend more time in nature and find closeness with other living beings. That brings me much fulfilment in life. The very word "animal" is also something that makes me cringe, because it is a word, that describes a living organism that has been ostracized by society as being something that is inferior to us, and is something that we must maintain our distance from both physically and mentally. That mental detachment, in general, is a clear indicator, that society is headed in the wrong direction, and unfortunately, there is no easy way to help people recognize their nearsightedness. When humanity "train wrecks", you do not want to be onboard. What do I mean by that? You need to prepare yourself psychologically for these coming times, such as when society runs amuck with chaos, and desperation both in mind and body. They say to stock up on water and food, but for times of coming tumultuation, that will not be enough save you. If you are someone who's principle foundation is in nature, when those times come, it won't be nearly as painful, if your primary family IS nature, and nature based organisms. You will still have something close and fulfilling in your life to live for, even when everything that modern day humanity is based upon, is falling apart. Mind set is everything. Life will continue on in one form or another, just not in a way that will sustain humanities foolishness. I foresee that about 1.4 billion people in the future will succumb to an unforeseen circumstance that will catch everyone off guard. I know that sounds like a grim prophesy, but I have a sense for these things. There are often subtleties that lead up to a major event. I am seeing those subtleties now, and this is a universal process regarding a great many things. Often times, true mental illnesses are overlooked, because we don't recognize the symptoms, such as humanities overall disregard for nature and people's obsession with themselves. That is what human nature has become in today's world, and I am sorry to say, that there is probably not going to be a happy ending. When mankind falls, it will fall hard, and it will hurt, but for the few of us that have an enlightened perspective on life, our minds and hearts won't be crippled like everyone else's. You don't have to be religious to find enlightenment, and a lot of religious principles are what have led us to this point in the first place, as far as people's obsessions with one another, and the philosophy that only humans matter. That lack of foresight will be costly. Nature does not abide by our laws and principles. People know they are not above the circle of life, and so it is then egos and pride, the cocaine that drives societies madness. As an individual, I am delighted to stand far apart from the rest of the crowds, and walk my path in solitude.

?

Not all who wander are lost.

Not all who are alone, feel lonely.

- YouTube

W YouTube możesz cieszyć się filmami i muzyką, które lubisz, przesyłać oryginalne treści i udostępniać je swoim bliskim, znajomym i całemu światu.

youtu.be

- YouTube

W YouTube możesz cieszyć się filmami i muzyką, które lubisz, przesyłać oryginalne treści i udostępniać je swoim bliskim, znajomym i całemu światu.

youtu.be

Interesting points you've made. I totally agree. Humans seem to be the only species or at least one of the few species that can communicate with a wide range of other species. What I'd add to the brain microchipping though is that I think it could also facilitate animal species communication at a higher level than already occurs. There's obviously some kind of communication that takes place between dogs and cats for example. But, I imagine that this could be a much deeper more meaningful and potentially more peaceful relationship if dog speech was perfectly translated into cat speech. Animals pick up on different sounds to a large degree. As for the ethics, I'd say there's a lot of other things that humans already do in the name of goodwill towards animals which is alot more harmful than a small brain microchip implant. I'd say the potential benefits to facilitate better relationships and understanding of animals probably outweighs the negatives. The other aspect of microchipping beyond communication would be interaction with a technologically advanced environment. I know that the recent nueralink trial patient was able to play complex videogames. Because every animal is made physically different and possessing significantly different levels of intellect a brain microchip is something that could be universal that the widest range of species while using the same technology. So it wouldn't just facilitate in communication, but could also be the device that allows animals to interact with the city scape in pretty significant ways. An example might be accessing public transportation. I could imagine a dog widening it's territory by cruising around in public transportation and enjoys car rides. Or an elephant that enjoys going through something like a car wash. Perhaps birds that like having automatic doors to enter there nest.

I think it's interesting thought experiment to think how such technology and the interactions it allows might also contribute to animals which evolve the same way mankind has evolved from a primitive state to a more technically advanced albeit arguably just as stupid state of existence.

 

[zoorathustra]

Pushing our technology onto an already adulterated world, is, in a word.....sick. That is really not cool at all. Wildlife and other earth beings such as dogmen are already stressed out, and you want to incorporate them into our own society with technology? That is more like a concentration camp approach. That is NOT right. I doubt that you even watched the videos I shared here before replying to my comment. You should search your heart a little bit deeper. That is just downright disturbing.

No offense. But, I think something triggered you and you aren't really understanding anything I'm saying. I did watch your video links. I don't really know what you want me to say about them that I haven't basically already said.

I would say the current approach is much more of a concentration camp approach than what I'm suggesting. Unless you're a hardcore Peta type that takes it to the opposite extreme of not realizing how mankind is clearly the caretaker and shepherd of this world by saying that mankind should not interfere with nature in any way whatsoever. How many species of both animals and plants have adapted quite beneficially due to human interaction? That more often than not both species seem to be happy with the results. It's already something that has been happening for thousands of years and continuing to happen today. What you seem to be disagreeing on is that you don't believe that this should continue to happen??