Chapter 10 Chapter 8 Humans and Animals

So far we have been discussing the naked ape's own behavior and its behavior toward its own kind—the intra-specific behavior of the naked ape.Now we are going to discuss the behavior of naked apes towards other animals—the inter-specific behavior of naked apes. All higher animals are aware that in their environment there are at least some other kinds of animals.They see other animals in one of five ways: prey, symbionts, competitors, parasites or predators.As far as we humans are concerned, these five ways of looking at animals may roughly be termed the "economic" view.In addition to this, animals can be viewed from scientific, aesthetic and symbolic perspectives.Our wide-ranging interests in other animals make our interspecies relationship with the animal kingdom unique.In order to explain and understand objectively, we must study this issue one by one from various angles.

Due to the naked ape's natural exploration and opportunistic attitude towards food, we eat a wide variety of prey.At some point in some places, naked apes even killed and ate all animals.In one prehistoric remains, we found that 500,000 years ago, naked apes hunted bison, horses, rhinos, deer, and bears only in one place.Sheep, mammoths, camels, ostriches, antelopes, buffaloes, wild boars and hyenas.It would be pointless to compile a food "cookbook" of modern naked apes, but it is worth mentioning that there is one feature of our carnivorous behaviour: our tendency to selectively domesticate certain prey.Sometimes although we eat almost everything, our main diet is limited to a few animals.

Animal domestication relies on organized control and selective breeding of pigs.It is known that humans have domesticated animals for at least 10,000 years, or even more than 10,000 years.The earliest domesticated animals appear to have been goats, sheep, and reindeer.Pigs, cattle (including Asian buffaloes and yaks) joined the ranks as established farming communities arose.There is evidence that there were several different breeds of cattle as far back as 4,000 years ago.The domestication of goats, sheep, and reindeer is accomplished by simply raising the captured prey.Some people believe that pigs and cows started to deal with people because they robbed crops, and then established a close relationship with people.As soon as humans started planting crops, pigs and cows broke into human territory and took advantage of the abundant and fresh food resources. As a result, they themselves were captured and raised by early farmers.

Of the small mammals in captivity, only rabbits have a relatively long domestication history, but their domestication history also seems to be much later than the above-mentioned animals.Among the captured birds, the main species domesticated thousands of years ago are chickens, ducks, and geese; followed by pheasants, guinea hens, quails, and turkeys.The only fish with a long history of domestication are Roman eels, carp, and goldfish.Goldfish, however, quickly became ornamental rather than food.Humans have only domesticated fish in the last 2,000 years, and it played a minor role in our organized predation of animals.

The second type of interspecies relationship is the symbiotic relationship.The meaning of a symbiotic relationship can be defined as a relationship in which two animals of different species unite for mutual assistance and mutual benefit.There are many examples of this in the animal kingdom, most notably the partnerships between flea-eating birds and large ungulates such as rhinos, giraffes and buffaloes.Flea eaters prey on parasites on the skin of ungulates, which contribute to their health and skin cleanliness; the latter provide a valuable food resource for the former. In the symbiotic relationship between humans and animals, the so-called mutual benefit is actually more beneficial to humans.But because we don't kill these animals, their relationship to us is naturally different from the more brutal relationship of prey to predator.So this relationship is still in a class of its own.We exploit these animals at the expense of feeding and caring for them.It's a symbiosis of inequality because we control the situation and our animal companions have little to no choice.

The oldest symbiotic partner in our history is undoubtedly the dog.We don't yet know for sure when our ancestors began domesticating this precious animal.Probably at least 10,000 years ago.This domestication process is very interesting.The dog's ancestor was a wolf-shaped wild animal that must have been a fierce competitor to our hunting ancestors.Both the ancestors of man and the ancestors of dogs were cooperative hunters who hunted large game.At first there was no sympathy between them.But wild dogs have special abilities that we humans don't.In hunting activities, they have the specialty of hunting and driving prey, and they are agile and quick, and their senses of smell and hearing are very keen.If you can use part of the food as a price to take advantage of the dog's specialties, it would be a good deal.The deal was later struck, but we have no way of knowing for sure how the relationship between dogs and humans was formed.It may be that the first people brought the puppies back to the tribe's residence, and prepared to fatten them up and eat them.Unexpectedly, these dogs are alert at night and can serve as watchdogs.So early on the dog must have won man's favor.Dogs were kept in domesticated conditions, and they were also sent out hunting with men.In assisting hunting, the dog quickly showed the specialty of being good at running.Because these dogs were raised by people, they see themselves as members of the naked ape group and automatically cooperate with their owners.After several generations of selective breeding, people eliminated the troublemakers and bred improved domestic hounds.The new hound is easy to handle and easy to drive.

It is thought that the early domestication of ungulates was possible because of the development of this relationship between humans and dogs.Goats, sheep, and reindeer were more or less under human control before the advent of real agricultural production.The ability of thoroughbred dogs to assist in the hunting of these animals on a large scale and for long periods of time is considered a major factor in the domestication of these animals.Studies of the chasing behavior of today's shepherd dogs and wild wolves, which show that their hunting techniques are very similar, provide strong evidence for this idea.

After that, through careful selection and breeding, humans have bred a variety of symbiotic dogs with special purposes.Primitive hounds have no division of labor and are used in all stages of hunting.The descendants of the primitive hounds are specialized in one aspect of hunting.Dogs with particular abilities are inbred to enhance their special strengths.We have seen that the strategic dog was bred as a flock dog, whose main role was to round up livestock (the shepherd dog).Dogs with a keen sense of smell have been bred to track the scent of prey (sniff dogs).A good running, agile dog bred as a hunting dog; used to hunt down game that can be seen (狑豴).Other dogs were bred to be game hunters, exploited and reinforced by their tendency to "stand still" after spotting prey (prey pointing dogs and locating dogs).There is also a breed of dog that has been modified specifically for finding and retrieving game (the dog that retrieves the game).Smaller dogs were bred to kill vermin.Primitive watchdogs were genetically modified to become police dogs (big bulldogs with slippery skin, short waists, and drooping ears and lips).

In addition to these more general uses, other dogs have been bred for more specialized jobs.The most peculiar example is a hairless dog raised by ancient American Indians.After genetic selection, this kind of dog is smooth and hairless all over, with a high body temperature, and is used as a primitive form of hot water bottle in the dormitory. In more recent times, dogs were raised as draft animals to pull sleds; as messengers or mine detection dogs in times of war; as rescuers to find mountaineers in the snow; as police dogs to track and attack criminals; as a guide to lead the way for the blind; and even travel to space instead of astronauts.No other animal in a symbiotic relationship with us can serve us in such a rich and varied manner.Even with today's rapid technological advances, dogs still play an active role in many ways.Although many of the hundreds of dog breeds today are purely decorative, the days of dogs doing the heavy lifting for humans are far from over.

Dogs are such excellent hunting companions that we rarely attempt to domesticate other animals for this particular task.The only exceptions are cheetahs and certain game birds, especially falcons.However, humans have not been able to carry out controlled reproduction of these animals, let alone selective breeding.People often need to train them individually.In Asia, a diving bird, the pelican, is used as a fisherman's right-hand man.The eggs laid by the pelicans were taken home for the hens to hatch.The baby pelicans are raised by humans.Pelicans are trained to fish by tying them to the end of a rope.Pelicans wear collars around their necks to prevent them from swallowing fish they catch.The pelicans then take the fish they catch to the boat and spit it out.However, no selective breeding has been done to improve the pelican breed.

Another ancient form of animal exploitation is the use of small carnivores to exterminate vermin.This was developed after the emergence of agricultural production.due to hoarding of food.Rodents began to roam between warehouses, and animals were used to hunt and kill rodents.Cats, ferrets, mongooses, etc. started to help us.Through selective breeding, the first two animals have been fully domesticated. Perhaps the most important kind of symbiotic relationship is the use of large animals as draft animals.Horses, Asian wild asses, African wild asses, cattle (including buffalo and yak), reindeer, camels, llamas (llamas) and elephants are all widely used.After selective breeding, these wild animals have been "improved", with the exception of the Asian wild ass and elephant.More than 4,000 years ago, the Sumerians used donkeys as draft animals, but later introduced easier-to-manage horses, and donkeys were abandoned.Although elephants are still used as draft animals, it is very difficult to reproduce good breeds of elephants, so selective breeding has not been possible. Another relationship between humans and animals is to use animals as a source of products.These animals are not slaughtered, so they cannot be considered game in this respect.We just get something from them: milk cows, horses and goats; shear sheep and alpacas; make chickens and ducks lay eggs; tell bees to make honey; make silkworms spin silk. In addition to being the main types of hunting partners, predators of vermin, draft animals, and sources of products, some animals also establish symbiotic relationships with humans in more exotic ways.The pigeon was domesticated as a messenger, and people have been exploiting its amazing ability to return home for thousands of years.The relationship between man and pigeon became even closer during the war.In recent times, a phenomenon of anti-symbiotic relationships has emerged in the form of tamed falcons to intercept carrier pigeons.In addition, after long-term selective breeding, people have bred Siamese fighting fish and fighting cocks as means of gambling.Guinea pigs and mice are widely used in medicine as "living test beds" in laboratories. These primary symbionts are forced to form partnerships with resourceful humans.The benefit they get is that they are no longer regarded as enemies by humans, so their numbers have skyrocketed.In terms of worldwide numbers, these animals are very prosperous.However, this development also has limitations.The price they paid was that they lost their freedom to evolve, they lost their genetic independence.Although they are carefully raised, their reproduction is controlled by various strange ideas of human beings. In addition to the relationship between prey and hunter and symbiotic partnership, the third relationship between animals and humans is the relationship of competition.Any animal that competes with humans for food, living space, or interferes with our effective life will be ruthlessly exterminated.We need not list the names of these animals.In fact, animals that are neither edible nor symbiotic will be attacked and exterminated.This practice continues today in various parts of the world.Smaller animals that compete with humans are only occasionally harmed, but dangerous competitors have little chance of escaping humans.In the past, the primates most closely related to us happened to be our most threatening competitors; today, it is no accident that we are the only survivors in the primate family.Large carnivores are another class of dangerous competitors.Wherever the population reaches a certain density, these animals are wiped out.In Europe, for example, only the Naked Ape is overcrowded.Other than that, there are hardly any large carnivores left. The next relationship is that between man and parasitic animals.Their future is even more bleak.We may mourn the loss of a charming food competitor, but none of us shed a tear over the reduction of fleas.Due to the advancement of medicine, parasites have become less of a problem to humans.With that comes additional threats to other animals.Once the parasite has been eradicated our health will increase, the population will increase at an even more astonishing rate, and the need to eliminate all weaker competitors will be all the more urgent. The fifth relationship is the relationship between man and carnivore.They are also dying out.Humans have never really been the main food for any animal.As far as we know, at no point in history has the human population been drastically reduced by the presence of carnivores.But large carnivores, such as lions, tigers, leopards and jackals, and huge crocodiles, sharks and birds of prey attack and harass humans from time to time, and their life spans are numbered now.Ironically, the animals that kill the most (parasites aside) don't eat the nutritious carcasses of humans.This sworn enemy of mankind is the poisonous snake.As we shall see below, the snake is one of the most hated animals among the higher forms of life. These five types of interspecific relationships—prey, symbiosis, competition, parasitism, and hunting—also exist among other animals.Fundamentally, this is not a uniquely human trait.We are just further along in these relationships than other animals, and the five categories of relationships are the same.As I have said before, these relationships can be broadly regarded as relationships divided from an economic point of view.In addition, we have our own specific attitudes towards animals: scientific, aesthetic and symbolic. The scientific and aesthetic attitudes show the strong desire of human beings to explore.We are naturally curious and like to go to the bottom of things, which drives us to investigate all natural phenomena.The animal kingdom naturally becomes the center of our attention.To a zoologist, all animals are, or should be, equally interesting.They believe that animals are neither good nor bad, and they study animals for their own sake.The aesthetic attitude is also derived from this basic desire to explore, but the terminology used is different.In the aesthetic study of animals, their complex forms, colors, patterns, and behaviors are seen as objects of beauty rather than systems of analysis. The symbolic attitude is entirely different.It deals neither with economic value nor with the desire to explore, but with animals as anthropomorphic concepts.If an animal has a ferocious appearance, it becomes a symbol of war.If it looks clumsy and cute, it may become a symbol of children.It doesn't matter whether the animal is actually vicious or cute.Since this is not a scientific study, people don't look into its true nature.This lovable animal may have sharp teeth and a ferocious and aggressive nature; but as long as these features are not obvious, and its cuteness is prominent, it can be fully accepted as a symbol of ideals for children.As far as animals as symbols are concerned, we don't require their symbolic meaning to be appropriate, only the surface is so. The symbolic attitude toward animals has been called an "anthropoidomorphic" attitude.This ugly term has since been kindly abbreviated to "anthromporphic."Although the term is still a bit of a myth, it is in common use today.Scientists can't help but use the word in a slightly pejorative sense, thinking they have every reason to despise it.To do meaningful research on the animal kingdom requires objectivity at all costs.It sounds easy to be objective, but it is very difficult to do. In addition to consciously seeing animals as idols, images, and symbols, there are always subtle underlying pressures that compel us to see other animals as images of ourselves.Even an experienced and well-trained scientist can't help but say hello to a dog by saying, "Hey, old chap!" Even though he knows all too well that dogs don't understand, he can't help doing it.Why can't we help anthropomorphizing animals?Why is this tendency so difficult to overcome?Why do we say "Ah!" to some animals and "Bah!" to others?This is not a trivial problem.Our current culture puts a lot of energy into this inter-species relationship.We love some animals with great tenderness and a deep aversion to others.Considering people's likes and dislikes only from the perspective of economic value and exploration desire cannot be explained clearly.Clearly, the species signals we receive trigger some undeniably fundamental response within us.It would be delusional to think that we only see animals as animals.We claim that an animal is charming, irresistible or eerie.But why do we love or hate animals? To answer this question, we must first collect materials.Which animals does our culture love and which animals do we hate?How do these likes and dislikes vary by age and gender?To make a sound statement, a large body of evidence must be collected extensively.In order to obtain evidence, a survey was conducted on 80,000 British children aged 4-14.They were asked two simple questions on a zoo television show: "Which animal do you like best?" and "Which animal do you dislike least?" 12,000 responses were randomly selected for analysis. First of all, "love" between species depends on the degree to which various animals are favored by humans.how.The statistics are as follows: 97. 15% of children's favorite is some kind of mammal.Only 1.6% of children love birds; only 1.0% love reptiles; 0.1% love fish; only 0.1% love invertebrates; love amphibians accounted for only 0.05%.Apparently, mammals have something endearing about them. (Perhaps it should be noted that the responses were written rather than spoken. It is sometimes difficult to match the names written by children with the animals they refer to, especially with responses given by young children. It is easier for us to ascertain The loins (lions), hores (horses), bores (bears), penny kings (pelicans), panders (pandas), tapers (tigers), leapolds (leopards) refer to what animals, but make sure they write It is almost impossible to know what animals the beffle twigs, the skippingwoorm, the otamus or the coco-cola beast refer to. So the answers to these cute animals have to be cut.) If we only look at the "top 10 most loved animals", the specific statistics are as follows: 1. Chimpanzees (13.5%); 2. Monkeys (13%); 3.Horse (9%); 4, bushbaby (8%); 5, panda (7.5%); 6, bear (7%); 7, elephant (6%); 8, lion (5%); 9 , dogs (4%); 10, giraffes (2.5%). It is obvious that the preference for these animals is not swayed by economic and aesthetic value.If ranked by economic value, the top 10 animals would be quite different.Nor are these animals favored by children because they are the most graceful and colorful.On the contrary, they are rather clumsy, bulky, and dull in color.Yet these animals have strong personality traits, and it is to these traits that children respond when they make choices.This is an unconscious process.The above-mentioned animals must all have some important stimuli that make us feel strongly about certain features of ourselves, and make us respond spontaneously to these features, but we are completely unaware of what it is that is cute.The top 10 most dominant personality traits of animals are as follows: 1.These animals all have hair, not feathers or scales; 2. They all have rounded outlines (chimpanzees, monkeys, otters, pandas, bears, elephants); 3.Their faces are flat (chimps, monkeys, otters, bears, pandas, lions); 4.They all have facial expressions (chimpanzee, monkey, horse, lion, dog); 5.They can "operate" some small objects (chimpanzees, monkeys, goats, pandas, elephants); 6.Their posture, or body is upright some of the time (chimpanzees, monkeys, otters, pandas, bears, giraffes). Animals that scored more in each of the above dimensions were ranked higher in the top 10.Non-mammals are unlikable precisely because they are poor at these things.Children's favorite birds are penguins (0.8%) and parrots (0.2%).The penguin tops the list of birds because its body posture is closest to upright.Compared with other birds, parrots stand the most upright on the perch.In addition, it has several advantages.Its hooked beak gives the face a particularly flattened appearance.The way it eats is also very strange. Instead of bowing its head to take food, it uses its claws to send food into its mouth.In addition, it can imitate human speech.Unfortunately, despite its popularity, its body sags and becomes horizontal when it walks.In this way, compared with penguins who keep their bodies upright and walk waddlingly, parrots naturally lose a lot of points and cannot be compared with penguins. Several features in the top 10 animals are worth noting.For example, why are only lions included among the big cats?The answer may be that only the male lion is covered with a thick mane near the head, which results in a flattened face (as is clear from how the lion is depicted in children's drawings), which helps the lion win a bit. As we have seen clearly in previous chapters, facial expressions are a fundamental form of human visual communication, and they are very important.Only a few mammals—higher primates, horses, dogs, and cats—have developed this relatively complex form of communication.The top 5 of the 10 selected animals are all these animals.This is no accident.Changes in facial expression reveal shifts in emotion, creating an invaluable bond between animals and humans.Although we may not be able to accurately grasp the facial expressions of animals. As far as manipulative ability is concerned, pandas and elephants are par excellence.The panda has slender wrist bones, which can hold the thin bamboo branches that it depends on for food.Such skeletal tissue is unique in the animal kingdom.This allows the flat-footed panda to pick up small objects and bring them to its mouth while sitting upright.This personality trait makes the panda likable.Elephants can also use the unique anatomy of their proboscis to "manipulate" small things into their mouths. Uprightness is a human characteristic.Any animal that can keep its body upright has an immediate anthropomorphic advantage.The primates, bears, and pandas in the top 10 can often sit up and sometimes stand up, and even take a few staggering steps in this position.All this earns them a few precious points.Giraffes are very peculiar due to their body proportions. In a sense, they always maintain an upright posture.The dog's anthropomorphic social behavior scores high, but its body posture is very disappointing.Its body is completely horizontal.People don't want to throw in the towel just for that, and we used our ingenuity to quickly solve the problem by training dogs to sit and beg.To anthropomorphize the poor thing we go even further.Since we don't have tails ourselves, we started cutting our dogs' tails short; we bred for the bony tissue of our dogs' snouts to degenerate because of our own flat faces.As a result, many dogs now have unusually flat faces.Our desire to anthropomorphize the dog is so demanding that it must be satisfied, even if it weakens the function of the dog's teeth.We must remember, however, that our attitude towards dogs is purely selfish.We don't treat dogs as animals, but as a reflection of ourselves. If the mirror is too out of shape, we either make the mirror conform to our own image, or discard the mirror. We've been talking about the love of animals for 4-14 year olds.When grouped by age, children show certain tendencies in their liking for animals.As children grow older, their preference for some animals gradually decreases and their preference for others gradually increases. A surprising finding about these tendencies is that fondness for animals is associated with a certain characteristic of the animal.This characteristic is the size of the animal's body.Younger children prefer larger animals, while older children prefer smaller animals.To illustrate this relationship, let's take the two largest and two smallest animals in the top 10.Children who like elephants account for 6% of the total number, but among 4-year-old children, the number of people who like elephants is as high as 15%, but only 3% among 14-year-old children, and the proportion gradually declines.The rate of liking giraffes also dropped from 10% to 1%.On the other hand, only 4.5% of 4-year-olds liked the swastika.Then this percentage rises gradually, 11 in 14-year-old children. 9% of people like swastikas.Children who like dogs rose from 0.5% at the age of 4 to 6.5% at the age of 14.Among the top 10 animals with the highest scores, there was no significant change in children's love for medium-sized small animals. We can formulate two principles that summarize our present findings.The first principle of animal likability is "An animal is as cute as it has personality traits." The second is "A child's age is inversely proportional to the size of his favorite animal." How can the second principle be explained?We should remember that hobbies are based on symbolic equivalence.So the simplest explanation is this: Young children see animals as substitutes for their parents, while older children see animals as substitutes for their own children.Animals don't just make us think of ourselves, it must make us think of a certain class of people.For young children, parents are paramount protectors, and this image dominates the child's consciousness.The parents are tall and friendly, so any tall and friendly animals can easily be equated with the image of their parents.As children grow older they begin to express themselves and compete with their parents.They see themselves as controlling the situation.But it is difficult enough to control such huge monsters as human elephants and giraffes.Their favorite animals had to be shrunk down to the extent that they could be harnessed.The child becomes the parent in a peculiarly precocious form, and the animal becomes the symbol of the child.Children are actually too young to be real parents, only symbolic ones.Owning animals is therefore of great importance, and keeping pets develops into "childish parental behaviour".It is no accident that this curious animal, formerly known as a galago, is now a pet of children and has acquired the colloquial name bushbaby (baby in the bush). (Parents should be warned that children's urge to keep pets does not arise until late in childhood. It is a mistake to let children keep pets when they are too young. They may view animals as objects of destructive exploration, or as harmful animals to treat.) One very notable exception to the second rule of animal likability is children's liking for horses.There are two unusual aspects to children's love of horses.Analyzed by children's age, the number of people who love horses gradually increases with age, and then decreases with further age.Its peak coincides with the onset of puberty.When analyzed by gender, girls are three times more likely to like horses than boys.None of the children's liking for other animals showed this sex difference.It is clear that children's fondness for horses has its own peculiarities and needs to be examined separately. In the present context, the horse is unique in that it is a riding animal.This is a trait that none of the top 10 most popular animals have.The peak of the number of children who love horses coincides with puberty, and there are obvious gender differences in children's love for horses. If we consider the characteristics of horses that can be ridden and the above two points, we will definitely conclude that Conclusion: Children's fondness for horses must have a strong sexual element.If we equate riding with the symbolism of sexual intercourse, one might be surprised that horses are more attractive to girls.The horse, however, is a powerful, muscular, tall animal more suited to the masculine role.Objectively speaking, when riding a horse, the legs are separated, the horse's back is pressed tightly, and a series of rhythmic movements are added.Girls love horses because horses have masculine beauty, and riding postures and movements have sexual symbolism. (It must be emphasized here that we are considering children as a whole. 1 in 11 children loves horses more than other animals, and only a very small number of them actually own a foal or a horse. Do own Children with horses will quickly discover that there is much more to riding; so if they like horses it should be a different story.) One point still needs to be explained: Why does the number of teenagers who like horses gradually decrease after puberty?With the development of sex, one might have expected that the love of horses would gradually increase, not decrease.The answer can be found by comparing the curves of children's number of horses with the curves of children's sexual performance.The two curves fit very well, and the reason seems to be .As sexual awareness increases, and as the sense of privacy unique to juvenile sexuality increases, liking for horses diminishes as open "slapstick" activities between opposite sexes decrease.Significantly, monkeys were also not so cute during this period.Many monkeys have highly visible and glaring sex organs, including some fat, pink bumps.These parts have no meaning to younger children, so other obvious "personality" features remain lovable and unhampered.But for older children, the glaring genitals were embarrassing, and the monkeys' likability suffered. This is how children "love" animals.Adults respond more differently and more nuancedly to animals, but the same basic anthropomorphic factors apply to adults.Serious biologists and zoologists struggle with this fact.But as long as it is recognized that such symbolic responses do not represent the true nature of the animal, it is not only harmless, but also a valuable adjunct to emotional channeling. Before considering the other side of the problem - "hatred" of animals, one criticism is answered for the second time. It may be argued that the results mentioned above are purely cultural and therefore have no general significance for the human race as a whole.This is true as far as the exact nature of animals is concerned.Obviously, you need to know about pandas' existence before you can react to it.Humans do not have an innate reaction to pandas.But that's not the crux of the matter.The selection of pandas may be culturally determined, but the reasons for choosing pandas reflect deeper biological mechanisms at work.If this survey were applied to other cultures, the types of cute animals might be different, but people would still choose based on our fundamental, symbolic needs.The first and second laws of animal likability still apply. Now look at man's "hatred" of animals.We can do a similar analysis with statistics.The top 10 most hated animals are as follows: 1. Snake (27%); 2. Spider (9.5%); 3. Crocodile (45%); 4. Lion (4.5%). 5. Rat (4%); 6. Skunk (3%); 7. Gorilla (3%); 8. Rhino (3%); 9. Hippo (2.5%); 10. Tiger (25%) ). These animals have one important characteristic in common: they are all dangerous.Crocodiles, lions, and tigers are all carnivorous and bloodthirsty animals.Gorillas, rhinos and hippos are also very likely to hurt people if provoked.Skunks are always doing crazy chemical warfare, rats spread disease and are noxious animals for humans.Venomous snakes and poisonous spiders are also dangerous. Most of these animals don't have the personality traits that characterize the likable top 10 animals.The only exceptions are lions and gorillas.Of the top 10 animals to like and the top 10 to hate, only lions feature on both lists.Children's love-hate reaction to lions stems from the lion's strange combination of charming personality traits and ferocious carnivorous nature.Gorillas have a rich personality; unfortunately, their facial expressions make them appear aggressive and intimidating.This is just an accidental impression of its skeletal structure and has nothing to do with its true (and rather benign) nature.Coupled with its physical strength, it immediately became the best symbol of ferocity and brutality. 儿童对前10 名令人憎恨的动物所作出的反应，有一个最显著的特征，这就是普遍厌恶蛇和蜘蛛。仅仅是因为它们都有毒，这是难以解释清楚的，一定还有其他因素在起作用。分析它们令人厌恶的原因时发现，蛇令人憎恨是因为它“滑腻而又肮脏”；而蜘蛛令人厌恶则是因为它“多毛而又爬行”。这肯定意味着它们具有某种强烈的象征意义，或者是我们人类生来就具有躲避这类动物的强烈反应。 长期以来蛇一直被视为男性生殖器的象征。既然是有毒的生殖器；它就表示令人厌恶的性欲。这可以在一定程度上解释蛇不受欢迎的原因。但仅此一点是不够的。如果我们考察4— 14岁儿童对蛇的憎恨就会发现，蛇不受欢迎的高峰很早，在青春发育期以前就达到高峰期。甚至在儿童4岁时憎恨蛇的比例就很高——大约是3O％。其后，人数比例逐渐上升，6岁时达到顶峰。从此开始，比例才逐渐下降。到了14岁，其比例远远低于20％。尽管在各个年龄阶段女孩的反应较男孩略为强烈，但男女反应之间的区别并不显著。青春发育期似乎也不对少男少女的反应产生影响。 这一证据表明，仅仅把蛇当作强烈的性的象征是难以令人接受的。看来还有一个更大的可能性，人类对蛇形的东西有一种天生的反感。这不仅能解释为什么儿童在十分幼小时对蛇就非常厌恶，而且还能解释，在对动物的反应中为什么唯独对蛇特别憎恨。这与我们所了解的人类的近亲，黑猩猩、大猩猩和猩猩的反应相吻合。这些动物不仅同样惧怕蛇，而且从小就表现出这种恐惧。在很小的猿身上固然看不到这种现象，然而一旦它们长到几岁，开始离开母亲安全的怀抱作短暂的出游时，这种恐惧感便已形成。显然，对蛇的反感对它们自身的生存有着极重要的意义，人类祖先的生存也从中受益匪浅。尽管如此，仍然有人认为对蛇的恐惧不是天生的，而是一种文化现象，是个人后天学习的结果。据说在与世隔绝的环境中饲养的小黑猩猩第一次看到蛇时，它不会作出害怕的反应。但这些实验说服力不强。其中一些实验使用的黑猩猩年龄太小。如果几年后再做试验可能就会看到害怕的反应。另一方面，隔离会造成十分严重的后果，使幼小的动物智力发展受到阻碍。这类试验的根据是从根本上误解了先天反应的性质。无论外界环境如何，如果处于封闭的环境中，动物先天的反应也是无法成熟起来的。应该将这类反应看成是先天的易感性。要形成对蛇的反应，幼小的黑猩猩或儿童必须在早期与各种可怕的物体打交道，逐渐学会对这些事物作出否定的反应。相比之下，儿童对蛇的反应表现出更多的先天因素。儿童对蛇的恐惧大大超过对其他动物的恐惧，造成这种差异的原因就是先天因素。正常的小黑猩猩看到蛇所产生的恐惧和人类对蛇的憎恨是很难从其他方面来作解释的。 儿童对蜘蛛的反应又有不同，有十分明显的性别差异。从4 岁到14岁期间，男孩憎恨蜘蛛的比例逐渐增加，但增长缓慢。到青春发育期为止，女孩中憎恨蜘蛛的比例与男孩相当，此后才急剧增多。到了14岁，女孩憎恨蜘蛛的比例已两倍于男孩。这里面似乎有十分重要的象征因素。从人的进化来看，毒蜘蛛对两种性别应同样危险。男女两方都可能对蜘蛛有先天的反应，也可能没有先天的反应。但先天的反应却不能解释为什么在青春发育期憎恨蜘蛛的女孩要急剧增多。唯一的线索是女孩一而再、再而三地提到蜘蛛是肮脏的、毛茸茸的家伙。在青春发育期，男女青年体毛开始萌生。对于青少年来说体毛是主要的一种雄性特征。固而与男孩相比，少女对身体长毛更容易感到烦躁不安（无意识的）。与苍蝇一类的小动物相比，蜘蛛细长的腿更象毛发，更加刺眼。结果蜘蛛成了体毛最理想的象征。 这些就是人类看到或想到动物时感受到的爱憎感情。这些爱憎情感与我们经济的、科学的和审美的兴趣交织在一起，使我们与动物之间特别复杂的种际关系更加复杂；而且，这种关系还要随着我们年龄的增长而变化。概括起来可以说有“七种年龄”的种际关系。第一阶段是婴儿阶段（infantile phase）。此时我们完全依赖双亲，非常喜欢大动物，把它们视作父母的象征。第二阶段是小小父母阶段（infantile－parental phase）。此时我们开始与父母竞争，喜欢小动物并把它们作为孩子的替代物。这是喂养爱畜的年龄。第三阶段是客观的前成年阶段（objectivepre－adult phase）。这时科学和审美的兴趣开始支配象征的兴趣，是捕捉昆虫、使用显微镜、收集蝴蝶、喂养水生动物的时期。第四阶段是青年成年阶段（yonug adult phase）。此刻最主要的动物是我们人类的异性成员。除非纯从商业经济价值上着眼，其他一切动物都不会引起我们的重视。第五阶段是成年父母阶段（adult Parental phase）。这时象征性的动物又进入我们的生活，但它们只是我们子女的爱畜。第六阶段是后父母阶段（post-parental phase）。这时如果我们失去了自己的孩子，我们就会再一次把动物当作孩子的替代物。（对于无子女的成年人，用动物代替子女的阶段自然会来得早些。）最后是第七阶段，即老年阶段（Senile phase）。这一时期的特征是对保护和保存动物有浓厚的兴趣，而且兴趣主要集中在那些濒于灭绝的动物身上。只要这些动物的数量很少而且是在日益减少就要予以关注，至于其他人认为它们可爱与否，有用还是无用都毫无关系。譬如说吧，虽然儿童都很憎恨日益减少的犀牛和大猩猩，但它们却是老年人关注的中心。它们必须得到“拯救”。符号等值原则显然在起作用：作为个体的人，老年人行将就木，因而他们就把稀有动物作为自己行将就木的象征。老年人要拯救这些动物、使它们不致灭绝的情感反映出他们延年益寿的愿望。 近年来，保护动物的兴趣在某程度上已波及到较年轻的年龄组。很显然这是无比强大的核武器发展的结果。核武器有着巨大的破坏潜能，可以在顷刻之间灭绝人类。这对我们每个人都是一种威胁。因此，我们现在每个人感情上都需要保护作为珍奇象征的动物。 我们不应把这种观点视为保护野生动物的唯一理由。我们希望帮助那些困难重重的动物，这在科学和审美上也是完全有道理的。如果我们想要继续享有无比丰富、气象万千的动物界并把野生动物作为科学研究和美学研究的对象，我们就必须帮助这些动物渡过难关。如果任其灭亡，我们的环境就会变得非常单调，这将是十分不幸的。人类有着强烈的探索欲望，我们不能失去如此宝贵的动物资源。 在谈到保护野生动物的问题时，有时也提到了经济因素。有人指出，理智地保护和有节制地捕杀一些野生动物有助于世界有些地方营养不良（蛋白质缺乏）的人民。从短期的观点来看，这是完全正确的。但是如果从长远的观点看问题，事情就不那么乐观了。我们的人口如果继续以目前这种惊人的速度增长，最终的选择要么是牺牲自己，要么是捕杀动物。无论动物在象征、科学、美学意义上对我们如何宝贵，经济形势的变化将对它们十分不利。无情的事实是：一旦人口达到一定的密度，世界上便不再有其他动物的立足之地了。遗憾的是，有人认为动物是我们食物的主要来源，这种说法是经不起推敲的。直接食用植物比将植物转化为动物再吃效率更高。随着居住空间的需求的进一步增长，我们最终会采取更为极端的步骤，被迫合成食品。除非我们能大规模地向其他星球移民，减轻人口对地球的负担，武者采取某种方式更严厉地控制人口；否则，在不远的将来我们将不得不从地球上清除所有的其他生物。 如果这种观点你觉得有点危言耸听，请看下列数字。17 世纪来世界上裸猿的总数只有5亿，现已增加到30亿。每隔24小时人口就会增加15万。（从事星际间迁徙的权威专家一定会对这个数字感到气馁。）在260 年的时间内，如果保持现在的增长速度——这是不大可能的，地球表面将会云集着4000裸猿。整个地球表面的人口密度就会达到每平方英里1．1万人。换言之，我们在大城市看到的人口密度就会遍及地球的每一个角落。这对各种野生动物将带来什么后果是不言而喻的。这对我们人类自身的影响也同样是令人沮丧的。 我们无需老是谈论这样的梦魇，这种可能性要变为现实还为时尚早。我在全书中一直强调，尽管技术在飞跃发展，人类仍然是相当简单的生物现象。尽管人类有着崇高的思想、矜持骄傲，我们仍然只是微不足道的动物，受着动物行为一切规律的支配。远在我们的人口达到上面预见的密度以前，我们早就会因为违反许许多多支配我们生物本性的规则而瓦解、崩溃，不再是地球上主宰一切的动物了。我们容易沾沾自喜，认为这一切决不可能发生，认为我们与众不同，可以不受生物规律的制约。actually not.许许多多不可一世的动物种类现已灭绝，我们人类也不可能例外。我们迟早要日薄西山、让位给其他动物。如果要让这一天来得晚些而不是早些，我们必须长期而又严肃地把自己看作一种生物种类，以此意识到自己的局限性。这就是我写本书的原因；这就是我不用更常用的“人”字而故意称咱们为裸猿来嘲弄自己的原因。这样做有助于我们把握分寸，保持头脑清醒，以便去思考我们表面生活之下的实际活动。我的热心可能使我说过了头。我本来可以唱赞歌，可以描述人类许许多多的辉煌成就。但是我没有这样做，所以我所描绘的图画难免有些片面。我们人类是不同凡响的杰出动物，我无意去否认这一点或贬低我们自己。但这一切人们已经谈得够多了。我认为现在应该把硬币翻过来，是看看它的反面究竟如何的时候了。遗憾的是，由于和其他动物相比，我们所向披靡，踌躇满志，所以一想到自己卑微的起源和出身就不免觉得有些恼怒。因此我不指望因为我所写的一切而受到感激。我们是象暴发户一样爬到今天的显赫地位的，我们就象新贵们一样对自己的背景出身非常敏感，我们随时都可能暴露出自己的神经质。 有一些人非常乐观。他们认为，我们既然已形成了高级的智能并有强烈的创造发明欲望，我们能任意摆布局势，让它为我们服务。他们认为，我们的可塑性强，为了适应人类迅速上升的物种地位提出新的要求，我们能改变自己的生活方式。他们认为，届时我们能解决人满之患，消除紧张，克服丧失了个人隐私和独立行事带来的矛盾；我们能重建我们的行为模式，象大蚂蚁一样地生活；我们能克制自己的攻击行为和领地情感，克制我们的性冲动和父母性情；如果我们不得不变成象人工孵化的小鸡那样的个体，我们也一定能适应这种生活模式的。他们认为，我们的能力足以压倒一切生物冲动。我认为这纯属无稽之谈。人类原始的动物本性决不允许这样做。诚然，我们具有可塑性。诚然，我们的行为机遇性很强．但是我们机遇主义采取的形式却有极严格的限制。我在本书中强调了人类的生物特征，以此试图说明这些限制的性质。如果人类能清醒地认识并适应这些局限性，我们幸存的可能性就要大些。这不是要天真地“回归自然”。这只是说，我们应使自己理智的机遇主义的发展与基本的行为要求相吻合。我们必须提高素质，而不仅仅是增加数量。这样我们才能在技术上突飞猛进而又不会否认自身在进化中的传统。否则，受到压抑的生物冲动会积蓄起来，最后导致大坝的坍塌，我们精心设计的整个生存状态就会在一场洪水中付诸东流。