Humans and Old Age Vs. Other Animals (generations, deaths, wisdom)

[imcurious]

1) Why do you think that at the end of life MANY humans linger in various states of disease of great variety (diabetes, heart conditions, cancers, dementia, stroke effects, etc., ad nauseum) and other animals in the wild either just drop dead or "get sick" and then die shortly thereafter?

2) As far as I know, humans are the only animals that take care of each other. You don't see sick polar bears, for instance being taken care of, long term, by other polar bears. It is "every animal for himself" pretty much.

What do you make of the fact that many humans get sick at the end of life and linger on, endlessly, in a system where other human beings are expected to take care of the sick ones and do things like change diapers, administer medications, feed, etc.? This seems highly unnatural to me, compared to the norm for other beasts in the animal kingdom.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by imcurious

1) Why do you think that at the end of life MANY humans linger in various states of disease of great variety (diabetes, heart conditions, cancers, dementia, stroke effects, etc., ad nauseum) and other animals in the wild either just drop dead or "get sick" and then die shortly thereafter?

2) As far as I know, humans are the only animals that take care of each other. You don't see sick polar bears, for instance being taken care of, long term, by other polar bears. It is "every animal for himself" pretty much.

What do you make of the fact that many humans get sick at the end of life and linger on, endlessly, in a system where other human beings are expected to take care of the sick ones and do things like change diapers, administer medications, feed, etc.? This seems highly unnatural to me, compared to the norm for other beasts in the animal kingdom.

Your whole premise is flawed, unfortunately. Elephants care for their elderly, as do some primates, which makes a certain amount of sense. These species (humans included) likely have more to gain from experienced group members than they have to lose through slow members.

Often times, among other social species (wolves etc) if an animal is dying, and they often know they are, they will drift away from the group and die alone.

And frankly, many animals don't die the quick death you envision. Predators in particular can have lingering deaths, as they have little to fear from other predators, so it becomes a matter of disease or starvation. Animals that sit lower down the food chain usually don't linger as long because they make easy pickings once they're sick.

[imcurious]

Originally Posted by Stubblejumper

Your whole premise is flawed, unfortunately. Elephants care for their elderly, as do some primates, which makes a certain amount of sense.

Specify EXACTLY what you mean by "care."

Originally Posted by Stubblejumper

These species (humans included) likely have more to gain from experienced group members than they have to lose through slow members

In what way, exactly? Please be precise.

Originally Posted by Stubblejumper

Often times, among other social species (wolves etc) if an animal is dying, and they often know they are, they will drift away from the group and die alone.

Yes. I know. That point agrees with my premise.

Originally Posted by Stubblejumper

And frankly, many animals don't die the quick death you envision. Predators in particular can have lingering deaths

Define "lingering" - what studies do you refer to?

Originally Posted by Stubblejumper

as they have little to fear from other predators, so it becomes a matter of disease or starvation. Animals that sit lower down the food chain usually don't linger as long because they make easy pickings once they're sick.

And that is how it "should be."

[JordanJP]

Originally Posted by imcurious

stuff

There's no need for a study on whether or not predatory animals linger and die. It happens fairly frequently. An apex predator gets sick or seriously injured and it eventually becomes too weak or too slow to catch its usual prey. It then starts finding animals that are outside its usual menu to feed on.


A good example would be bears or mountain lions. When they get too old, slow, or weak to catch their normal prey (or in the bear's case, forage) they come closer to human habitats... eating garbage, or pets, or occasionally people.

[purehuman]

I think that maintaining of human life has become a very lucrative business for some.....and extreme and unnatural measures are sometimes used to prolong it.....I think that for the very poor the lingering would be less, as modern medicines and equipment would not be readily available....and of course animals, with no medicines or medical interfearances at all... die quicker deaths.

[Stubblejumper]

Originally Posted by imcurious

Specify EXACTLY what you mean by "care."



In what way, exactly? Please be precise.

Pretty well the same as when they care for their young. Help getting food and avoiding predators.

The elephant example is particularly relevant I think. Females herd together, led by the eldest. Since she's most experienced with finding food and water, she's more valuable to the group than a younger member, so if she's unable to keep up, the others will help her.

Yes. I know. That point agrees with my premise.

My point was that predatory animals instinctually know they can't slow the group down. Humans don't have that issue.

Define "lingering" - what studies do you refer to?

to be slow in ending something

It's a basic premise of survival of the fittest, for starters. When an individual is outcompeted, as are the sick, they'll be left with little or no resources. So they starve. Thus,the strongest survive. It's particularly an issue with predators, as they need to be fully physically capable to bring down prey and the group (if they're pack animals) can't afford to be slowed down.

And that is how it "should be."

Only if you assume that the elderly have nothing valuable to offer. I'd disagree, as they have a wealth of experience that can be put to use (and I think that's likely the case over our collective history)

[dspguy]

It shouldn't be surprising that we treat our elderly different from other animals. Humans are sentient. That leads us to put value in things that other animal species would not.

Also, I don't know if an elder polar bear can share its wisdom with a young polar bear to teach it to fish better. Whereas, a human can relate his/her experiences that will have "value" to the younger generation, hence keeping them "valuable."

[texdav]

Mny of the younger that are weak are also elimianted and thsoe that get sick young are die. Males fight over females and often the weak are not allow to breed at all. So what is your point really?

[imcurious]

First of all, humans aren't the only animals that are sentient. All animals are sentient and insects are even sentient. Evidently you have not studied Buddhism. The Jane-ians won't even step on a bug for that reason.

When people talk about "care" they are using the word so loosely - in the wild animal kingdom someone above said it entails "help getting food and avoiding predators." That's a far cry from changing diapers, actually feeding someone and attending to their medical needs and virtually all needs (bill paying, shopping, medical, etc.).

Of course elders have something to offer younger generations, but not when they are seriously ill . . . when you are ill or have dementia or are in a coma or whatever, you are not going to be able to do anything, including teach people about anything. So the "usefulness" factor does not apply in this scenario . . .

The entire point was it is unnatural to LINGER for years and years in poor health.

My premise is that if people weren't so afraid of dying, this would not be such an issue - but because of the cultural fear of death in the West, you have the result of people somehow willing themselves to live for years and years in poor health, and then you have a system that supports that and people who are getting rich off it it and also people (usually women) who have to take care of these lingering, sick people, putting their own health at risk.

There is something really wrong with the idea that it is a person's "right" to live to be 120, no matter what the costs to others around them - in terms of not only money, but energy and well-being.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by imcurious

1) Why do you think that at the end of life MANY humans linger in various states of disease of great variety (diabetes, heart conditions, cancers, dementia, stroke effects, etc., ad nauseum) and other animals in the wild either just drop dead or "get sick" and then die shortly thereafter?

2) As far as I know, humans are the only animals that take care of each other. You don't see sick polar bears, for instance being taken care of, long term, by other polar bears. It is "every animal for himself" pretty much.

What do you make of the fact that many humans get sick at the end of life and linger on, endlessly, in a system where other human beings are expected to take care of the sick ones and do things like change diapers, administer medications, feed, etc.? This seems highly unnatural to me, compared to the norm for other beasts in the animal kingdom.

In reality most humans died off by the time they got to their old age.

As far as taking care of our own, look at native American Indians. They lived in a communal society, each man and woman was feed, no one was above anyone else, and you shared everything with anyone who wanted it. The few personal possessions that each person had were very close to them. As far as your home, your food, your tools, etc, they were everyones to borrow if needed.

Its part of what has made humans so effective as a species, our ability to live communally. Its why we evolved the ability to talk.