How the story of Travis the chimp relates to the strangement that consumes us

Death Tourist

Death Tourist

Iron
Joined
Apr 1, 2019
Posts
31
Reputation
24
shl-revis-trav01.jpeg


RIP Travis the Chimp!
I think I just serendipitously came across Travis in his younger days.




Favorite films
Despite the main "chimp" being an orangutan, I wonder if Travis ever stayed up late to
watch this.



RIP Travis the Chimp!
Enculturing human children is already terrifying enough, but enculturing other apes is
something out of the cruelest nightmare. I don't know of anything more worthy of crying
over. Rest in peace, little buddy. You're free from the rape of civilization now


RIP Travis the Chimp!
I should call in on John Zerzan's radio program about Travis. I'm really surprised that I
haven't been able to find anything he's written or said about the incident, considering how
often he brings up random acts of violence. It seems like Travis would be a poster-chimp
of his philosophy.


RIP Travis the Chimp!
"My call starts at 38:00.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query ... 12-20-2011
It didn't go as horribly as I anticipated. I wish that I hadn't spoken nonstop about Travis for so long, but I didn't want to seem crazy by randomly bringing up a chimpanzee for unknown reasons. And despite my failed attempt at having a normal voice, I at least sounded less incoherent than usual. I normally speak much softer and swifter, with less articulation, less inflection, and more mumbling."





Transcript:


LANZA: Civilization isn’t something which just happens to gently exist without us having
to do anything, because every newborn child -human child- is born in a chimp-like state,
and civilization is only sustained by conditioning them for years on end so that they’ll accept
it for what it is.


And since we’ve gone through this conditioning, we can observe a human
family raising a human child, and I’m sure that even you have trouble intuitively seeing it
as something unnatural, but when we see a chimp in that position, we [visually?] know that
there’s something profoundly wrong with the situation. And it’s easy to say there’s something
wrong with it simply because it’s a chimp, but what’s the real difference between us and our
closest relatives? Travis wasn’t an untamed monster at all.

Um, he wasn’t just feigning domestication, he was civilized. Um, he was able to integrate into society, he was a chimp actor
when he was younger, and his owner drove him around the city frequently in association with
her towing business, where he met many different people, and got along with everyone. If
Travis had been some nasty monster all his life, it would have been widely reported, but to
the contrary, it seems like everyone who knew him said how shocked they were that Travis
had been so savage, because they knew him as a sweet child. And — there were two isolated
incidents early in his life when he acted aggressively, but summarizing them would take
too long, so basically I’ll just say that he didn’t act really any differently than a human child
would, and the people who would use that as an indictment against having chimps live as
humans do wouldn’t apply the same thing to humans, so it’s just kind of irrelevant.

LANZA:
But anyway, look what civilization did to him: it had the same exact effect on him as
it has on humans.
He was profoundly sick, in every sense of the term, and he had to resort
to these surrogate activities like watching baseball, and looking at pictures on a computer
screen, and taking Xanax. He was a complete mess.





RIP Travis the Chimp!
I must have forgotten about Tyke because I spend most of my time thinking about
primates, but I just remembered that I saw her video several years ago. The revolution
transcends taxonomic order!


http://www.heart-animals.com/2009/07/de ... phant.html

Funny scene from Human Nature:

The Five Stages of Collapse (excerpts)

dmitry1.png

dmitry2.png

dmitry3.png

dmitry4.png

dmitry5.png




The Status Syndrome

The introduction begins the argument by suggesting that health inequalities are pervasive, probably increasing, and likely to be a consequence of a particular group's degree of control over, and participation in, society.
Marmot makes much of the gradient in health. Each step in the SES hierarchy is characterized by its members as being less healthy than the SES group above it, and of better health than the group below. This directs attention away from poverty as a cause of diminished health to factors associated with the continuum of socioeconomic inequalities. Chapter 1 is an extension of this latter argument, discussing the nature of the gradient and considering what it is about the gradient that is important. It is interesting that ‘Academy Award-winning actors and actresses live an astonishing four years longer’ than equivalent distinguished actors and actresses, but does this help us understand why clerical workers live longer than, say, cleaners? Marmot would seem to argue that it does, and points to a common denominator—social control.

Chapter 2 summarizes some findings from the Whitehall studies. Here he documents both the magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities and discusses the biological and social correlates of these inequalities. It is pleasing to see an analysis of the nature/nurture debate which acknowledges the deep and pervasive impact they have on each other. Chapter 3 comprises a discussion of income inequalities as a possible basis for health inequalities. Income is described as not so much a way of acquiring more material possessions, but rather as a way of ‘keeping score’ of one's social position and one's social value. No doubt higher income does lead to greater control.

Chapter 4 presents as a Weberian inspired discussion of occupational standing. Status hierarchies are ubiquitous, have a biological basis, and mental and physical health consequences. Chapter 5 continues the Weberian theme with a discussion of power inequalities and the impact these have on health. There is, in this Chapter, a thoughtful consideration of the concept of stress and ways that stress might be more usefully measured. Control of one's environment relative to the demands under which one operates is seen as central to understanding the health consequences of stress. Chapter 6 constitutes a discussion of the health consequences of social networks (gossip to humans, we are informed, is arguably equivalent to grooming by monkeys—it facilitates the formation of social groups). There is also a restatement of the ‘general susceptibility’ argument here in the context of the health benefits of close social ties and social networks. Perhaps the case is overstated and the evidence quoted somewhat selective. Chapter 7 is Marmot's analysis of the association between ‘social capital’ and health. The physical environment can, it is argued, contribute to a sense of trust and cohesiveness with somewhat predictable health consequences. The case for the importance of social capital seems, on the evidence presented, overstated. Chapter 8 takes the recent decline in health in the Soviet block as its focus. The point, of course, is that rapid change in social life (and control?) may have massive health consequences. Chapter 9 considers the case for the fetal and childhood origins of adult health, locating some adult health inequalities in the fetal and childhood period.

The final chapter has two themes, one questioning the moral basis of health inequalities, the other a consideration of policy options. The appendix is a reproduction of the recommendations of the Acheson inquiry.

Marmot's book is a valuable source of material on health inequalities. It is an engaging piece of work which is not only informative about the field but also about Marmot himself.

images
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Bluepill and ElliotRodgerJr
Legendary first post bro..didn't read a single fucking word but I assume it was any way.
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Zeta ascended, SayNoToRotting, Bluepill and 1 other person
Legendary first post bro..didn't read a single fucking word but I assume it was any way.

TL;DR

LANZA: Civilization isn’t something which just happens to gently exist without us having
to do anything, because every newborn child -human child- is born in a chimp-like state,
and civilization is only sustained by conditioning them for years on end so that they’ll accept
it for what it is.


And since we’ve gone through this conditioning, we can observe a human
family raising a human child, and I’m sure that even you have trouble intuitively seeing it
as something unnatural, but when we see a chimp in that position, we [visually?] know that
there’s something profoundly wrong with the situation. And it’s easy to say there’s something
wrong with it simply because it’s a chimp, but what’s the real difference between us and our
closest relatives? Travis wasn’t an untamed monster at all.

Um, he wasn’t just feigning domestication, he was civilized. Um, he was able to integrate into society, he was a chimp actor
when he was younger, and his owner drove him around the city frequently in association with
her towing business, where he met many different people, and got along with everyone. If
Travis had been some nasty monster all his life, it would have been widely reported, but to
the contrary, it seems like everyone who knew him said how shocked they were that Travis
had been so savage, because they knew him as a sweet child. And — there were two isolated
incidents early in his life when he acted aggressively, but summarizing them would take
too long, so basically I’ll just say that he didn’t act really any differently than a human child
would, and the people who would use that as an indictment against having chimps live as
humans do wouldn’t apply the same thing to humans, so it’s just kind of irrelevant.

 
Appreciate the effort for your first post. But it's a shame I'm not going to read any of this
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Zeta ascended, SayNoToRotting, Heirio and 3 others
Tldr the tldr tbh ngl.

LANZA: Civilization isn’t something which just happens to gently exist without us having
to do anything,
because every newborn child -human child- is born in a chimp-like state,
and civilization is only sustained by conditioning them for years on end so that they’ll accept
it for what it is.


The Status Syndrome

The introduction begins the argument by suggesting that health inequalities are pervasive, probably increasing, and likely to be a consequence of a particular group's degree of control over, and participation in, society.

Status hierarchies are ubiquitous, have a biological basis, and mental and physical health consequences.
Chapter 5 continues the Weberian theme with a discussion of power inequalities and the impact these have on health.
 

Similar threads

heightmaxxing
Replies
39
Views
3K
blurazice
blurazice
D
2
Replies
60
Views
3K
8incheer
8incheer
BucketCrab
Replies
68
Views
7K
LegitUser
L

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top