Perhaps:)
Then again, ants leave trails of pheromones, which is a way of leaving information for others to find later; this seems similar to writing/reading, just in a different format than the visual (or tangible, in the case of braille) marks on we leave.
But in any case, there are many things that seperate us, other than written language (wearing of clothes--unless one considers hermit crabs; or perhaps self-delusion--but how are we to know for sure?) We certainly seem more prone to mental disorders than wild animals, and we actually weaken ourselves by attempting to improve or protect ourselves (ie anorexia, wearing shoes.) We're different, sure, but also very similar. Emphasizing differences seems a way to distance ourselves so that we may justify the subservient positions we assign to other [animals, people, countries, etc.]
eat--Ants cultivate crops and "livestock."
breed--Don't know that that's a good reason to have children. And don't know that animals don't.
die--Animals will die in defense of their own. The also medicate themselves (parrots, for one, do this.)
It's not that librarians don't know--many are pretty rabid supporters of libraries--it's that money is not given to things as "boring" and "old-fashioned" as increasing the hard-cover section. Technology is sexy, and sexy sells. Reference books, eh, not so sexy.
The Library of Congress Classification is a version of "old-school" tagging. The problem with it is that it's imposed by "subject specialists" so it's very often useless for people who are fresh to the subject. So do we do the Wikipedia thing and let anyone tag library materials, or do we let "experts" keep imposing subjects? Sticky topic, and I don't know the answer. Dewey may be the answer, but in most libraries, Dewey is really just a small piece of the larger Library of Congress system. Library classification could use a serious overhaul.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that wasn't my intention , I swear :)
Perhaps :)
Then again, ants leave trails of pheromones, which is a way of leaving information for others to find later; this seems similar to writing/reading, just in a different format than the visual (or tangible, in the case of braille) marks on we leave.
But in any case, there are many things that seperate us, other than written language (wearing of clothes--unless one considers hermit crabs; or perhaps self-delusion--but how are we to know for sure?) We certainly seem more prone to mental disorders than wild animals, and we actually weaken ourselves by attempting to improve or protect ourselves (ie anorexia, wearing shoes.) We're different, sure, but also very similar. Emphasizing differences seems a way to distance ourselves so that we may justify the subservient positions we assign to other [animals, people, countries, etc.]
NY Times just put out an article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26devo.h tml?th&emc=th
Hate to do this, but isn't that book a little dated? A lot has been rethought in the past 20 years.
eat--Ants cultivate crops and "livestock." breed--Don't know that that's a good reason to have children. And don't know that animals don't. die--Animals will die in defense of their own. The also medicate themselves (parrots, for one, do this.)
Soooo...human cultures without a written language aren't actually human beings? Huh.
It's not that librarians don't know--many are pretty rabid supporters of libraries--it's that money is not given to things as "boring" and "old-fashioned" as increasing the hard-cover section. Technology is sexy, and sexy sells. Reference books, eh, not so sexy.
Correction: Dewey is not a part of LCC, I know, but they're the same concept. Bah.
The Library of Congress Classification is a version of "old-school" tagging. The problem with it is that it's imposed by "subject specialists" so it's very often useless for people who are fresh to the subject. So do we do the Wikipedia thing and let anyone tag library materials, or do we let "experts" keep imposing subjects? Sticky topic, and I don't know the answer. Dewey may be the answer, but in most libraries, Dewey is really just a small piece of the larger Library of Congress system. Library classification could use a serious overhaul.