If curiosity killed the cat, how did evolution produce curious cats? Does curiosity really provide an evolutionary advantage, or is it a by-product of something else?
By “curiosity” are you referring to a questioning attitude?
I think you are mis-interpretting the ‘curiousity killed the cat’ expression. To put a different spin on it, one of Darwin’s theories from his voyage on the Beagle to the Galpagos Islands was that fear was a learned response. Having been there, I can see what he means. Sitting on a boat in the Galapagos, I had a red-footed booby land on my head (which is a BIG bird). Another guy had his hat stolen right off his head by a frigate bird. In either case, if he or I had wanted, we could have grabbed our respective birds and killed them. Look what happened to the tasty dodo bird when I went to greet explorers on maritius…
Still, by being afraid, one simply avoids certain situations that might otherwise produce learning experiences which would otherwise help us survive better (assuming the other expression ‘that which does not kill me only makes me stronger’ is true). Isn’t one of the points of taking a martial art that you will be prepared to defend yourself if you are ever attacked? Still, the idea fo simulating being thrown or attacked might be scary to some who would choose to not do it. Yet I would argue the person who is experienced and has done it before is better prepared to survive that scenario when it actually occurs.
And with that, I think I officially ruined this thread and turned it into a Great Debate of man’s fear vs. curiousity
Sorry about that.
I think we have a false premise. Curiosity did not kill the cat. I had to run over that critter with the van to do that…
What a curious question. Bang.
Cats have adapted to the perils of curious natures by evolving extra lives. A nine-lived curious cat has every advantage over its ancestor the unquestioning one-lived cat.
My belief is that curiousity is what made the cat what it is today. Along with an extra dose of stupidity. Of course, it killed the cat, lot’s of them. What we now have is the survivors.
The only survivors are either non-curious (dullards that sleep all the time) or the curious ones that are quick enough, flexible enough, resilient enough to live though the disaster that they create. Along with claws sharp enough to hang on to anything and the ability to land on their feet after the inevitable fall.
The stupidity factor kicks in when, after jumping onto a desk and having themselves and numerous books and papers along with a phone fall into a pile in the floor, they shake it off and think “that didn’t kill me, so, I should be able to make it to the top of that bookcase”
Cat’s curiousity, and/or lack of it, along with stupidity is a good example of evolution in action. How else could we have come up with these quick, flexible, durable, clumsy creatures that sleep 9/10ths of the time.
Jim
“Ignorance killed the cat, curiosity was framed” – C.J. Cherryh
It seems likely to me that curiosity does have survival value, despite its risks. A cat (or any other critter) that explores its surroundings will be more likely to see potential dangers and possible escapes from them than a cat that sticks to only things it’s familiar with.
Bob the Random Expert
“If we don’t have the answer, we’ll make one up.”
Broken crockery. Shattered wine glasses. Wrecked picture frames. Torn curtains. They’re not cats, they’re TEENAGERS. <Sigh>. I’d agree that their curious nature makes them more able to respond quickly to a sudden change, since they have mapped out EVERY SQUARE INCH of the house/apartment/cave.
If you want to kiss the sky, you’d better learn how to kneel.