Ageing studies in five animals (hu...ns, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms) suggest how to reverse decline

[GoodTaste]

Ageing studies in five animals suggest how to reverse decline
Smoothing the speed bumps in an important cellular pathway seems to be implicated in ageing.
Ageing seems to affect cellular processes in the same way across five very different kinds of life — humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms — according to a study published in Nature on 12 April. The findings could help to explain what drives ageing and offer suggestions for how to reverse it.

Source: Nature

It is all too normal as usual to read this headline of the top news article in Nature - "Ageing studies in five animals suggest how to reverse decline".
As the news article unfolds itself, it explains what are the five animals - humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms. Well, I find that calling humans as animals is insulting and inappropriate and the title should be edited into something like "Ageing studies in five kinds of life suggest how to reverse decline".

Do you have the same feeling? Do you think that it should be edited properly?

 

[tedmc]

While calling people "animals" is insulting in everyday language, I think the classification is acceptable in scientific studies published in Nature magazine. The classification, "life" would be too general as plant life also comes under "life".

 

[5jj]

I find that calling humans as animals is insulting and inappropriate and the title should be edited into something like "Ageing studies in five kinds of life suggest how to reverse decline".

Scientists don't.

 

[GoodTaste]

While calling people "animals" is insulting in everyday language, I think the classification is acceptable in scientific studies published in Nature magazine. The classification, "life" would be too general as plant life also comes under "life".

That's simply a news article for public viewing, popular science served as daily food.

 

[5jj]

The original sentence with 'animals' is fine.

 

[jutfrank]

Do you have the same feeling?

I don't, no.

Why do you feel it's insulting and inappropriate?

 

[Tarheel]

Well, we're not plants. We're certainly not bacteria or fungi. What does that leave?

 

[GoodTaste]

I don't, no.

Why do you feel it's insulting and inappropriate?

I remembered there was a line in Men in Black:
Policeman speaks to criminal Boris with contempt: Boris the Animal...
Criminal Boris replies: Just Boris.

Here Boris feels that calling him animal is an insult, trying to correct the policeman.

Of course Boris knows in his heart that he is indeed an animal, which brings low self-esteem. To save his dignity, he pretends to be a man, because normal people feel insulted by being called animals.

Now the context of this thread is just a news article, not a scientific paper. So I feel it's insulting and inappropriate to call humans as animals.

 

[jutfrank]

Nature is a science journal so the writers use scientific language. We use scientific language not just to write scientific papers but also to talk about science.

There are lots of different registers and meanings of the word 'animal' and sometimes it can be used as an insult, as you say. But here, it's used in the scientific sense of an organism that's part of the kingdom 'animalia'. For that reason, it's perfectly appropriate.

 

[Tarheel]

Say: "Here Boris feels insulted because of being called an animal. So he corrects the policeman."

Yes, it can be an insult in some cases. However, you are talking about two entirely different scenarios.

 

[GoodTaste]

However, you are talking about two entirely different scenarios.

I think your cultural background of the West has helped you establish the clear conception. Yet a content like "five animals - humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms" can not be directly translated into Chinese for probably incurring a mild to strong insulting sense in traditional Chinese culture by calling humans as animals. Some euphemistic form should be adopted to avoid this cultural shock. In TCC, Human beings are considered to be the spirit of all things.

 

[Tarheel]

I think your cultural background of the West has helped you establish the clear conception. Yet a content like "five animals - humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms" can not be directly translated into Chinese WITHOUT incurring a mild to strong insulting sense in traditional Chinese culture by calling humans animals. Some euphemistic form should be adopted to avoid this cultural shock. In TCC, Human beings are considered to be the spirit of all things.

One, it's calling humans "animals" (no "as"). Two, there is a difference -- a big one -- between calling humans animals and calling people animals.

 

[Barque]

The people who wrote that article and did those studies wrote for an English-speaking audience. They didn't write it thinking of how it may sound to Chinese speakers. They obviously wouldn't have any idea of how a Chinese speaker would take it.

Some euphemistic form should be adopted to avoid this cultural shock.

English speakers and writers are under no obligation to adopt any such form. In a certain context humans can be called animals, in English. Why do English speakers need to worry about traditional Chinese culture? Why would they even know anything about it? You can't expect them to change their way of speaking because it sounds offensive in a different language that they probably know nothing about.

I think your cultural background of the West has helped you establish the clear conception.

On the contrary, it's your Chinese cultural background that has led you to take offence. If you want to learn English, you need to be accepting of how English works.

Yet a content like "five animals - humans, fruit flies, rats, mice and worms" can not be directly translated into Chinese for probably incurring a mild to strong insulting sense in traditional Chinese culture by calling humans as animals. Some euphemistic form should be adopted to avoid this cultural shock.

Well, then let the translator take care of it. This isn't a translation. This is the original English.

You're essentially saying that people in English speaking countries, who write in English, are (1) supposed to find out how their words might sound to people in a different country who speak a different language and come from a different culture, and (2) take care to ensure that they don't cause offence to them, even if their words aren't offensive in English. That sounds really strange to me. English speakers don't have to change themselves for others.

You asked if it was insulting. Several people told you it wasn't. Why don't you leave it at that?

The people who wrote that article and the report of the study are humans. I doubt they'd deliberately insult themselves. That should have given you a clue but it obviously didn't.

 

[GoodTaste]

One, it's calling humans "animals" (no "as"). Two, there is a difference -- a big one -- between calling humans animals and calling people animals.

What is the difference? I guess that the former is used in academic/scientific settings and is perfectly normal while the latter is insulting/offensive.

 

[GoodTaste]

Well, then let the translator take care of it. This isn't a translation. This is the original English.

You're essentially saying that people in English speaking countries, who write in English, are (1) supposed to find out how their words might sound to people in a different country who speak a different language and come from a different culture, and (2) take care to ensure that they don't cause offence to them, even if their words aren't offensive in English. That sounds really strange to me. English speakers don't have to change themselves for others.

You asked if it was insulting. Several people told you it wasn't. Why don't you leave it at that?

The people who wrote that article and the report of the study are humans. I doubt they'd deliberately insult themselves. That should have given you a clue but it obviously didn't.

See my Thank You to Jutfrank and my appreciation to Tarheel? You appear to be living in your own emotional world and I have no comment for that.

 

[jutfrank]

The issue here isn't really to do with Chinese culture especially. It could well be taken as an insult by a Muslim, or a Christian, or indeed anyone who has a spiritual worldview in which humans are exceptional to the rest of nature. The thing is that the materialist metaphysics that underpins mainstream science does not and cannot hold such a worldview. We're made from cells and proteins and amino acids just like any other organism. In fact, according to this physicalist view of nature, we're ultimately no different from rocks, in that everything in nature is reducible to hard physical matter.

 

[GoodTaste]

Yeah, we humans are mere collections of fundamental particles.

 

[Barque]

See my Thank You to Jutfrank and my appreciation to Tarheel?

What does that have to do with my answer?

You appear to be living in your own emotional world

Everyone does. I've no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[5jj]

This thread is going nowhere fast. I have locked it.