Shared eating

From Lukasgirtanner
Jump to: navigation, search

Alternative titles

  • ... (for example shared) food intake
  • collective ... (for example eating)
  • common ...
  • conjoint ...
  • joint ...
  • mutual ...
  • together ...


The reason why I wrote this page here too and already now is that I repeatedly aske(d) the question for myself how a human baby can or could reach its "full potential" of "phylogenetic sensitivity and happiness". I apologize if the content (especially the content in the second part of the page) is still a little bit "callow", I did not have more time to write on this page here so far.


A baby is much closer to innate and phylogenetic eating competence. in a similar way like the baby still explores everything with its mouth. A baby is also more directly able to smell and taste the environment and genuinely assess its environment by its mouth and tasting abilities. Animals also have a high competence in terms of their smelling abilities and they are able to directly communicate with each other over their smelling abilities and possibly also with a human baby. This has implications for both common/shared eating and direct baby-animal-interaction.

Aren't many and probably most animals - including grown-up/adult animals - able to instinctively feel that a human baby resembles their animal instincts more than the other older humans (older children, juveniles and adult humans)? And aren't many animals willing to learn, interact and explore with their environment with an innate and genuinely natural/phylogenetic curiosity? And aren't domesticated animals also intrinsically motivated ("eager") to interact with a human baby because domesticated animals instinctively feel and realize that a human baby is best able to grasp or understand what they are and how to interact with them? Doesn't a baby and a toddler also have an instinct (at least in most cases) to not injure the animal and only explore it in a natural and not risky way? UTSARA: But isn't it important too that both the human baby and toddler and also the animal (especially when it is small and lightweight like a mouse or a rat) have the opportunity to retreat into an area that the other interaction partner is not able to reach in case they do not want to interact with each other (anymore)? However, in case of a human baby, autonomously retreating is not possible because a baby can neither crawl nor walk and this is one of the reasons why baby's mother should be present whenever such interactions might happen in order to protect the baby from interactions that the baby does not like.

It is also possible that an interaction between a baby or a toddler and an animal might first be unsuccessful, but as the human baby learns how an animal reacts to its touching attempts, mutual trust might gradually build between an animal and and a baby. important is also that the animals are present on the tables or areas where the humans, including the human babies eat since eating is a common activity that all animals and humans (including the human babies) share and where animals are also best able to intuitively understand what humans are doing - namely eating like themselves in order to simply survive. by being present, the bond and mutual understanding between humans and (small) animals might develop and every animal could individually select and try out the food that it prefers. and for a baby or toddler, such mutual meals might be especially interesting since the animals will be even more eager to interact because the animals realize that they are fully accepted on par with the humans even on the eating table. it clear that it might not be a good idea if adult pigs (and to a lesser extent large dogs) are present on an eating table because they are too heavy, eat too much or create a chaos within the food. but mice, rats and maybe small dogs (about small/young piglets I am not sure) could very well be present on the table.

And if a human baby does not like animals generally or a specific animal species or individual on the table, don't allow the animal to be on the table during common/shared eating. It is the baby or toddler who decides what it want/prefers or not. But if a baby likes and prefers it that an animal is present on a table, why not allow or even encourage it? The likelihood that the baby will be more happy and develop a profound, instinctive and intuitive understanding of animals is increased. If the baby likes and even prefers animals eating always on the table (or on the floor, that would also be possible), a new "family tradition" could be generated that might remain for the (some) coming generations as long as a baby likes it.


The following section concerns compliance with UTSARA: illnesses that might be transmitted from animals to humans are an issue and it should be ensured/tested/researched/checked before any meal that no transmission of illnesses can happen. only when it can be ensured that no illness can be transmitted from animals to humans, common eating should be allowed. all types of illnesses with all types of illness transmitters have to be checked that they cannot happen. Maybe, it might not be possible to exclude the risk for an illness for a whole species or animal population within the girtannerhouse, and therefore, it might also be necessary to check every individual animal if it has such an illness, maybe even several times in a certain time interval. I am not a specialist for illness that can be transmitted from animals to humans, so the whole idea of eating together with the animals might need to be reassessed in terms of the risk of transmittable illnesses. But still, if it is safe enough to it, human babies could enormously profit from such an interaction with animals when the humans are eating (in an ideal case the humans would eat no or little meat) together with animals.

Mathematics (and biological integration and density)

Another question might be to which extent letting every entity freely eat in a common place helps mathematics learning and mathematization. Maybe, wouldn't happier babies, toddlers and children also be more intelligent and more motivated to learn mathematics? And might there be an indirect effect from carrying the positive energy from the babyhood interaction with the animals also to robotics and from there to engineering and mathematics generally?

Another indirect effect on mathematics and more directly on sustainability on the species might be that the intuitive and instinctive understanding of animals might help to better integrate various animals species in a more dense transhumanist human entity, see biological integration and density which indirectly helps mathematization because of increased human density and sustainability.

Additional ideas / To do

  • add "commensal(ity)" to the title proposal list at the top of this page here
  • check the page Ubiquitous access for small animals? to which extent some content on that page might be content for both pages or even primarily for this page here
  • I have not tested eating on the same table together with mice (and as far as rats are concerned, I have no experience at all): The only experience that I have in terms of mice eating somehow "together" with me is when I fed my two mice with products or remains of food products that I ate before and it worked and the animals developed some kind of bond with me in addition to the bond that they would just have developed when I had not fed them specifically or when I would just have put the food there without them and me being present at the same time.
  • "shared eating", "shared sleeping" (or bedding?), "shared working" (or workplace?) - one could (re)name or (re)organize the pages also like that

See also

See also a baby interacting with an animal


Copyright by Lukas Girtanner, 2005-2010