Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, this came up in the Blood Dolphins thread, and I'm wondering what the rest of you on dakka think about this.

First off, definitions, courtesy of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(ethics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism

Biocentrism-

Biocentrism (Greek: βίος, bio, "life"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center"), in a political and ecological sense, is an ethical point of view which extends inherent value to non-human species, ecosystems, and processes in nature; it is opposed to anthropocentrism which centers on the value of humans.

Biocentrism states that nature does not exist simply to be used or consumed by humans, but that humans are simply one species amongst many, and that because we are part of an ecosystem, any actions which negatively affect the living systems of which we are a part, adversely affect us as well, whether or not we maintain a biocentric worldview. Biocentrists believe that all species have inherent value, and that humans are not "superior" in a moral or ethical sense.


Anthropocentrism-

Anthropocentrism is a concept that human beings may regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe, or that they assess reality through an exclusively human perspective. The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

I just copy and pasted straight from wikipedia. I really couldn't have put it any better.

I'm personally strongly biocentric. I really don't see humans as being superior to other species.

So what do you think?

Frazzled wrote:

I don't recall mentioning nothin bout no veggies

ALERT! MOD TRYING TO DERAIL THREAD!

I reiterate: The anthropocentrists are not allowed to talk to the aliens when we make first contact.

I don't want some damn fool telling the aliens that "God" granted humans and humans only special rights to do what they will with all in creation, and that if the aliens want rights they have to prove their worthiness to us.

Because, you know, they might decide to "prove their worthinesses" by demonstarting the power of their planet crisping laser arrays.

Gailbraithe wrote:I reiterate: The anthropocentrists are not allowed to talk to the aliens when we make first contact.

I don't want some damn fool telling the aliens that "God" granted humans and humans only special rights to do what they will with all in creation, and that if the aliens want rights they have to prove their worthiness to us.

Because, you know, they might decide to "prove their worthinesses" by demonstarting the power of their planet crisping laser arrays.

While you may have a point, let's try not to start off the discussion with possibly inflammatory comments.

The procedure for first contact was laid down in international agreements decades ago.

This thread isn't about first contact people! We don't want this to go the way of some recent threads.

Gailbraithe wrote:I reiterate: The anthropocentrists are not allowed to talk to the aliens when we make first contact.

I don't want some damn fool telling the aliens that "God" granted humans and humans only special rights to do what they will with all in creation, and that if the aliens want rights they have to prove their worthiness to us.

Because, you know, they might decide to "prove their worthinesses" by demonstarting the power of their planet crisping laser arrays.

What if i believe that we are the single greatest speicies on the planet but, i don't have an oppinion on the universe since we havn't encountered an alien species yet. What i am classified as if i follow evidence and observation that we are the most intelligent species on the palnet and therefore we deserve more intrinsic rights. if a more advanced species shows up then they deserve equal rights as humans

Kilkrazy wrote:The procedure for first contact was laid down in international agreements decades ago.

Nuke 'em!

While I believe everything has a value it does exist for the consumption of humans. Nature itself exists only because it can. I recall learning that as soon as the earth could support life BAM!. There was life and then some.

One study I remember reading about was when wolves were killed/driven off by people in the U.S. The deer started to overpopulate and as they ate certain trees they were wiping that species of tree out of the area. Lesson: Life will consume and be consumed to the point that more instinct driven animals will feth themselves up. There's a resource balancing act here and when it doesn't settle down it hits back hard.

Was there balance with the wolves, deer and foliage? Yes, when that changed (in this case people killing wolves) the deer were too base and nearly starved themselves of their food source. Same thing with dinos getting wiped and small mammals surviving to reign higher on the food chain. Humans are able to point to that thinning treeline and say "Plant some more trees so we can cut down in 20 years"

"What's that? That fancy hat-maker is using mercury to make hats and it drives him mad?! New chemical/process please."

"Eh? The eco-warriors are crying because we pollute and won't buy our gak? Rename it Green something and make it about 10% recycled."

Even our greed shows itself in perpetuating this system called nature so our kids can 'enjoy it' / 'exploit it'

Anthropocentrism does not imply that only humans have rights.

What if we replace the "anthro" part of Anthropocentrism with some reference to sophonts? Because I'm one of those nutters who thinks that nature exists for us to exploit, although I'd be perfectly happy to grant equal rights to sophonts of any form, be it xenobiological, electronic, or otherwise.

Gailbraithe wrote:I reiterate: The anthropocentrists are not allowed to talk to the aliens when we make first contact.

I don't want some damn fool telling the aliens that "God" granted humans and humans only special rights to do what they will with all in creation, and that if the aliens want rights they have to prove their worthiness to us.

Because, you know, they might decide to "prove their worthinesses" by demonstarting the power of their planet crisping laser arrays.

Can you please explain to a poor agnostic anthropocentrist what the "God" has to see with that? Human beeings are following the same instinct as any other species in the world by considering their needs before any others species'.

Besides, who can possibly tell if the aliens wouldn't be upset if we refused to eat them as any other species (perhaps they would see the fact of being treated differently as some kind of insult?)

What does this mean in a real world situation?

There are two extremes presented here. I can eat that fish and a larger fish can eat me. If I can eat both the fish and the larger fish, I am the largest fish. I don't have to be special because of that, I just have to be the biggest.

If you are asking people to stop eating dolphins... more simply, plainly, and fairly, to stop eating anything. What.

...and that because we are part of an ecosystem...

We are a part of that ecosystem. Respecting the environment has little to do with respecting the animal of the day. It has to do with respecting things equally. Taking into account, of course, that asking for respect of the environment in an abstract way, from people, makes very little sense. Protect what? What exactly can we sacrifice on reasonable grounds?

Should we over-fish. NO.
Should we dump toxic waste without regulation. NO.
Should people eat meat. BBQ TIME.

What is the question here?

The two positions seem framed to encourage people to take sides and yell at each other, rather than discuss what is a rather complex issue.

Can we not, for instance, consider the idea that while humans have more rights than animals, that doesn't mean that animal has none? I would happily kill a wolf if it was about to kill a human, but I would not support going out and killing wolves for fun. This is because in the first instance, I believe the right of the human to live to be greater than that of the wolf, but that the human's rights aren't so dominant that his right to fun is greater than the wolf's right to live.

Now exactly where human rights become dominant over animal rights is a tough one, and depends a lot on the human right in question, and on the animal. Simply put, the more trivial the human right the less it should be dominant, while the more intelligent the animal the more it should be respected.

I think, outside of a few fringe whackos on each side of the debate, most people think more or less along these lines, albeit with different lines drawn for different creatures.

sebster wrote:The two positions seem framed to encourage people to take sides and yell at each other, rather than discuss what is a rather complex issue.

Can we not, for instance, consider the idea that while humans have more rights than animals, that doesn't mean that animal has none? I would happily kill a wolf if it was about to kill a human, but I would not support going out and killing wolves for fun. This is because in the first instance, I believe the right of the human to live to be greater than that of the wolf, but that the human's rights aren't so dominant that his right to fun is greater than the wolf's right to live.

Now exactly where human rights become dominant over animal rights is a tough one, and depends a lot on the human right in question, and on the animal. Simply put, the more trivial the human right the less it should be dominant, while the more intelligent the animal the more it should be respected.

I think, outside of a few fringe whackos on each side of the debate, most people think more or less along these lines, albeit with different lines drawn for different creatures.

That's a balanced opinion and I fully agree with it...but it's so funny to get in a rant!!!

Hyenajoe wrote:

sebster wrote:The two positions seem framed to encourage people to take sides and yell at each other, rather than discuss what is a rather complex issue.

Can we not, for instance, consider the idea that while humans have more rights than animals, that doesn't mean that animal has none? I would happily kill a wolf if it was about to kill a human, but I would not support going out and killing wolves for fun. This is because in the first instance, I believe the right of the human to live to be greater than that of the wolf, but that the human's rights aren't so dominant that his right to fun is greater than the wolf's right to live.

Now exactly where human rights become dominant over animal rights is a tough one, and depends a lot on the human right in question, and on the animal. Simply put, the more trivial the human right the less it should be dominant, while the more intelligent the animal the more it should be respected.

I think, outside of a few fringe whackos on each side of the debate, most people think more or less along these lines, albeit with different lines drawn for different creatures.

That's a balanced opinion and I fully agree with it...but it's so funny to get in a rant!!!

HERE HERE

sebster wrote:Can we not, for instance, consider the idea that while humans have more rights than animals, that doesn't mean that animal has none? I would happily kill a wolf if it was about to kill a human, but I would not support going out and killing wolves for fun. This is because in the first instance, I believe the right of the human to live to be greater than that of the wolf, but that the human's rights aren't so dominant that his right to fun is greater than the wolf's right to live.

But you don't need to invoke species to make that argument.

If I have a gun, I see a wolf charging you with clear intent to kill, and I shoot that wolf -- disregarding whether that is moral or not -- how is that fundamentally different than if I have a gun, I see a man charging you with clear intent to kill, and I shoot that man? Because it seems to me it is not fundamentally different. As long as we're comfortable with the premise that "I'm going to eat you, nom nom nom." is mens rea (evil intent), there's no reason not to treat the wolf like any other would-be murderer.

(PSA: Healthy wolves almost never attack humans. You are significantly more likely to be attacked by a deer than a wolf, even if one corrects for the greater size of the deer population. But no one ever tries to vilify Bambi.)

Gailbraithe wrote:But you don't need to invoke species to make that argument.

Meh, change the example then. I'm comfortable with the idea of keeping cows for the purpose of killing and eating them, most people are. Most people would not be comfortable with the idea of keeping people for the purpose of killing and eating them. It is reasonable to assume that most people recognise that animals do not exhibit the same level of rights as humans.

At the same time, while people are comfortable with keeping cows for the purpose of killing and eating them, they would not be alright with the idea of torturing a cow for our own pleasure. So it can be assumed that animals have some level of rights, even though they're below humans. The issue then is what level of rights that ought to be, and to what extent that level of rights can be increased or decreased by the intelligence and other characteristics of the creature.

If you're in a mood to turn this into an argument, then you'll no doubt argue that no every person is alright with killing cows to eat them. In which case you can replace that with the idea that we have a welfare state for humans in which a human is deemed by right to deserve access to food and shelter, but no similar level of care for animals.

sebster wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:But you don't need to invoke species to make that argument.

Meh, change the example then. I'm comfortable with the idea of keeping cows for the purpose of killing and eating them, most people are. Most people would not be comfortable with the idea of keeping people for the purpose of killing and eating them. It is reasonable to assume that most people recognise that animals do not exhibit the same level of rights as humans.

At the same time, while people are comfortable with keeping cows for the purpose of killing and eating them, they would not be alright with the idea of torturing a cow for our own pleasure. So it can be assumed that animals have some level of rights, even though they're below humans. The issue then is what level of rights that ought to be, and to what extent that level of rights can be increased or decreased by the intelligence and other characteristics of the creature.

If you're in a mood to turn this into an argument, then you'll no doubt argue that no every person is alright with killing cows to eat them. In which case you can replace that with the idea that we have a welfare state for humans in which a human is deemed by right to deserve access to food and shelter, but no similar level of care for animals.

No, I pretty much agree with your position. I believe in animal rights, but I don't base it on species. I base it on capacity to suffer -- which tends to be capped by the limits of a species nervous system, so in most case the end results are the same. I think it's okay to keep cows for the purpose of eating them, but I also think you have to treat them well. So I try to only buy free range cattle, and not factory farmed animals that are kept in horrible conditions that would seem to promote suffering. I am looking forwad towards the advent of affordable vat grown beef, pork and chicken though. Because it would be nice if we could have truly cruelty free meat, rather than cruelty-minimized-till-the-last-minute meat.

Here's the real question though: If you had a rocket launcher/SAM, and you saw a group of hunters chasing wolves from a helicopter with an assault rifle for sport, would you shoot them with the rocket launcher?

I would. Because that's totally murder in my book. And if we're going to go by species, I give it to wolves. Wolves are way, way better than humans.

Gailbraithe wrote:

sebster wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:But you don't need to invoke species to make that argument.

Meh, change the example then. I'm comfortable with the idea of keeping cows for the purpose of killing and eating them, most people are. Most people would not be comfortable with the idea of keeping people for the purpose of killing and eating them. It is reasonable to assume that most people recognise that animals do not exhibit the same level of rights as humans.

At the same time, while people are comfortable with keeping cows for the purpose of killing and eating them, they would not be alright with the idea of torturing a cow for our own pleasure. So it can be assumed that animals have some level of rights, even though they're below humans. The issue then is what level of rights that ought to be, and to what extent that level of rights can be increased or decreased by the intelligence and other characteristics of the creature.

If you're in a mood to turn this into an argument, then you'll no doubt argue that no every person is alright with killing cows to eat them. In which case you can replace that with the idea that we have a welfare state for humans in which a human is deemed by right to deserve access to food and shelter, but no similar level of care for animals.

No, I pretty much agree with your position. I believe in animal rights, but I don't base it on species. I base it on capacity to suffer -- which tends to be capped by the limits of a species nervous system, so in most case the end results are the same. I think it's okay to keep cows for the purpose of eating them, but I also think you have to treat them well. So I try to only buy free range cattle, and not factory farmed animals that are kept in horrible conditions that would seem to promote suffering. I am looking forwad towards the advent of affordable vat grown beef, pork and chicken though. Because it would be nice if we could have truly cruelty free meat, rather than cruelty-minimized-till-the-last-minute meat.

Here's the real question though: If you had a rocket launcher/SAM, and you saw a group of hunters chasing wolves from a helicopter with an assault rifle for sport, would you shoot them with the rocket launcher?

I would. Because that's totally murder in my book. And if we're going to go by species, I give it to wolves. Wolves are way, way better than humans.

And, in an ironic turn of events, a nearby Biocentric (correct usage?) Wolf sees you attempting to kill the humans, but does not see that the humans are attempting to kill wolves.
This Wolf identifies that you are attacking people for no apparent reason and kills you!

I agree that wolves are cooler than "people" (by which I mean the generic masses, rather than any individuals I know; Not that I know any wolves either...), though I can't say I would attack/kill(murder) other humans for killing(murdering) said wolves.

Gailbraithe wrote:No, I pretty much agree with your position. I believe in animal rights, but I don't base it on species. I base it on capacity to suffer -- which tends to be capped by the limits of a species nervous system, so in most case the end results are the same. I think it's okay to keep cows for the purpose of eating them, but I also think you have to treat them well. So I try to only buy free range cattle, and not factory farmed animals that are kept in horrible conditions that would seem to promote suffering. I am looking forwad towards the advent of affordable vat grown beef, pork and chicken though. Because it would be nice if we could have truly cruelty free meat, rather than cruelty-minimized-till-the-last-minute meat.

You're suggesting brain-free meat, if I understand your position correctly. No brain = no pain.

Here's the real question though: If you had a rocket launcher/SAM, and you saw a group of hunters chasing wolves from a helicopter with an assault rifle for sport, would you shoot them with the rocket launcher?

I wouldn't shoot them with a rocket launcher. I would shoot the wolves with a template. AP6 is meh, but it will take down Kroot hounds pretty easily.

I would. Because that's totally murder in my book. And if we're going to go by species, I give it to wolves. Wolves are way, way better than humans.

That is crazy in my book. I like kitties, but people are still at least marginally more important than cats.

del'Vhar wrote:And, in an ironic turn of events, a nearby Biocentric (correct usage?) Wolf sees you attempting to kill the humans, but does not see that the humans are attempting to kill wolves. This Wolf identifies that you are attacking people for no apparent reason and kills you!

At least I was killed by something totally awesome: a wolf that understand philosophy. Bitchin.

I agree that wolves are cooler than "people" (by which I mean the generic masses, rather than any individuals I know; Not that I know any wolves either...), though I can't say I would attack/kill(murder) other humans for killing(murdering) said wolves.

If they were sport killing wolves, I would. Not saying its moral, but if I knew someone killed wolves for sport I would lose all human sympathy for them. I'm dead serious when I say I think wolves are better than humans. If I was forced to choose between a button that killed all wolves and one that killed all humans, this planet would be inherited by our four-legged friends.

But I totally acknowledge that is not a rational position. Wolves are just that awesome. Wolves exist on a plane of awesomeness that transcends all laws of reality, logic, reason and science. Wolves are so awesome that I hate the Space Wolves chapter for tainting the concept of wolves by mixing it with something as lame as Space Marines, which I think are totally awesome in any sort of non-wold related context. I think Furries should be sent to camps simply because so many of the bastards choose wolves as a focus of their perversion.

We should invade Canada, drive off the human inhabitants, and turn the entire country in a wolf preserve.

::deep breaths::

Sorry. I like wolves.

Wrexasaur wrote:You're suggesting brain-free meat, if I understand your position correctly. No brain = no pain.

Yes. The technology is currently in development. At a recent symposium on cultured meat (meat grown without an animal) the consensus was that with current technology could be feasibly scaled to produce minced and ground meat products -- sausages, hotdogs, chicken nuggets, etc. -- right now, and actual meat, with muscle texture and fatty tissues, is about a decade out. And its at the "these are engineering challenges" stage, which is good, because humans are good at solving engineering problems. Sort of our knack.

I wouldn't shoot them with a rocket launcher. I would shoot the wolves with a template. AP6 is meh, but it will take down Kroot hounds pretty easily.

True enough.

That is crazy in my book. I like kitties, but people are still at least marginally more important than cats.

Meh. I'm allergic to cats. Screw 'em.

Gailbraithe wrote:Yes. The technology is currently in development. At a recent symposium on cultured meat (meat grown without an animal) the consensus was that with current technology could be feasibly scaled to produce minced and ground meat products -- sausages, hotdogs, chicken nuggets, etc. -- right now, and actual meat, with muscle texture and fatty tissues, is about a decade out. And its at the "these are engineering challenges" stage, which is good, because humans are good at solving engineering problems. Sort of our knack.

There was this one time that I got a roasted chicken from the store. There was a tiny brain in it. I was a bit perplexed at first. There was a brain IN my food, a fething brain. I thought about eating the tiny brain but it was just too creepy, keeping it was creepier, so I did neither. At some point, that brain disappeared and I haven't really thought much about it since.

Now that you have reminded me of the tiny chicken brain, all chicken dishes will taste a little bit like gnar-gnar. The taste of looking and being freaked the feth out. Traumatized.

I would eat me some vat-meat. Spam has needed an upgrade for a while now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forgot about the thought of the taste of chicken brain already. It won't linger for too long, too busy thinking about vat-meat. SPAM2000.

Gailbraithe wrote:I believe in animal rights, but I don't base it on species. I base it on capacity to suffer -- which tends to be capped by the limits of a species nervous system, so in most case the end results are the same.

Given that the capacity to suffer is dependent upon the physical characteristics (nervous system) of the animal in question it seems reasonable infer that the capacity to suffer depends upon species. If that's the case, then what rights a given animal might be accorded would necessarily depend upon its species as well.

Basically, in summary of all the posts above. Be glad you didn't include a 'Who cares?' option.

Gailbraithe wrote:No, I pretty much agree with your position. I believe in animal rights, but I don't base it on species. I base it on capacity to suffer -- which tends to be capped by the limits of a species nervous system, so in most case the end results are the same.

I'd expand that to include intelligence as well, and then accept that while hard to justify intellectually there needs to be greater rights extended to animals I think are cool. Don't feth with dogs.

Although it needs to be pointed out, as dogma has already, that basing rights on factors that are consistent across the species then it really does just boil down to a species by species argument.

I think it's okay to keep cows for the purpose of eating them, but I also think you have to treat them well. So I try to only buy free range cattle, and not factory farmed animals that are kept in horrible conditions that would seem to promote suffering. I am looking forwad towards the advent of affordable vat grown beef, pork and chicken though. Because it would be nice if we could have truly cruelty free meat, rather than cruelty-minimized-till-the-last-minute meat.

Yeah, I agree.

Here's the real question though: If you had a rocket launcher/SAM, and you saw a group of hunters chasing wolves from a helicopter with an assault rifle for sport, would you shoot them with the rocket launcher?

I would. Because that's totally murder in my book. And if we're going to go by species, I give it to wolves. Wolves are way, way better than humans.

No, I wouldn't. Wolves are cool and all but killing people is pretty serious business.

dogma wrote:Anthropocentrism does not imply that only humans have rights.

Also, animal rights are contingent upon anthropocentrism, as rights are a human construct and thus can only be granted to animals by humans. Animals don't recognise each other's rights, at least, not in a way that we would identify with.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

I don't recall mentioning nothin bout no veggies

ALERT! MOD TRYING TO DERAIL THREAD!

Relax, its not Frazzie just someone hacking into his account. The hacker trying to fit in with the persona he has stolen by posting random unrelated images of dangerous dogs. However despite good research he overlooked the fact that Frazzie has a different idea of what makes a dog dangerous to everyone else.

Anthropocentric. In the sense that to a human, moral/social value must be based on the degree of similarity to humanity, i.e. the human conception of intelligence.

Biocentrism is really pretty silly. Animals don't care about any sort of innate rights that other animals might have, and if humans are posited to be morally unexceptional when compared to other living organisms then that just leads us with some sort of roundabout nihilism. Plus, why does having a reproducing chain of amino acids make an object so special? Why are mushrooms morally superior to rocks?

The alien issue is a bit silly too. For one thing, we have no idea what would offend some hypothetical race of aliens. SciFi fans have a habit of just ascribing whatever social/cosmic beliefs they hold to their "advanced" race of aliens (essentially, making them a swap out for God), but it's really a crapshoot, as far as I can tell. Look at how much cultural variation there is for a single subspecies on a single planet. However, as biocentrism doesn't base moral value on intellect, I can hardly see why a biocentric race of aliens would care what we think at all. We have DNA, and that's good enough (unless their genetic foundation is different; then they might just see us as inanimate objects, who knows?). If the aliens are xenocentric, hopefully they'll see us as similar enough to themselves to grant us many (or even all?) of the rights they have (assuming they have any, and that we'd even want them; who knows?).