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.
LunaHound wrote:Maybe its just animals doing what their instinct tells them to do , but i like to think they deserve way more praise then we give them credit for.
Loyalty and pack behaviour isn't the same thing as empathy and I say this as a guy who's always had dogs in my life, and thinks they're wonderful.
But there's no point pretending dogs, or any other animals, don't have fundamental intellectual limitations compared to humans. The original issue was whether an animal would reap immense environmental damage for the sake of profit. Ask a dog how, if it were a CEO, it should balance it's contractual obligation to shareholders to turn a profit, against a commitment to protect the earth for future generations, and it won't be able to balance these criteria. It won't be able to understand what you're talking about, because it is a dog.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:Ask a dog how, if it were a CEO, it should balance it's contractual obligation to shareholders to turn a profit, against a commitment to protect the earth for future generations, and it won't be able to balance these criteria. It won't be able to understand what you're talking about, because it is a dog.
Ask a dog how, if it were a CEO, it should balance it's contractual obligation to shareholders to turn a profit, against a commitment to protect the earth for future generations, and it won't be able to balance these criteria. It won't be able to understand what you're talking about, because it is a dog.
I don't think most CEOs understand this either really.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
What about elephants and dolphins who have been shown to have the emotional intelligence comparable to a human, elephants mourn, they have a sense of devotion to one another to the point that they will fight for one another and they care for each others children. Many animals share similiar characteristics.
I personally believe in animal intelligence, its just at a much later stage to us, we didnt start off as perfectly emotionally or mentally developed, many of us still arent and our ability to use technology is a taught skill, if there was noone to teach us to use it we would do a WH40K and revert to technobarbarity. Definately some animals are more developed then others, Crows for example are extremely intelligent. There have been incidences where they are learning to crack nuts by placing them under the wheels of cars stopping at traffic lights and collecting the nuts when the traffic is gone or stops once more. They have learnt that red means stop and green means go.
This innovation is the same kind of thing which got us where we are today, Chimpanzees are innovative as are many apes.
Animals like Cows however show are far lesser degree of intelligence although they really havnt had much to think about, they have been domesticated for thousands of years, their lives consist of eating grass in a paddoch until master takes you to the big noisy building on the hill.
Cows have been forced into admittandtly more comfortable lives "relatively and not all of the time" in exchange for the ability to develop.
Sadly alot of intelligent animals will be wiped out by us due to our indifference, if things keep going the way they are just about the only creatures besides us on this planet will be those who are useful to us or those who can breed fast enough to replenish the numbers we exterminate. Im thinking Rats and Mice and Cockroaches and alll the other things we despise but will never get rid of.
Andrew1975 wrote:I don't think most CEOs understand this either really.
In all seriousness, people do fail to live up to ethical standards, but this isn't because we're worse than animals. It's because we've been smart enough to gain the power to change systems in ways that animals never have. No penguin has ever committed mass environmental damage to make his bonus because no penguin has ever been made CEO of BHP. We shouldn't confuse powerlessness with purity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ColdFire wrote:What about elephants and dolphins who have been shown to have the emotional intelligence comparable to a human, elephants mourn, they have a sense of devotion to one another to the point that they will fight for one another and they care for each others children. Many animals share similiar characteristics.
But to simply have an emotion is not the same thing as having emotional reasoning. Could any of these animals possibly make a complex emotional decision? Could they weigh up two conflicting emotional needs?
I personally believe in animal intelligence, its just at a much later stage to us, we didnt start off as perfectly emotionally or mentally developed, many of us still arent and our ability to use technology is a taught skill, if there was noone to teach us to use it we would do a WH40K and revert to technobarbarity. Definately some animals are more developed then others, Crows for example are extremely intelligent. There have been incidences where they are learning to crack nuts by placing them under the wheels of cars stopping at traffic lights and collecting the nuts when the traffic is gone or stops once more. They have learnt that red means stop and green means go.
This innovation is the same kind of thing which got us where we are today, Chimpanzees are innovative as are many apes.
The examples you show are nothing compared to the intelligence demonstrated among humans.
We are actually much, much smarter than animals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/12 07:07:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
ColdFire wrote:What about elephants and dolphins who have been shown to have the emotional intelligence comparable to a human
Dolphins are easily the most deliberately sadistic and violent animal on the planet, coming up equivalent to the dregs of human society as an average, so yeah...
elephants mourn, they have a sense of devotion to one another to the point that they will fight for one another and they care for each others children. Many animals share similiar characteristics.
They're herd animals with brains the size of beachballs, what do you expect?
Sadly alot of intelligent animals will be wiped out by us due to our indifference, if things keep going the way they are just about the only creatures besides us on this planet will be those who are useful to us or those who can breed fast enough to replenish the numbers we exterminate. Im thinking Rats and Mice and Cockroaches and alll the other things we despise but will never get rid of.
Even assuming such a ridiculous premise were plausible, and not just some idle "horror-fantasy", so? So long as we last the few decades left until the estimated point of technology singularity, what does anything's existence matter? The Earth could be a molten wasteland in a few centuries and it would be irrelevant so long as we'd reached that point. What happens to us? Doesn't matter. We either become living gods or create one and die, and either way something better has come about. What does the fate of a bird or whale matter beside that?
Loyalty and pack behaviour is just like empathy. It's animals having a natural desire to stay close and look after one another. It's exactly the same in humans- often there is no rational reason for empathy and helping others we just do it because it's our instinct to do so.
4M2A wrote:Loyalty and pack behaviour is just like empathy. It's animals having a natural desire to stay close and look after one another. It's exactly the same in humans- often there is no rational reason for empathy and helping others we just do it because it's our instinct to do so.
Correct in that empathy is an instinctual mechanism for fostering social behavior in a small group, wrong in assuming that gives it any particular importance in judging something's value. An animal doesn't become important simply because it's a pack or herd animal, nor does such behavior necessitate intelligence of any degree. It is wrong to ascribe any more importance to the opinions and wellbeing of an animal than to those of a lawnmower or computer; which is to say, unless it is your property and you thus have an interest in maintaining it for whatever purpose you have decided it should have, you should not particularly care, though preserving the property of others, or at least not intentionally vandalizing it, should be a matter of best practices; you wouldn't torch your neighbor's car, and you'd probably call the cops if you saw someone else do it, but it wouldn't be any of your business if he smashed it up with a sledgehammer himself (though you might worry about his mental health if he did such).
What importance something holds depends entirely on the individual there are no rules on what should be seen as important. From your explanation it is easy to put a human life below that of an item you own as their life doesn't help you. In this case the importance you give the life depends on how much you empathise with the individual.
My previous point was aimed at the idea that animals don't feel emotions in a similar way to us. While ours are more developed and we have a better understanding of them they are still caused by the same things that cause animals to behave the way they do. We still follow the same instincts as animals just in a more complex way. Many people see the emotion difference as what makes us better than animals- if the diffences are much smaller than we pretend then we really aren't much better than other animals so the superiority we feel is more to do with biased opinions than really being more important.
4M2A wrote:My previous point was aimed at the idea that animals don't feel emotions in a similar way to us. While ours are more developed and we have a better understanding of them they are still caused by the same things that cause animals to behave the way they do. We still follow the same instincts as animals just in a more complex way. Many people see the emotion difference as what makes us better than animals- if the diffences are much smaller than we pretend then we really aren't much better than other animals so the superiority we feel is more to do with biased opinions than really being more important.
"Emotions" are rationalisation for the chemical imbalances we suffer due to various stimulations. For example, if someone jumped out at you in a dark hallway, your immediate reaction would probably be to jump and turn towards the noise, as well as a number of other biological processes (increase of blood going to the muscles and lungs, decrease of blood going to the digestive system, pupils increasing in size to take in more light, etc). It is only afterwards that you can rationalise that reaction and determine you were "scared". At the time you simply reacted.
Reaction to stimulus =/= emotion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/04/12 11:56:21
Emotions are just the words we use to describe the internal effects of an action. Fear is the state caused by a reaction. Animals have these states as much as we do.
Lord Scythican wrote:The final point I would like to make on how we as humans were not meant to eat meat is this.
First up, we are biologically meant to eat meat. There's vital proteins that we need that we could't get out of any other source. We can now substitute those proteins thanks to modern science, but for most of human history we needed to eat meat. Those canine teeth are there for a reason.
Second up, I think you're confusing "we weren't to eat this much meat" with "we weren't meant to eat meat". The amount of meat in most people's diets today is unhealthy, but that doesn't mean much smaller amounts of meat.
I think I did pretty much say that in a matter of speaking. More or less my comments were directed to people who think they can eat meat like a carnivore instead of what they are, a omnivore. More than likely you thought I was one of the vegan nuts. I was just pointing out the problems with eating a lot of meat. Maybe my point wasn't clear and I focused too much on the problems with eating too much meat, but I do agree with what you are saying.
The only living creatures I will kill on sight are cockroaches....and mosquitoes. Everything else, like spiders or frogs, that get in the house are scooped up and thrown outside...unless the cat gets to them first then I end up scooping it into a bag with kitty litter a few days later. I stopped eating beef and pork a while ago because it's expensive here and, although tasty, generally I'm not down with killing something just to eat it. Hypocritically though, I still eat chicken and fish. Go figure. Duality of man.
I would never kill or condone the killing of an endangered species, but, where I live deer breed like crazy. If it wasn't for the culture of hunting, for both food and sport, in this area they would be a blight. I have never hit a deer driving, but I've come close more times than I can count. If you are going fast enough hitting a deer can be fatal, I have driven past some bashed up vehicles when a deer wanders onto a highway.
In a way it is our responsibility to hunt deer in this area, as we have eradicated wolves which were their main predator, and every so many years disease runs rampant through them when the population gets too big. A quick death by bullet is a lot better than wasting away to disease IMO.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Even assuming such a ridiculous premise were plausible, and not just some idle "horror-fantasy", so? So long as we last the few decades left until the estimated point of technology singularity, what does anything's existence matter? The Earth could be a molten wasteland in a few centuries and it would be irrelevant so long as we'd reached that point. What happens to us? Doesn't matter. We either become living gods or create one and die, and either way something better has come about. What does the fate of a bird or whale matter beside that?
How is that not a plausible premise, assuming we dont detroy ourselves beforehand I just dont see it happening.
Got this today! 26 lbs 10 inch beard 1.25" spurs. Took it with 3.5" 12ga turkey load.
Ahh well... looks like you bleedin hearts get a break, since the Dakka is crapping on my photobucket right now... I happy just letting you know though! lol
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2011/04/14 16:27:53
"If you are not naughty you get a cookie. If you are naked, you get a cookie." - Insaniak, Dakka Mod
Khornholio wrote:The only living creatures I will kill on sight are cockroaches....and mosquitoes. Everything else, like spiders or frogs, that get in the house are scooped up and thrown outside...unless the cat gets to them first then I end up scooping it into a bag with kitty litter a few days later. I stopped eating beef and pork a while ago because it's expensive here and, although tasty, generally I'm not down with killing something just to eat it. Hypocritically though, I still eat chicken and fish. Go figure. Duality of man.
Well, that's okay, you're just showing some class solidarity. Eat the gak out of chicken whenever you can though, because chickens are birds, and birds used to be dinosaurs, and dinosaurs used to eat people all the time (or so hollywood leads me to believe).
ChrisWWII wrote:if I had to massacre the world's giant panda population to save or feed one human life, I would.
I wouldn't. I'd tell him to get his fat ass on a diet.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
ChrisWWII wrote:if I had to massacre the world's giant panda population to save or feed one human life, I would.
I can't think of one reason where that would be necessary. I mean what are we talking about here? The possibility of one person needing only Panda meat to sustain himself or he will die?
I think it's a hypothetical situation, meant to illustrate a point: that human life is worth more than animal life.
You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater (we can't wreck our own ecosystem), but something like Pandas, while adorable and neat, aren't really critical to the stability of the biosphere.
True. I was only mentioning ecological balance to show the upper end of what I'd gladly hand over for humans. You couldn't, say, kill all polinating insects to save human life: the cost outweighs the benefit.
But on the whole, any burdern borne by animals that improves human life is more or less ok with me.
Melissia wrote:I wouldn't. I'd tell him to get his fat ass on a diet.
I was majing the assumption that the one human is on the verge of starving to death, and the only available food is the worlds panda population. Saying he should 'get his fat ass on a diet' is saying, "Yeah, we could save you life. But we're not gonna. Sorry."
As Polonious said, it's a hypothetical situation that illustrates that, from my POV at least, in general, animal lives are less valuable than human lives. As was explained there are exceptions (the world's supply of pollinating insects being one), but if it's a human life versus a panda, the pandas going down. If it's a human life versus the continued viability of civiilization as we know it....well, then the human may have to take one for the team.
"If everything on Earth were rational, nothing would ever happen."
~Fyodor Dostoevsky
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
~Hanlon's Razor
Melissia wrote:I wouldn't. I'd tell him to get his fat ass on a diet.
I was majing the assumption that the one human is on the verge of starving to death, and the only available food is the worlds panda population. Saying he should 'get his fat ass on a diet' is saying, "Yeah, we could save you life. But we're not gonna. Sorry."
As Polonious said, it's a hypothetical situation that illustrates that, from my POV at least, in general, animal lives are less valuable than human lives. As was explained there are exceptions (the world's supply of pollinating insects being one), but if it's a human life versus a panda, the pandas going down. If it's a human life versus the continued viability of civiilization as we know it....well, then the human may have to take one for the team.
He would have to be a giant fat ass though to eat the entire panda population by himself though!
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
I don't think it's right to abuse animals, but I have to come down close to ChrisWWII. I would let a lot of animals die before I would let a person die. People are just on a different level of importance than animals.
Lifetime Record of Awesomeness
1000000W/ 0L/ 1D (against myself)
gregor_xenos wrote:
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
This is why scientifically speaking bow/blackpowder hunters have on average much larger balls than those hunters armed with semi automatic rifles and shotguns.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:This is why scientifically speaking bow/blackpowder hunters have on average much larger balls than those hunters armed with semi automatic rifles and shotguns.
I don't know about other state's laws but in Illinois you can't hunt with rifles and shotgun season is only one week a year. Does that say something about the men in IL
Lifetime Record of Awesomeness
1000000W/ 0L/ 1D (against myself)
I could almost understand the pride someone may get from naturaly hunting an animal, with skill but using a weapon that instantly kills the animal from such a distance, there is very little skill involved. You saw an animal so you shot it. How does that give you a feeling worth taking an animals life for?
Try tracking and finding the animal first. Even then try to get a good shot on one. It's a lot harder to shoot a deer than "hey dear!" BLAM!
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
707th Lubyan Aquila Banner Motor Rifle Regiment (6000 pts)
Battlefleet Tomania (2500 pts)
