Technology, the future, and you

[Silas Thorne]

There was a thread which was closed fairly recently due to personal comments, but which I thought was a worthwhile discussion, and so have started a new thread stemming from it. Now, PLEASE don't resort to adhominems in this discussion (and I'll make sure I try to go by the same rules), or I'm told it will be closed again by a beautiful Persian storyteller.
I said this in the ex-thread:


As things progress, it may be more and more necessary for people to fight to take control of their own lives and to seize and distribute important technologies and information, unless things radically change. I'm thinking about world politics, economics, the education system etc. I don't think Capitalism is working. I don't think the world economy is working. Education could become more online and freely available. Why is it that there are people starving while people die of obesity in 'developed' countries? How can we fix the economy? I think one answer may be to develop an advanced AI system for decision-making, since it may be able to solve a lot of our problems, and may be better equipped than many of today's leaders to deal with certain interrelated world problems, such as the economy, population, the climate, and the world food problems.

Yes/No asked me what I meant by 'fight to take control of their own lives and to seize and distribute important technologies and information'. I think I mean here that it seems as if without individuals asserting their own rights and viewpoints on the development, control and implementation of technology, by just passively accepting what comes, then people will have no choice but to be led by those who understand such things. This, to me anyway, necessitates being more in touch with what new advancements are happening in the world around me, and also knowing more about new technology. We have to have a point of view on some things, and express it, otherwise our views won't be taken into account by the people who develop new technologies or those who allow their use.


Technology is advancing very rapidly, and there may come a point sometime in our lifetimes when we have quite advanced AI systems or robots that can instantly duplicate themselves. Although we are a long way yet from functional advanced AI, the idea of self-replicating robots is not so far-fetched: at present we have 3D printing machines that can create models of scanned items, and we aren't so far now from creating personally-tailored synthetic organs, or it seems, even growing new ones to order.


Although I ramble on about stuff, I'd really like to continue this discussion.
But try to be nice. :)

[Varenne Rodin]

I am very rebellious, but I promise to behave myself this time. ;)

I love the idea of regenerating organs!

[Silas Thorne]

Well, I know of some research going on into kidney regeneration, based on the way zebrafish can regenerate units of their kidneys. Interesting stuff, I think.

[G L Wilson]

I promise that I will be as nice as pie. I like pie.

As I said in the previous thread, I want a new drug. Something like the soma of the old Aryans.

[MystyrMystyry]

There are a few technological paths in medicine, physics, electronics, biology etc which are really just focusing the scientific universe for our benefit, using specific discoveries, understandings and inventions to manipulate what's already there (birds were flying vast distances long before the Concord evolved from paper aeroplanes, which were known in early Egyptian times)

Stem cell research and Frankenstein science (gene-splicing sounds promising, but who to experiment on? I'm not sure I want to be part jellyfish even if it means immortality) both offer a hope for genetic and life threatening diseases and whatnot, and the latter for crops, but at what cost to the rest of the eco-system?

Seems everything good also has a negative, regardless of the reassurance from the experts that there'll be a solution.

I mean solar panels should just be free, not price-controlled by the manufacturers, likewise large screen 3d televisions should also be freely available to everyone, and all those technologies by which individuals and the world may improve (though perhaps a mandatory test in the case of hackers, virus writers, and blackberry assisted rioters)

Think of a useful technology and its positive uses - there will still be those prepared to misuse it because it's only the tech that gets better, not necessarily human nature, which only improves from nurture


I recently wrote a poem about a central computer controlling everything, that made me realise that it would only be as good as the software, and it would need to be constantly serviced - but by whom? Apple engineers? Microsoft?

No thanks

[Silas Thorne]

There are a few technological paths in medicine, physics, electronics, biology etc which are really just focusing the scientific universe for our benefit, using specific discoveries, understandings and inventions to manipulate what's already there (birds were flying vast distances long before the Concord evolved from paper aeroplanes, which were known in early Egyptian times)

Stem cell research and Frankenstein science (gene-splicing sounds promising, but who to experiment on? I'm not sure I want to be part jellyfish even if it means immortality) both offer a hope for genetic and life threatening diseases and whatnot, and the latter for crops, but at what cost to the rest of the eco-system?

Seems everything good also has a negative, regardless of the reassurance from the experts that there'll be a solution.



Yes, everything has both its good and bad points, which need to be investigated. I do think that overall many of us are conditioned to look to the negative aspects of technology more than the positive, however. Is it the case that many more plays, novels, short stories, TV series, and movies consider the dangers of going past our 'limits' ?

Every action human beings have done has impacted on the eco-system, has it not? Some animals now need our help for their species to survive , as we have destroyed their natural habitat, due to planting palm trees for example.

[MystyrMystyry]

I'm well aware they need our help but I was a sworn homebrand crinklecut salt and vinegar crisps muncher these last few months until only last week I chanced to read the ingredients - bloody palm oil! (they didn't taste good after that and I threw the rest of the packet away)

Add to this an expose I caught on the police corruption in Borneo that has essentially leveled the forest beyond repair - and even food manufacturers who are fighting legislation that forces them to disclose the actual contents

When it's up to 'us' (the consumer) we tend to not want to visit doom/gloom websites, we tend to hope that the governments are on our wavelength of sense and sanity (Brazil's president has a mandate to clear 90% of the remaining forest before his term is up)

I think we're screwed because the chaos of country and politics gets in the way of right thinking

[prendrelemick]

Rather than Silas' idea of certralized AI government, I think there are indications that things are going in the opposite direction. Social networks like Twitter are a democratizing force, in that ideas and opinions and even policy, are coming more easily from the bottom up, rather than only the top down. The recent News International shenaniggans and the Arab Spring, show that those in charge are only there by their peoples consent - even dictators .

I think the sites like Twitter and the Internet are the point where technology will have most impact on future societies and individuals. Take MM's crisps experience. His tiny act of protest against the inclusion of palm oil is now known about world wide because of this site. It could be taken up by ordinary individuals and lead to a massive global campaign - its now possible.

[Varenne Rodin]

Palm oil?! WHAT?? That's RUBBISH!

See?

[MystyrMystyry]

Yeah, but that's the trouble - see, notice I said 'homebrand' crisps? I went for them because they were cheap (usually two for the price of one) which equates to four packs vs one 'name' brand for the same cost. I can't justify spending 3 bucks on a bag of crinklecut air regardless of how tasty.

Why can't they just use canola oil intead? They sell that for a buck per entire punnet or bottle, so it couldn't make that much (if any) difference. Palm oil must be 2 cents for the equivalent amount or something - but once you taste it, it tastes like murder.

It's not about the losing the crisps - it's about losing the Orangutans and Tigers and the jungle that idiots have happily destroyed and idiot politicians that have let it happen and there was no reason for it other than pure selfish greed - and not just in my life time! Virtually overnight!

[Silas Thorne]

Rather than Silas' idea of certralized AI government, I think there are indications that things are going in the opposite direction. Social networks like Twitter are a democratizing force, in that ideas and opinions and even policy, are coming more easily from the bottom up, rather than only the top down. The recent News International shenaniggans and the Arab Spring, show that those in charge are only there by their peoples consent - even dictators .

I think the sites like Twitter and the Internet are the point where technology will have most impact on future societies and individuals. Take MM's crisps experience. His tiny act of protest against the inclusion of palm oil is now known about world wide because of this site. It could be taken up by ordinary individuals and lead to a massive global campaign - its now possible.

Perhaps it may go both ways. I do believe in an AI having an important role in decision making in the future, particular regarding resource management, that is true, but I am also a believer in direct democracy. Avaaz.org is one group which organises mass petitions on particular topics. After receiving the information from Avaaz, and investigating the news on the topic myself, I can decide whether or not I want to put my name on any particular petition, and I think sometimes these petitions can be an important force. As you have said, prendelemick, politicians are only there because of the people. The people can and should take control when the politicians don't have the people's wishes at heart, and when people reject policies that certain politicians like to quickly push through without consulting the public (which happens in a lot of democratic countries too).

re palm oil and animals (an Australian website): http://www.zoo.org.au/PalmOil

[prendrelemick]

I was thinking of more than just petitions. I joined Twitter just as the News International scandal broke, it was a real eye opener. For a few weeks the news and political agenda was being set by individuals, and those in charge could do nothing about it. It was heady stuff, and was a glimpse of the potential power of the World Wide Web.

One more point on this to consider is whether governance by groundswell of opinion, that is facilitated by communication technology is a good thing or not.

After two and a half thousand years it is possible to have a kind of Athenian democracy again, where every citizen can vote on every issue, and officials are chosen by lot. We have the technology. However it probably would lead to chaos - as it did in ancient times.

I really can't see where top down government can go, AI or not. It has been in decline as a notion since the Magna Carta.


Palm oil?! WHAT?? That's RUBBISH!

See?



Looks like it's started.

[Emil Miller]

I was thinking of more than just petitions. I joined Twitter just as the News International scandal broke, it was a real eye opener. For a few weeks the news and political agenda was being set by individuals, and those in charge could do nothing about it. It was heady stuff, and was a glimpse of the potential power of the World Wide Web.

One more point on this to consider is whether governance by groundswell of opinion, that is facilitated by communication technology is a good thing or not.

After two and a half thousand years it is possible to have a kind of Athenian democracy again, where every citizen can vote on every issue, and officials are chosen by lot. We have the technology. However it probably would lead to chaos - as it did in ancient times.

I really can't see where top down government can go, AI or not. It has been in decline as a notion since the Magna Carta.

I see no reason why governments cannot be held accountable, in Switzerland they have government by referendum, something I have been in support of for years and the reason why I refuse to vote for parliamentary parties in the UK. If they were forced by law to go to the people, many of the evils that have been foisted onto the country could have been avoided. Democracy is supposed to mean government by the people but what we actually have is a democratic dictatorship where politicians periodically switch from one side of the House of Commons chamber to the other and repeatedly do what they want rather than what their constituents want.

[Dodo25]

I don't quite get how we ended up on that subject, but just as an important aside:

Before you worry about palm oil, I'd worry about about animal products. By buying them, one supports animal suffering and massive soy importants from countries like Brazil, were huge patches of rainforest are cleared for soy fields (just like with palm oil). It takes 7-16 pounds of soy to produce one pound of meat, and 7'500 litres of water -- that's enough to shower for half a year!

Additionally, there's the fact that the meat industry is responsible for more bad greenhouse gas emissions than all of global traffic taken together.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't quite get how we ended up on that subject, but just as an important aside:

Before you worry about palm oil, I'd worry about about animal products. By buying them, one supports animal suffering and massive soy importants from countries like Brazil, were huge patches of rainforest are cleared for soy fields (just like with palm oil). It takes 7-16 pounds of soy to produce one pound of meat, and 7'500 litres of water -- that's enough to shower for half a year!

Additionally, there's the fact that the meat industry is responsible for more bad greenhouse gas emissions than all of global traffic taken together.

I completely agree with this. Driving on the interstate through Texas, I saw what looked like factories surrounded by cities of dead and dying cows piled on top of each other in dirt, scum and blood. Sorry for the gross-out factor, but I can't get it out of my mind. People shouldn't be eating this stuff, for one thing. There is no way it's healthy. The suffering of those animals is something I can never get over. They aren't grazing peacefully on love filled farms. They can't move at all. It's a torture life. I'll drop the matter now. My point in responding to this thread in the first place is to say that life is precious. If we have the capacity for compassion for each other, the earth and our animal friends, we should display it.

[Paulclem]

The advantage of an AI assisting governemnt/ democracy is that it would not be swayed by partisan interests, but the common good. Of course that brings it's own problems, and it needs to be negotiated through, but the potential impartiality of an AI obsrver/ moderator of debates and Government conduct could be good.

[Silas Thorne]

Yes, I would think most humans in positions of leadership or influence are incapable of removing their own personal biases towards their land of birth, place(s) of cultural influence, the interests of relatives and friends, and their own personal/business interests. If humans were to design something impartial, an empathic machine with incredibly fast and comprehensive thinking capabilities which could work for the good of humanity, it would be immensely useful for us all.
I think someone, Varenne, said something about the suffering of animals. Aside from growing meat as a possibility, many transhumanists are considering the possibilities of genetically modifying certain animals that humans kill for the purposes of food to feel less pain. The ethics of this, as always, need to be seriously considered.

Interesting lecture here describing what nanotech is, and how it can be used to cure cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GFst2IQBEM&feature=youtu.be

[YesNo]

Interesting lecture here describing what nanotech is, and how it can be used to cure cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GFst2IQBEM&feature=youtu.be
It looks like he might have a way to cure cancer and efficiently move solar energy through a network from one side of the earth where the sun is shining to the other side where it is not. Interesting stuff.

I also liked one of his humorous definitions of nanotechnology: "Anything is nanotechnology that under the name of nanotechnology makes money." :)

[The Atheist]

The advantage of an AI assisting governemnt/ democracy is that it would not be swayed by partisan interests, but the common good. Of course that brings it's own problems, and it needs to be negotiated through, but the potential impartiality of an AI obsrver/ moderator of debates and Government conduct could be good.

You paint a Utopian ideal of AI, but I think it's flawed:

Whatever machine it is will need to be programmed, so it will be subject to bias by the programmers, plus, if it's really human-like, why would it be impartial?

It gets worse as well. I'm sure you and I would agree on the definition of "good" to teach the AI machine, but who's to say someone as decent as us will do the programming/teaching?

:D


Aside from growing meat as a possibility, many transhumanists are considering the possibilities of genetically modifying certain animals that humans kill for the purposes of food to feel less pain. The ethics of this, as always, need to be seriously considered.

Sounds pointless to me.

Other than animals killed for halal or kosher meat, animals are killed in absolute humane conditions and feel no pain. They are killed instantaneously by a pole-axe to the brain.

Don't get me started on halal meat....

[Calidore]

Other than animals killed for halal or kosher meat, animals are killed in absolute humane conditions and feel no pain. They are killed instantaneously by a pole-axe to the brain.

Don't get me started on halal meat....

Sure you didn't get that backwards? The whole point of kosher and halal slaughter is that pain and suffering are kept to a minimum, while on the other hand the horrific treatment of animals in regular slaughterhouses has been well documented in writing and film.

[Varenne Rodin]

I was wondering the same thing.

[Paulclem]

You paint a Utopian ideal of AI, but I think it's flawed:

Whatever machine it is will need to be programmed, so it will be subject to bias by the programmers, plus, if it's really human-like, why would it be impartial?

It gets worse as well. I'm sure you and I would agree on the definition of "good" to teach the AI machine, but who's to say someone as decent as us will do the programming/teaching?

:D

S

Yes of course. It is an ideal view. The idea would be to counterbalance the views of the politicians rather than direct them. I often wondered whether a body that impartially commened upon policy, debates and ministerial speeches/ interviews would be a good idea - so that obvious manipulations of stats, and biased views of issues could be rationally counterbalanced by an impartial comment. The problem with a human commentator is their agenda - corruption etc etc. An AI - depending upon the programming - could impartilly evaluate comments without having an obvious and changing bias or a hidden agenda that is externally influenced. It is an ideal though.

[MystyrMystyry]

It wouldn't be a political intelligence as we know it but a series of regulations and rules incorporating all aspects of the law as it now stands - and be able to accomodate unexpected eventualities.

Suppose a new crime was invented, but a punishment was imposed on the offender that didn't fit because the ramifications were not yet known - post-traumatic stress may trigger a crimewave of far reaching consequence so you'd need to eat cabbage :)

[Dodo25]

Other than animals killed for halal or kosher meat, animals are killed in absolute humane conditions and feel no pain. They are killed instantaneously by a pole-axe to the brain.


I agree with you on many issues, but this is just So Not True!

Transportation itself involves a large amount of suffering already. Especially when you have to force young bulls to stand packed together in a narrow truck. Or pigs, it's not uncommon that some of them die even on the way to the slaughterhouse.

In order to even apply killing bolts, the animals have to be shoved through narrow gangways in unkown territory. Once they reach the slaughterbox, their head has to be still, which means it's really damn narrow, and sometimes force has to be applied to. And then at least 1% of the killing bolts miss, especially in bulls, who have very thick skulls. It's hard to get accurate figures, I've seen some as high as 7%.. Slaughtering happens behind an iron curtain, hardly any transparency. Even if the figure was a mere 0.1%, this would mean millions of sentient beings have their throats slit or are burned in full consciousness.

Additionally, some pigs for instance are first put unconscious with CO2, to which they have an evolved aversion. You might as well freaking drown them.

And chicken? Well, male chicks of the egg-laying breed would grow fat too slow, so they're useless.. What's done with them? They're put into containers, hundreds of them on top of each other, five or more layers high, and then suffocated with CO2. Or they're shreddered alive.

And this is just the slaughtering. In America for instance, 99% of the animals held for food purposes live in factory farms. And that implies a whole life in suffering.


Sure you didn't get that backwards? The whole point of kosher and halal slaughter is that pain and suffering are kept to a minimum, while on the other hand the horrific treatment of animals in regular slaughterhouses has been well documented in writing and film.

Technically, that's indeed the point. But it fails horribly. Kosher / halal slaughtering is often the worst method for the animals. Dogmatic rules in ancient books ensure that the animals miss out on any improvement modern technology has brought leading towards the oxymoronic 'humane slaughtering'. And probably, those rules weren't even most painless, given the technology back then, to begin with.

Edit: There's a vegetarianism thread somewhere, maybe we should continue there..

[The Atheist]

Sure you didn't get that backwards?

Absolutely positive.

The situation is so obvious here that many farmers choose to send their stock to abbatoirs that do not practice halal killing.

Halal killing is inhumane; usual slaughtering practice in NZ is about as humane as it can be.

I've seen animals killed by both methods. And quite a few other methods as well, as it happens. I'm quite happy to give a first-hand, graphic description of the differences between halal and modern slaughtering techniques if you like.


The problem with a human commentator is their agenda - corruption etc etc. An AI - depending upon the programming - could impartilly evaluate comments without having an obvious and changing bias or a hidden agenda that is externally influenced. It is an ideal though.

I can see it as n ideal, but unless we devise not just AI, but Deep Thought, that can start with "I think, therefore I am" and work it all out alone, we're going to just end up with one man's agenda in AI.

Interesting concept, though.


Transportation itself involves a large amount of suffering already. Especially when you have to force young bulls to stand packed together in a narrow truck. Or pigs, it's not uncommon that some of them die even on the way to the slaughterhouse.

Ok; that's moved away from what I said, which was the means of killing, but I do think that in most cases, transport is reasonable.

The farmers and transporters have a vested interest in bringing animals in good condition to the meat works, so injuries are kept low by good practice. Bulls would normally be de-horned as yearlings, so I'm not sure why you expect them to have more injury than other animals.

That said, deaths do happen, because we need to transport huge numbers in conditions that would be untenable for humans. Animals are often moved by truck for other reasons under the same conditions, so I'm not sure it's a slaughtering problem so much as a transport issue.

We stopped sending live sheep to the Middle East due to the amount of suffering it caused.


In order to even apply killing bolts, the animals have to be shoved through narrow gangways in unkown territory. Once they reach the slaughterbox, their head has to be still, which means it's really damn narrow, and sometimes force has to be applied to. And then at least 1% of the killing bolts miss, especially in bulls, who have very thick skulls. It's hard to get accurate figures, I've seen some as high as 7%.. Slaughtering happens behind an iron curtain, hardly any transparency. Even if the figure was a mere 0.1%, this would mean millions of sentient beings have their throats slit or are burned in full consciousness.

There are several points there.

Yes, heads do have to be trapped, but briefly, and while the animal might endure small pain from it, it ensures a good, clean death. A works with a miss rate of 7% sounds incredibly unlikely. Do you have cites for that?

Since when are cows and pigs sentient?


Additionally, some pigs for instance are first put unconscious with CO2, to which they have an evolved aversion. You might as well freaking drown them.

I don't get pigs having an evolved aversion to CO2, as humans do. Studies (and observation) indicates that pigs don't have a panic response to CO2, so again, I'd like to see good cites for the idea.


The American Association of Swine Veterinarians agrees. (http://www.aasv.org/aasv/euthanasia.pdf)

That said, I'm not happy with the way pigs are reared.


And chicken?

Chickens, I agree with you - we treat chickens very poorly.


And this is just the slaughtering. In America for instance, 99% of the animals held for food purposes live in factory farms. And that implies a whole life in suffering.

I agree with you again that factory farming isn't ideal. Nobody does that here.

[Varenne Rodin]

Absolutely positive.

The situation is so obvious here that many farmers choose to send their stock to abbatoirs that do not practice halal killing.

Halal killing is inhumane; usual slaughtering practice in NZ is about as humane as it can be.

I've seen animals killed by both methods. And quite a few other methods as well, as it happens. I'm quite happy to give a first-hand, graphic description of the differences between halal and modern slaughtering techniques if you like.



I can see it as n ideal, but unless we devise not just AI, but Deep Thought, that can start with "I think, therefore I am" and work it all out alone, we're going to just end up with one man's agenda in AI.

Interesting concept, though.



Ok; that's moved away from what I said, which was the means of killing, but I do think that in most cases, transport is reasonable.

The farmers and transporters have a vested interest in bringing animals in good condition to the meat works, so injuries are kept low by good practice. Bulls would normally be de-horned as yearlings, so I'm not sure why you expect them to have more injury than other animals.

That said, deaths do happen, because we need to transport huge numbers in conditions that would be untenable for humans. Animals are often moved by truck for other reasons under the same conditions, so I'm not sure it's a slaughtering problem so much as a transport issue.

We stopped sending live sheep to the Middle East due to the amount of suffering it caused.



There are several points there.

Yes, heads do have to be trapped, but briefly, and while the animal might endure small pain from it, it ensures a good, clean death. A works with a miss rate of 7% sounds incredibly unlikely. Do you have cites for that?

Since when are cows and pigs sentient?



I don't get pigs having an evolved aversion to CO2, as humans do. Studies (and observation) indicates that pigs don't have a panic response to CO2, so again, I'd like to see good cites for the idea.


The American Association of Swine Veterinarians agrees. (http://www.aasv.org/aasv/euthanasia.pdf)

That said, I'm not happy with the way pigs are reared.



Chickens, I agree with you - we treat chickens very poorly.



I agree with you again that factory farming isn't ideal. Nobody does that here.

The factory farming is all I have seen in the U.S. Animals trapped in bars their whole lives. Unable to turn around to keep them from developing muscle. Newborn cows are never allowed a moment with their mothers. They are not permitted to nurse. They are administered growth hormone formula. If you've ever seen a cow nuzzle and care for her calf, you know how devastating the separation must be for both of them. Male babies are often killed for veal. I've seen them thrown against walls and brutally beaten to death with hammers.

In Texas they stack dead and dying cows on top of each other in mud and excrement and blood. One cow I remember specifically had its two front legs cut off but was still alive between two dead cows. It was uttering sounds I never heard a cow make. It's face was covered in flies, eyes terrified. It's sick. It's sick and disgusting to kill for food. We don't have to. There are plenty of other protein sources.

[Dodo25]

A works with a miss rate of 7% sounds incredibly unlikely. Do you have cites for that?

I don't remember, I think it was in German anyway. Probably an extreme case. Though ex-slaughterhouse workers reliably report that there are lots of instances where it doesn't work. They want the earlier method back, where after the first bolt shot, cattle had their skulls drilled to make it impossible for them to regain consciousness later on. But that's not legal anymore because it would splatter brain tissue in the meat (BSE!).



Since when are cows and pigs sentient?

REally? Would you say the same thing about mentally handicapped humans?
The regions in the brain responsible for experiencing pain are evolutionarily ancient in humans. There's no reason to suppose mammals weren't sentient (with the curious exception of naked mole rats maybe, they live eusocially, which seems to be a special case). And even if there were significant doubt, without having very very high certainty, it would still be very irresponsible to let them suffer!

(Sentience isn't self-awareness, maybe that's what you meant.)


Bulls would normally be de-horned as yearlings, so I'm not sure why you expect them to have more injury than other animals.


The de-horning btw is usually done without anesthesics, it causes severe pain to the animals. Thanks for mentioning that.

Bulls are especially 'rebellious', they really don't like being forced into a truck. Additionally, they might have internal fights going on among each other.



I don't get pigs having an evolved aversion to CO2, as humans do. Studies (and observation) indicates that pigs don't have a panic response to CO2, so again, I'd like to see good cites for the idea.

It's a newer finding indeed, there was a 2005 paper arguing that CO2 was no big deal to pigs, but this has been contradicted.
Pages 39-41 and 80-92 (for details): http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/292.pdf



I agree with you again that factory farming isn't ideal. Nobody does that here.

I just googled this, so I'm not sure whether this is a credible source, but take a look: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nezumi1/factoryfarming.html

And anyway, there are all kinds of problems even without factory farming. Every single moment of suffering in those animals is unnecessary, humans could just as well eat vegan. Especially if all the subsidies for the animal industry were put into improve availability and variability of vegan food. Would we let human infants suffer like that? (They have around the same level of awareness, why discriminate based on looks or species membership?) Even like the 'happy animals' in non-factory farms?

[G L Wilson]

If God existed, it would change nothing.

[The Atheist]

It's sick and disgusting to kill for food. We don't have to. There are plenty of other protein sources.

Sure, but they all taste like crap.

Over here, we treat even condemned animals with respect. I don't have any ethical problem eating meat grown in NZ.


REally? Would you say the same thing about mentally handicapped humans?

In some cases, absolutely. Alzheimer's disease patients as well. I have one of my best friends in a home where he lives like a vegetable, unable to even feed himself. There's no dignity in that, as far as I can ascertain.



The regions in the brain responsible for experiencing pain are evolutionarily ancient in humans. There's no reason to suppose mammals weren't sentient (with the curious exception of naked mole rats maybe, they live eusocially, which seems to be a special case). And even if there were significant doubt, without having very very high certainty, it would still be very irresponsible to let them suffer!

I haven't said anything about animals and pain, nor do I doubt they feel it.

I said that pigs don't seem to have an evolutionary panic response to CO2 poisoning.

I also agree that animals shouldn't suffer unnecessarily.


(Sentience isn't self-awareness, maybe that's what you meant.)

Maybe you are using "sentient" in a different manner, because I'm using it to describe human sentience:

Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sentient)



The de-horning btw is usually done without anesthesics, it causes severe pain to the animals. Thanks for mentioning that.

Have you ever de-horned cattle?

Yes, it causes some pain, but I can't imagine it's worse than having a tooth drilled without anaesthetic, and I've had plenty of those.

Unless you're going to do away with all dairy products as well as meat, you're going to be de-horning cattle.


Bulls are especially 'rebellious', they really don't like being forced into a truck. Additionally, they might have internal fights going on among each other.

Without weapons (horns) they aren't going to do much damage.



It's a newer finding indeed, there was a 2005 paper arguing that CO2 was no big deal to pigs, but this has been contradicted.
Pages 39-41 and 80-92 (for details): http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/doc/292.pdf

Seems opinion rather than contradiction as they don't appear to cite any studies. They could be right, but until there is some peer-reviewed evidence, I'll stick with the current position of AASV.

I'm always open to evidence, so if you can find studies that suggest the EFSA is right, then I'll buy it.



I just googled this, so I'm not sure whether this is a credible source, but take a look: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~nezumi1/factoryfarming.html

My mistake - I should have qualified that by stating "for cattle and sheep".

I'd already said that pigs & chickens weren't great. I don't eat chicken or pork - except for wild pig, so I tend to overlook them.


Every single moment of suffering in those animals is unnecessary, humans could just as well eat vegan.

Yeah, but then you get into things like whether to kill the cockroaches, so I just avoid it and accept that animals will die because of humans. If they're animals reared to be killed, I don't mind a bit, as long as they're treated humanely.


Especially if all the subsidies for the animal industry were put into improve availability and variability of vegan food. Would we let human infants suffer like that? (They have around the same level of awareness, why discriminate based on looks or species membership?) Even like the 'happy animals' in non-factory farms?

Sorry, but I think your argument comparing humans to animals is so flawed as to be complete nonsense. Animals are not human, they don't behave the same way as humans, they certainly don't think the same way as humans, and they definitely don't (and shouldn't) have the same rights as humans.

[Varenne Rodin]

Wow. Very off putting. Bye all.

[prendrelemick]

Having worked in the meat industry and Livestock industry (In England) for about 30 years, I can clearly see Dodo25 hasn't.


I don't want to preach, or enforce my idea of morality on any other human. But I think it would be good if people took the time to acertain the facts, rather than regurgitating propaganda.

[JuniperWoolf]

Chickens, I agree with you - we treat chickens very poorly.

Yeah, that's why I don't eat them. Look at 'em, look at how adorable they are:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=876&pictureid=8670

Chickens get a bad rep, they're not stupid, they're cute.

Anyway, back on the discussion, I could never support the crazily disturbing things that some places do to harvest meat, but that doesn't mean that we should forego eating meat altogether. I just wish we had better access to happy meat. I've seen animals killed and cleaned and I'm comfortable with eating them. They're animals, the animals that we eat are prey and that's their place. I've never minded that my dad (a hunter) killed animals for food. That being said, just because I don't mind eating an animal doesn't mean that I can comfortably allow it to live an entire life of filth and suffering. I can't stand visiting the huge, dirty industrial slaughterhouses (especially this one dairy/veal farm I visited, holy gross) around Edmonton.

Eating meat is our prerogative given our place on the food chain, and keeping the animals that we eat generally "happy" (clean conditions, free of sores and infection, the ability to see the sun occasionally) is our responsability as moral humans.

*edit* How did this thread turn into a discussion on vegetarianism? It hasn't even been three pages and we're already waaaay off topic.

[G L Wilson]

I like ducklings and little piggies, they're cute.

[MystyrMystyry]

I want to get back onto the AI President of the World

What I'm thinking is that the program would have to contain ALL of available human knowledge, meaning that every living person's voice would have input, and literature, and law, and philosophy and magazine articles and newspaper columns etc, to balance out bias.

So say we could upload the brain patterns of everyone possible, however mentally infirm, to gather a vast database of every potentiality, and then we allow the computer to cross-reference itself in every possible regard for every possible outcome.

Would this super computer then analyse the known history of humans and how they've treated each other, how they expect to be treated, and be able to distinguish between fact and fantasy, right and wrong?

I think for every slight transgression it would find a death sentence the only course, and being infinitely smart it would also look at the future potentiality of those not having yet committed a transgression in all probability (in fact in all inevitability) likely to, therefore sentencing everyone to death before they're even born.

It will just find reasons to eradicate us, because that's our legacy.

If you told it death sentences are out of the question, it may come up with sentences worse than death, so it must be programmed to not do that.

If we say the sentencing must be on a par with what we've come to accept as fair (?) then any transgression would be met with a virtually mandatory penalty case by case from its inventory of reduced possibility.

How would it reward good deeds, and deeds done well? Would it have a special sub-routine allowing it to identify all aspects of beauty versus ugly, and every degree in between?

Would you need, in effect, two super computers* to discuss and argue matters out? But then their programming must be slightly different in order to get a varied debate going. And how would you choose what to change point of view wise?

What would be the actual point of view of a machine with the capability of thought (or just such advanced programming to make it appear as thought - not actual thought as such as, we'd like to think)? Would it ultimately be a HAL9000 psychopath but with inbuilt circuit breakers? If so how could we trust/depend on any decision it arrived at?



*Or an uneven three if a vote needs to be taken on a course of action - but then you'd need another to supervise them impartially

[YesNo]

Chickens get a bad rep, they're not stupid, they're cute.

Chickens are definitely not stupid.

When younger on a farm, I used to have a few chickens as well as a dog. The dog was on a chain, but the chickens were allowed to graze freely. I would watch them play with the dog by nonchalantly waddling up to him but only as far as the chain would stretch. When he did try to attack them, which he always did, they would safely rush away. They knew exactly how far he could go and were taunting him. I guess this was their equivalent of a ride at an amusement park.

Regarding stupidity, I think the dog was stupider, but not dumb either.

As far as "happy meat" goes, I wonder if a mosquito is concerned whether we're happy or not. I doubt it, but hopefully we're a tad better than mosquitoes at least by our standards. We should be. All creatures grown for meat should at least have a chance to taunt a dog.

[Dodo25]

Sure, but they all taste like crap.

I'm sure you've tried them all extensively!



I haven't said anything about animals and pain, nor do I doubt they feel it.

Ok, in the way I was using it, sentience is mainly about the capacity to suffer. If they feel physical pain, they're sentient. If they can also suffer emotionally (and to some extent animals can do that too), they're more sentient in some sense, but that doesn't mean that the same amount of physical pain is perceived differently in an animal also capable of experiencing very complex emotional pain!



I also agree that animals shouldn't suffer unnecessarily.

We don't need to eat animal products, so again, it's all unnecessary suffering.



Have you ever de-horned cattle?

Yes, it causes some pain, but I can't imagine it's worse than having a tooth drilled without anaesthetic, and I've had plenty of those.

Unless you're going to do away with all dairy products as well as meat, you're going to be de-horning cattle.

Unnecessary suffering right there. One of the reasons why I'm a vegan.



Without weapons (horns) they aren't going to do much damage.

This refers to bulls being transported. They might not do 'much' damage, but they certainly don't enjoy the whole thing. Unnecessary suffering.



My mistake - I should have qualified that by stating "for cattle and sheep".

I'd already said that pigs & chickens weren't great. I don't eat chicken or pork - except for wild pig, so I tend to overlook them.

That's great, it already makes a huge difference. Chicken is the worst due to there being very little meat output. But eggs can be almost as bad as chicken, it's insane what battery hens have to go through their whole life!



Yeah, but then you get into things like whether to kill the cockroaches, so I just avoid it and accept that animals will die because of humans. If they're animals reared to be killed, I don't mind a bit, as long as they're treated humanely.

That's basically admitting that you don't want to think about the issue too much because it might lead to inconvenience. What if it really were bad to kill cockroaches? Shouldn't we then try to minimize the damage?

Having said that, I don't think killing per se is a problem. (Many vegans would of course heavily disagree). The suffering is the problem. And the current evidence suggests that most insects most likely aren't sentient (capable of feeling pain). Ironically, if there are some sentient insects, I'd put my money on cockroaches! :)



Sorry, but I think your argument comparing humans to animals is so flawed as to be complete nonsense. Animals are not human, they don't behave the same way as humans, they certainly don't think the same way as humans, and they definitely don't (and shouldn't) have the same rights as humans.

I compared them to human infants, and the relevant criterion for my comparison was 'level of awareness'. You might also add late-stage Alzheimer patients, still aware of some things going on and still capable of feeling pain.

What's the relevant criterion by which you justify your distinction? The way someone behaves? If I behave in weird ways, not the norm for the human species, should one be allowed to harm me for no reason? Is your criterion thinking and intelligence? If my IQ is significantly less than someone else's, does that mean they can harm me for no good reason?

If you take these criteria, there's no reason we shouldn't cause pain to human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients (except if we'd indirectly harm empathic relatives, but then suppose we're talking about isolated orphans or people without relatives, would you be comfortable with them being harmed?). The relevant criterion for moral consideration regarding harming is capacity to feel pain. In other words, unnecessary suffering is always bad, no matter where it happens. And if one wouldn't cause the pain of de-horning to a human infant for dietary matters, why should it suddenly be no big deal when it comes to non-human animals?

Regarding infants, someone might argue that they matter morally because they have a 'potential for personhood'. But what if there's a disease that'll kill the infant at age one? Also, this argument wouldn't apply for Alzheimer patients. And lastly, I don't see how it would not lead to a strong pro-life attitude.

A 'species' is not some Platonic idea. You can imagine a line-up of ancestors, generation after generation, leading from modern humans backwards through time to the common ancestor shared with any kind of animal, and then forward in time again to the respective modern animal. There exists a gradual connection with individuals no different from each other than mother and daughter, all the way from human to any non-human animal. There's a huge overlap in mental capacities. There's no justification for drawing sharp lines at the (arbitary!) species boundary, just like it would be wrong to draw a line between males and females when it comes to whether they should be allowed to study architecture. Even though males really are, on average, better at 3D imagination, there is a huge overlap, and discrimination based on group attributes is unjust, so we should judge based on the actual relevant criteria. And regarding whether we should cause harm, the relevant criteria seems to be capacity for suffering, or would anyone say that torturing infants is morally neutral if no one cares about it?

There are parallels in history where discrimation based on group attributes was common, but let's not get there..


Having worked in the meat industry and Livestock industry (In England) for about 30 years, I can clearly see Dodo25 hasn't.

I don't want to preach, or enforce my idea of morality on any other human. But I think it would be good if people took the time to acertain the facts, rather than regurgitating propaganda.

Would you mind telling me where I made wrong statements, then?

[cl154576]

The factory farming is all I have seen in the U.S. Animals trapped in bars their whole lives. Unable to turn around to keep them from developing muscle. Newborn cows are never allowed a moment with their mothers. They are not permitted to nurse. They are administered growth hormone formula. If you've ever seen a cow nuzzle and care for her calf, you know how devastating the separation must be for both of them. Male babies are often killed for veal. I've seen them thrown against walls and brutally beaten to death with hammers.

In Texas they stack dead and dying cows on top of each other in mud and excrement and blood. One cow I remember specifically had its two front legs cut off but was still alive between two dead cows. It was uttering sounds I never heard a cow make. It's face was covered in flies, eyes terrified. It's sick. It's sick and disgusting to kill for food. We don't have to. There are plenty of other protein sources.

Very much. The salmon farming in Alaska can be quite disgusting, too. But humans exist by killing – if not animals, then plants. From an ethical standpoint, I believe the removal of the human race to be best. We upset the balance in nature. Unfortunately, though I'd happily kill myself right now for the benefit of the planet, I've been made aware there aren't too many people who agree with me on this, so I will keep silent.

[Varenne Rodin]

Very much. The salmon farming in Alaska can be quite disgusting, too. But humans exist by killing – if not animals, then plants. From an ethical standpoint, I believe the removal of the human race to be best. We upset the balance in nature. Unfortunately, though I'd happily kill myself right now for the benefit of the planet, I've been made aware there aren't too many people who agree with me on this, so I will keep silent.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way, cl. I feel bad for killing plants too. Someone told me I should let my basil plant die because it stopped producing large leaves for salads, but I can't starve it of water and sun if it's still green and alive.

I killed a spider the other day, reflexively because it jumped on me. I felt horrible for ending a life. I still feel remorse. I don't know how anyone can stand to willfully end a life. Any life. Some people see it as a necessity. With all of the justification, there doesn't seem to be much room for accountability, respect, reflection, humility or guilt. It's a sick sad world in many ways.

[Emil Miller]

When I was a boy, I remember reading a story set in the future where food had been reduced to a number of pills to be taken daily to maintain all the nutrient needed for a healthy existence. This would suit me very well as I hate shopping and cooking and don't care for eating. When I go to a restaurant it's more for the company than the food. If only it were true, then the ethical problems regarding livestock would be solved and starvation in the world would be eliminated. This in itself would pose other problems but at least the mass slaughter of animals, that has plagued the conscience of many people for years, would be avoided. I also avoid killing insects and spiders for no reason other than stupidity. If, however, it was a question of me or them, I would obviously take the opposite standpoint.

[cl154576]

When I was a boy, I remember reading a story set in the future where food had been reduced to a number of pills to be taken daily to maintain all the nutrient needed for a healthy existence. This would suit me very well as I hate shopping and cooking and don't care for eating. When I go to a restaurant it's more for the company than the food. If only it were true, then the ethical problems regarding livestock would be solved and starvation in the world would be eliminated.

Food preparation is an art for some, and deeply enmeshed in culture. The idea is tempting but I would not support progress at the price of culture.

[Dodo25]

But humans exist by killing – if not animals, then plants. From an ethical standpoint, I believe the removal of the human race to be best. We upset the balance in nature. Unfortunately, though I'd happily kill myself right now for the benefit of the planet, I've been made aware there aren't too many people who agree with me on this, so I will keep silent.

That's one option. Another option, much better imo, is to hope for future technology (haha, what a coincidence, that's actually what this thread is about!) by which we can transform ourselfs into happier and more ethical beings (or just create AIs that are). We could then redesign ecosystems so the animals don't have to suffer that much anymore.

I don't get why there's anything valuable about 'balance' in nature. The balance is maintained by starvation, being eaten alive, parasites... why is this good by default? But I've made that point a couple of times already in these threads.

[cl154576]

I don't get why there's anything valuable about 'balance' in nature. The balance is maintained by starvation, being eaten alive, parasites... why is this good by default? But I've made that point a couple of times already in these threads.

It's maintained by keeping everyone on edge. I think we would grow stupid and lazy otherwise.

Do humans want to be happier, more ethical beings? Is there any definition of 'ethical'? Everything we do harms something or someone else. Even were we to eat pills as Emil mentioned, the pills would need to be manufactured, and probably from plant or animal materials. Nothing in this universe can exist without causing harm to something else but man especially is twisted. We think and build on a greater scale, and we cause damage on a greater scale. What is the point of man's existence? There is beauty in the world, but it seems we exert all our energy to keep ourselves from destroying it. Why do we need to exist; how do we benefit anything? Why spend centuries making docile, stupid but harmless babies out of something corrupted, when it can be easily killed? What can, not existing, desire existence?

I am aware that everything I just wrote can be refuted in an instant as a child's pessimistic, uninformed gibberish. All of you are more educated than I am and I make myself a fool here. I won't defend myself and I don't wish to argue. I am sick at heart and that is simply how I feel, very likely how I will always feel. Please ignore my nonsense.

[YesNo]

we can transform ourselfs into happier and more ethical beings (or just create AIs that are).
At least the AIs don't eat meat. Or plants. Of course, someone could program them to, I suppose.

How do we become happier?

[Varenne Rodin]

At least the AIs don't eat meat. Or plants. Of course, someone could program them to, I suppose.

How do we become happier?

Happiness for me would be the ability to explore more, learn more.

A planet made of diamond was discovered.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/us-planet-diamond-idUSTRE77O69A20110825

Who knows how much we would find if we could live safer, extended lives?

[Paulclem]

Happiness for me would be the ability to explore more, learn more.

A planet made of diamond was discovered.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/us-planet-diamond-idUSTRE77O69A20110825

Who knows how much we would find if we could live safer, extended lives?

Fascinating. :biggrin5:

[Paulclem]

I want to get back onto the AI President of the World

What I'm thinking is that the program would have to contain ALL of available human knowledge, meaning that every living person's voice would have input, and literature, and law, and philosophy and magazine articles and newspaper columns etc, to balance out bias.

So say we could upload the brain patterns of everyone possible, however mentally infirm, to gather a vast database of every potentiality, and then we allow the computer to cross-reference itself in every possible regard for every possible outcome.

Would this super computer then analyse the known history of humans and how they've treated each other, how they expect to be treated, and be able to distinguish between fact and fantasy, right and wrong?

I think for every slight transgression it would find a death sentence the only course, and being infinitely smart it would also look at the future potentiality of those not having yet committed a transgression in all probability (in fact in all inevitability) likely to, therefore sentencing everyone to death before they're even born.

It will just find reasons to eradicate us, because that's our legacy.

If you told it death sentences are out of the question, it may come up with sentences worse than death, so it must be programmed to not do that.

If we say the sentencing must be on a par with what we've come to accept as fair (?) then any transgression would be met with a virtually mandatory penalty case by case from its inventory of reduced possibility.

How would it reward good deeds, and deeds done well? Would it have a special sub-routine allowing it to identify all aspects of beauty versus ugly, and every degree in between?

Would you need, in effect, two super computers* to discuss and argue matters out? But then their programming must be slightly different in order to get a varied debate going. And how would you choose what to change point of view wise?

What would be the actual point of view of a machine with the capability of thought (or just such advanced programming to make it appear as thought - not actual thought as such as, we'd like to think)? Would it ultimately be a HAL9000 psychopath but with inbuilt circuit breakers? If so how could we trust/depend on any decision it arrived at?

*Or an uneven three if a vote needs to be taken on a course of action - but then you'd need another to supervise them impartially

Who said anything about an AI president of the world? The idea would be for a disinterested - unbiased machine - that could evaluate the prononcements of politicians who do have an agenda - often hidden.

As an ordinary person without access to the current thought in Parliament, different agendas, business interests, different political shades, foreign and internal influences, foreign and domestic policy etc etc it is very difficult to to objectively evaluate the thrust of politician's pronouncements.

This ideally would be the job of an unbiased and apolitical press, but this is impossible given the dealings and business that goes on. Religious groups are unsuited due to their agendas, and what other human agency would give a fair assessment of a political climate?

So the idea is that an informed AI could comment on possible political influences, clarify and expose dodgy stats, make realistic projections about the results of policy, collate the widespread opinions of experts and make a judgement based upon this.

It's only an idea, and it is pure sci fi at the moment. It arises from a disenchantment with politicians, and the repeated duping of populations through loaded agendas.

[YesNo]

Happiness for me would be the ability to explore more, learn more.

A planet made of diamond was discovered.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/25/us-planet-diamond-idUSTRE77O69A20110825

Who knows how much we would find if we could live safer, extended lives?
I guess that would make me happy as well.

Nice planet.

[The Atheist]

What would be the actual point of view of a machine with the capability of thought (or just such advanced programming to make it appear as thought - not actual thought as such as, we'd like to think)? Would it ultimately be a HAL9000 psychopath but with inbuilt circuit breakers? If so how could we trust/depend on any decision it arrived at?

Well, it's going to be built by a human....


That's basically admitting that you don't want to think about the issue too much because it might lead to inconvenience.

Nope. I'm saying that the line between animals is so blurred that I just try to treat them humanely where possible. In the case of noxious animals, I'm happy to destroy them using whatever means necessary, and with no regard for the feelings of the animal.

If a noxious rodent must die in agony, I don't care.


What if it really were bad to kill cockroaches? Shouldn't we then try to minimize the damage?

No, they're pests. Taking your premise to its illogical conclusion, I'd be worried about whether meningitis-causing amoebae might feel pain before I destroyed them with hypochloritic acid.


Having said that, I don't think killing per se is a problem. (Many vegans would of course heavily disagree). The suffering is the problem. And the current evidence suggests that most insects most likely aren't sentient (capable of feeling pain). Ironically, if there are some sentient insects, I'd put my money on cockroaches! :)

Brilliant!


What's the relevant criterion by which you justify your distinction? The way someone behaves? If I behave in weird ways, not the norm for the human species, should one be allowed to harm me for no reason? Is your criterion thinking and intelligence? If my IQ is significantly less than someone else's, does that mean they can harm me for no good reason?

No, purely species. Behaviour doesn't come into it. Animals that are not human can be biologically shown not to be human becaise they don't have human DNA.



A 'species' is not some Platonic idea. You can imagine a line-up of ancestors, generation after generation, leading from modern humans backwards through time to the common ancestor shared with any kind of animal, and then forward in time again to the respective modern animal.

I can't feel that common ancestors matter, or I'd be worried that killing African eye-worms might be sinful.

We are what we are.


I don't want to preach, or enforce my idea of morality on any other human. But I think it would be good if people took the time to acertain the facts, rather than regurgitating propaganda.

That's one that quite annoys me. NZ (and UK) invest hundreds of millions of dollars ensuring standards that include the mens of transporting, managing and killing animals. In almost all cases, we do a brilliant job of doing dirty work well.


It's only an idea, and it is pure sci fi at the moment. It arises from a disenchantment with politicians, and the repeated duping of populations through loaded agendas.

Yes, an ideal Utopian antidote to a corrupt world. I like that.

[Dodo25]

If a noxious rodent must die in agony, I don't care.

If the choice is,
a) keep it alive -> bad consequences (disease, crop deficits, grossed out...)
b) cause it to die in agony

then I'd agree. But what if there's a third alternative, another pesticide, just as effective and just slightly more expensive, that would kill the rat painlessly? Wouldn't the suffering still matter?

After all, even the current justice system doesn't torture criminals pointlessly, and it seems to me that rats are even less to blame for being annoying to us than criminals are for committing crimes. (Besides, I don't think 'blame' is a morally relevant concept anyway, only useful for deterrence imo.)



No, they're pests. Taking your premise to its illogical conclusion, I'd be worried about whether meningitis-causing amoebae might feel pain before I destroyed them with hypochloritic acid.

Why couldn't you take a nice ladybug instead as an example?

My position is to opt for the least amount of suffering. So obviously if not potentially hurting them creates more (expected outcome) harm than getting rid of them, then the latter is the best way to act.

You actually agreed earlier that unnecessary suffering is a problem, and you also said that you're against factory farming. But now, it seems to me you have double-standards as to how far 'unnecessary' reaches. De-horning, transporting, slaughtering -- the pain produced by that is 'necessary' if we want to eat meat or drink milk, but is it 'necessary' that we do so?

If the only way to get milk products or meat were to inflict human infants with the equivalent amount of pain caused by de-horning, transporting and 'humanely' slaughtering cows, would you then consider that pain 'unnecessary', given the abundance of vegan food alternatives? Isn't it obvious that it's unnecessary pain? Why is it any different if the pain is caused to animals?



No, purely species. Behaviour doesn't come into it. Animals that are not human can be biologically shown not to be human becaise they don't have human DNA.

I can't feel that common ancestors matter, or I'd be worried that killing African eye-worms might be sinful.

We are what we are.

(I was still talking about suffering, not killing!)

Okay, you choose 'of the species Homo sapiens' to be another relevant criterion. But you didn't respond to a lot of my reasoning spelled out in my last post. I meant something esle with my point about evolution. Suppose we use time travel to actually get all those ancestors here, and we make a very long line of them, from human all the way back to human-cow ancestor and forward again to cow. That would divide up the 'genetic distance' into small steps, each only one generation. 'Species' only seems an obvious mental category (everything we name represents mental categories, without human minds, things wouldn't even have names) when the intermediates are extinct. But if they're all present, we have a huge overlap of mental capabilities, looks, DNA-markers and everything else. Where to draw the boundary?

According to the biological definition of 'species', you'd have to get the average human and reason out how far back in line she could interbreed. Different species can't successfully interbreed anymore. So suppose we do this. Should we hurt individuals belonging to Homo ergaster more, all things being equal, than indviduals belonging to Homo sapiens? So at the point of the (arbitrary!) distinction, we should hurt the mother more than her daughter, in given scenarios? How weird is that?

And once some of our descendants are about to turn into a different species (here again there is the question 'different relative to what?' -- so let's assume, arbitrarily, that we judge from the 2011 average Homo sapiens), would they suddenly be 'fair game' to getting hurt again? Or would you then rather distinguish between 'who does the hurting' (if you don't, then what makes you assume that out of all species imaginable, Homo sapiens just happens to be extra morally relevant?), meaning that there's an extra bonus to members of the own species? In that case, it would be us now that would get screwed if the next species came from the future. At least if they're stronger then us (might makes right!), if not, it is us who could exploit them.

Do you see the problem now? It's totally arbitrary! Why choose 'is there a possibility of inbreeding?' (the biological species definition) as the morally relevant criterion? One could draw equally (un)convincing lines at 'myself', 'family', 'gender', 'ethnicity'...

Or further to the other side, biological 'class': "All mammals unite! Let's oppress them stupid reptiles!!"

There's an overlap in actual mental capacities. Suffering is what matters.
The same amount of pain deserves the same moral relevance.

[JuniperWoolf]

But humans exist by killing – if not animals, then plants. From an ethical standpoint, I believe the removal of the human race to be best. We upset the balance in nature.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way, cl. I feel bad for killing plants too.

Okay, so we should basically feel guilty for existing.

Why are you people so against death? It's not that bad, and to deny it is to deny life as well. All things eat that which is dead, every ecosystem and the survival of every living thing depends on death (not just humans, literally everything that's currently alive: every plant, every animal, everything). It's a necessary part of reality. All living things die, all corpses are eventually eaten (even us) and in so doing provide for new life by "donating" it's energy and material as well as making room for others of it's own species. Soil itself, the fount of all life = decomposed dead stuff. What happens if predators don't kill enough prey (rabbits for example)? The swollen number of prey animals eat up all of the plant material in the area that they live off of and ALL of the rabbits starve.

Killing doesn't "upset the balance of nature," it is nature. Suffering is one thing, we can try not to cause pain without inhibiting ourselves. Death, on the other hand, is vital to the perpetuation of all life, and I'm cool with that. I don't mind the fact that I need to die and be eaten, that's life. It's beautiful in a way. The alternative is for earth to be a floating, barren rock and that's dull.

[cl154576]

Okay, so we should basically feel guilty for existing.

Why are you people so against death? It's not that bad. All things kill, every ecosystem and the survival of every living thing depends on death (not just humans, literally everything that's currently alive). It's a necessary part of reality. All living things die, all corpses are eventually eaten (even us) and in so doing provide for new life by "donating" it's energy and material as well as making room for others of it's own species. Soil itself, the fount of all life = decomposed dead stuff. What happens if predators don't kill enough prey (rabbits for example)? The swollen number of prey animals eat up all of the plant material in the area that they live off of and ALL of the rabbits starve.

Killing doesn't "upset the balance of nature," it is nature. Suffering is one thing, we can try not to cause pain without inhibiting ourselves. Death, on the other hand, is vital to the perpetuation of all life, and I'm cool with that. I don't mind the fact that I need to die and be eaten, that's life. It's beautiful in a way.

Death is only "sick" if you're irrational.

I'm not against death. I'm against life. It does not make sense to me but it is how I feel and I don't want to argue about it.

About killing being natural, I think I already acknowledged that in my comment after the one you quoted. I know my ideas are totally nonsensical but I still feel that way.

[JuniperWoolf]

I'm not against death. I'm against life. It does not make sense to me but it is how I feel and I don't want to argue about it.

Okay.

...

But... really? Because suffering exists (and suffering itself passes eventually, no matter how strong) and because the idea of death is frightening (nothingness being admittedly pretty daunting) you would rather ALL life be completely gone? Earth would just be like Mars, totally boring and without art or joy or beauty (at least, no one around to appreciate it) or anything, and you find that preferable? Why? Wouldn't it be better to view death and suffering as the price that we have to pay for art/beauty/ect? You're just causing yourself unnecessary guilt by not accepting things which you find personally unpleasant but which are quite literally unstoppable forces of nature.


About killing being natural, I think I already acknowledged that in my comment after the one you quoted. I know my ideas are totally nonsensical but I still feel that way.

Maybe you meant to but I didn't pick up on it. I felt the need to comment because this thread seemed to be focused in on humans and how terrible we are for killing plants and animals, but it's important to acknowledge the rest of the creatures that have been existing in the same system and living via the same means for billioins of years. Death is only unnatural because we've been raised to view it as such. It's better to just accept death's role in the system (or, even better, respect it) because we need it.

*edit* Wow, my signature is looking pretty ironic right about now.

[Dodo25]

Earth would just be like Mars, totally boring and without art or joy or beauty (at least, no one around to appreciate it) or anything, and you find that preferable? Why?

So does art outweigh Auschwitz? And all the suffering that has ever happened on this planet? Every gazelle ripped to pieces by cheetahs, all the trillions of animals starving, drowning, dying from disease or being eaten from the inside by parasites?

I'd definitely prefer Mars. I've been dead for all the 13.7 billion years before my birth, and there was nothing wrong with that.



Death is only unnatural because we've been raised to view it as such. It's better to just accept it (or, even better, respect it) because we need it.


Nature is not good by default. If we can change things for the better, we should.

[cl154576]

Okay.

...

But... really? Because suffering exists (and suffering itself passes eventually, no matter how strong) and because the idea of death is frightening (nothingness being admittedly pretty daunting) you would rather ALL life be completely gone? Earth would just be like Mars, totally boring and without art or joy or beauty (at least, no one around to appreciate it) or anything, and you find that preferable? Why? Wouldn't it be better to view death and suffering as the price that we have to pay for art/beauty/ect? You're just causing yourself unnecessary guilt by not accepting things which you find personally unpleasant but which are quite literally unstoppable forces of nature.



Maybe you meant to but I didn't pick up on it. I felt the need to comment because this thread seemed to be focused in on humans and how terrible we are for killing plants and animals, but it's important to acknowledge the rest of the creatures that have been existing in the same system and living via the same means for billioins of years. Death is only unnatural because we've been raised to view it as such. It's better to just accept death's role in the system (or, even better, respect it) because we need it.

I don't know. Intellectually I agree with you, but I cannot control my emotions.

[JuniperWoolf]

So does art outweigh Auschwitz? And all the suffering that has ever happened on this planet? Every gazelle ripped to pieces by cheetahs, all the trillions of animals starving, drowning, dying from disease or being eaten from the inside by parasites?

You bet it does. Art and beauty outweighs suffering. There's art and beauty in suffering and resulting from suffering. Plus on a global scale, all suffering is temporary (even though it might feel like forever), because guess what? We die.

Also (and not to belittle genocide), the art (including literature and music) and empathy spawned by tragedy is fantastic. You can't tell me that Auschwitz had no positive effects. At the very least it deminished anti-semitism. It created a great ripple of compassion and awareness in the human race (I mean, we're talking about it right? And it's often used in examples for discussions involving human depravity, most of us readily acknowledge that it wasn't a great moment of human history, so it serves as a stunning example of what to watch out for and try to prevent at all costs). For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, even in the collective beliefs held by people.


I'd definitely prefer Mars. I've been dead for all the 13.7 billion years before my birth, and there was nothing wrong with that.

I don't believe that you prefer Mars. It's boring. The idea of no life is dreary and pointless and from a human standpoint almost unimaginable. Sure the universe would still exist, rocks would still be floating around, stars would continue to combust, but so what?

In any case, I don't think many people would agree with you.


Nature is not good by default. If we can change things for the better, we should.

Who are you to say what's "better," or for that matter, how these changes will affect the world? Ever heard of the chaos theory? The globe's ecological systems are insanely complex, if you screw with one thing you affect every other facet. We're still reeling from the industrial revolution even though the easy production and access of goods and services sounds like a good idea. Fiddling with death and how living things obtain nourishment is messing with one of nature's basic laws. Now that is "against nature," and also impossible.

Also, no one said anything about "good." Applying morality to natural properties is called the "naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)." I'm just saying that using technology or altering your personal philosophies to struggle against death itself and the consumption of living things is pointless, it is likely to have negative consequences for anyone who tries and that your time would be much better spent dealing with reality.

[MystyrMystyry]

I think the problem is over population. One human can only do so much damage in a lifetime, negligible relative to the size of the planet, but 7 billion humans all adding in their lifetime's worth of damage, not so nice - especially factoring in the amount of damage the last generation made, and the next will make.

Basically the planet is past the brink, so we may as well party like it's 2099, and accept that most plants and animals didn't have the necessary evolutionary skills to adapt to the consequences of our hyper sex drive.

In a few thousand years, long after we've wiped ourselves out, Earth will recover with new mutations of life (like the giant jellyfish) and perhaps an appreciative intelligence will emerge from the animals/insects that remain - but it definitely won't be primate smarts with no forests for them to live in, Africans regarding them as bush meat, and zoos all over millions of dollars in the red, it's just a matter of time, perhaps in our lifetime - that our 2 dimensional stupidity will be rewarded with a planet shifting disaster that we can wash our hands at, shrug and say 'wasn't my fault'

Personally I like nature and forests and healthy air and oceans, and would happily cull (or declare open season on) all whalers, fisherman, loggers, politicians and corporations for the benefit of what's real (if I were in a position to do it, I'd do it tomorrow)

I was watching a program about agribusiness, how a hundred years ago crops were generated with a two to one calorie ratio, now it's a one to ten calorie ratio - from the farms to the market to the table takes so much (relatively still inexpensive) fossil fuel.

There's a stat that got to me about Alaskan salmon catches reaching New York, which are first flown to China, and then flown all the way back and then flown to New York - this doesn't make sense. Nor does exporting sweet cookies to Denmark, and then importing sweet cookies from Denmark - why not just swap recipes?

We're doomed, though the planet will eventually recover to a degree, simply because humans are idiots who don't make logical decisions about anything actually important. The amount of people worldwide engaged in destruction at a 'drop in the ocean' level who can't/refuse to see the big picture or the importance of righting past wrongs, and allowing new wrongs to go ahead, is in the 99.99 % range, not the .01 % where we may stand a chance.

[Dodo25]

You bet it does. Art and beauty outweighs suffering. There's art and beauty in suffering and resulting from suffering. Plus on a global scale, all suffering is temporary (even though it might feel like forever), because guess what? We die.

Art and beauty are temporary in the same sense suffering is. And if YOU were the one suffering, you'd probably think differently.



I don't believe that you prefer Mars. It's boring. The idea of no life is dreary and pointless and from a human standpoint almost unimaginable.

That's the problem, you look at everything from a human standpoint. If neanderthal man had killed us instead of we him, you'd look at it from a neanderthal standpoint (well technically not 'you' you, but you get what I mean). If some super-human immortal beings somehow came to be, you'd look at it from their standpoint. Why don't you question your intutions? I've got lots of thought experiments to support my conclusions, you got some gut feeling, and even that can only be maintained by our inbuilt inability to grasp large numbers. I was talking about trillions of beings in deepest suffering, and you talk about art...



In any case, I don't think many people would agree with you.

Doesn't mean I have to be wrong.



Who are you to say what's "better," or for that matter, how these changes will affect the world?

Hahaha, that coming from the guy that thinks art outweighs all suffering on earth. I'm just doing the same thing you are, arguing.



Ever heard of the chaos theory? The globe's ecological systems are insanely complex, if you screw with one thing you affect every other facet.

Not screwing with it is a form of action too. Again, you're assuming things to be perfect (or at least very good) already. Look around, they aren't, and they've never been (at least not before there was Darwinian sentience). So even if we mess it up, it can't get much worse. And it certainly can get a lot better, so if we make reasonable assessments and have the right technology, we should definitely try to change something.



I'm just saying that using technology or altering your personal philosophies to struggle against death itself and the consumption of living things is pointless, it is likely to have negative consequences for anyone who tries and that your time would be much better spent dealing with reality.

My beliefs about suffering are the reason why I'm a vegan and why I will donate a large amount of what I'll ever earn to cost-efficient charities. Unless you're actually going to succeed in convincing me that I should better donate to art museums, but frankly, that seems highly unlikely.


In a few thousand years, long after we've wiped ourselves out, Earth will recover with new mutations of life (like the giant jellyfish) and perhaps an appreciative intelligence will emerge from the animals/insects that remain - but it definitely won't be primate smarts with no forests for them to live in, Africans regarding them as bush meat, and zoos all over millions of dollars in the red, it's just a matter of time, perhaps in our lifetime - that our 2 dimensional stupidity will be rewarded with a planet shifting disaster that we can wash our hands at, shrug and say 'wasn't my fault'.

Given the way evolution works, you can't expect 'appreciative intelligence' to just form. Our current problems aren't endemic to primate species. They're the problems of a Darwinian reality. The only way this can change is when the process outruns itself. It has already happened, we use condoms, victory over our genes. The problem now is that while we've grown much more 'powerful', we've only grown a little more civilized / ethical, so our destructive capacities have increased. But it'll be possible, in the near future, to change human nature fundamentally for the better. That's the only way we can escape the Darwinian treadmill.

[MystyrMystyry]

Given the way evolution works, you can't expect 'appreciative intelligence' to just form.

I'm not expecting appreciative intelligence to form. I'm saying this is it - we had our chance and blew it.

Our current problems aren't endemic to primate species. They're the problems of a Darwinian reality. The only way this can change is when the process outruns itself. It has already happened, we use condoms, victory over our genes. The problem now is that while we've grown much more 'powerful', we've only grown a little more civilized / ethical, so our destructive capacities have increased.

But it's our 'higher intelligence' that's destroying us and everything around us - we have shat, and indeed are s hitting in our own nest. Power saws and bulldozers and overfishing have little to do with Darwinism other than a self-described god-animal inventing them.

But it'll be possible, in the near future, to change human nature fundamentally for the better. That's the only way we can escape the Darwinian treadmill.

You'll have to expand on this. Do you mean world-wide protesting and rioting for a fair deal will bring fundamental change? Do you mean bankers and CEO's will use their ill-gotten gain to encourage literacy? Do you mean world governments will come to an abrupt understanding of the problems facing us?

What do you mean?

[Dodo25]

What do you mean?

Technology. Genetic engineering, drugs, artificial intelligence...

[MystyrMystyry]

Oh, right...

Well the tech's too late, whatever it is - forests can only regrow so fast, though some have suggested gene-splicing to speed it up, but then you're left with mutant plants like giant weeds that may become more than we bargained for - will they spread far and wide and eradicate native species?

Now gene-splicing can only take what's already there and create a mixture of two or more qualities found in another (though maybe in future they'll be doing something no one predicted, like creating entirely new genomes in the lab). That dinosaur DNA idea in Jurassic Park would be interesting but unbelievably expensive (remember that the research was done to make a buck from tourism - not really much else use for dinosaurs because of the amount they'd eat - but larger chickens might feed the entire overpopulated planet (and give a false sense of security to increase the overpopulation) (I'm not qualified to understand why half the world's population live in China, India and Indonesia, who appear to have arrived at a different method to get their billion award)

The drugs don't work - at the core is the problem that they aren't vitamins but poisons. They act by blocking rather than enhancing, and all have side effects, some immediately evident, some long term. (Where is the brain drug that will turn Joe Lumberjack into Shakespeare or Beethoven? I wish they'd develop that in a hurry before anything else!)

Finally artificial intelligence - great in computer games, but practically? Paul suggested that it should be used to monitor politicians' behavior etc. Do you program in 'they all lie, fib, and tell accidental untruths (undeliverable promises) - watch for those three things in particular, and the second it happens electric shock them to put them back in line' ?

You'd do away with politicians fast, which can be no bad thing, but what in its place?

I think we should learn from the past (and though as of this writing I have yet to explore how it actually functioned) adopt the Native American model of electing to chief the one who least wants the responsibility - sounds like a good idea relative to the mistakes made by those who've wanted the top job - why not give it a try?

[The Atheist]

You actually agreed earlier that unnecessary suffering is a problem, and you also said that you're against factory farming. But now, it seems to me you have double-standards as to how far 'unnecessary' reaches. De-horning, transporting, slaughtering -- the pain produced by that is 'necessary' if we want to eat meat or drink milk, but is it 'necessary' that we do so?

No, I think I'm pretty consistent.

De-horning actually benefits the animal. It has no need of horns and will harm itself and/or other animals through having them.

As a better example, I am anti-docking when it comes to lambs' tails. The only reason for docking tails is economic - it would be more work to keep sheep clean and maggot-free if they had tails. In that case, we cause pain solely for money, and I'm against it. (Mick may have an opinion on this one ;))

Do we "need" meat? Yes, we do. Without meat, it's incredibly hard for people to get enough iron.


If the only way to get milk products or meat were to inflict human infants with the equivalent amount of pain caused by de-horning, transporting and 'humanely' slaughtering cows, would you then consider that pain 'unnecessary', given the abundance of vegan food alternatives? Isn't it obvious that it's unnecessary pain? Why is it any different if the pain is caused to animals?

I repeat: humans are not the same as other animals, and it's pointless to put a hypothesis which could not occur.



Okay, you choose 'of the species Homo sapiens' to be another relevant criterion. But you didn't respond to a lot of my reasoning spelled out in my last post.

I didn't ignore it, I asked you where to draw the line. How will you know for sure which animals may suffer?

If mosquitoes feel pain from insecticide poisoning, should we stop killing them?

I'm not going to bother with hypotheses dependent upon time travel. We are what we are; where we came from is irrelevant since all life on earth came from a very small pool of almost-identical, single-celled organisms.


Different species can't successfully interbreed anymore.

Just for factuality, I must point out mules, ligers and tigons.



So does art outweigh Auschwitz?

Art has nothing to do with Auschwitz.


Basically the planet is past the brink, so we may as well party like it's 2099, and accept that most plants and animals didn't have the necessary evolutionary skills to adapt to the consequences of our hyper sex drive.

There's a pretty serious body of scientific opinion that would disagree with you. Whether we're able to fix the planet before it's too late remains unknown at this stage, however.

[MystyrMystyry]

Like climate change denialists? They're noongs, though I honestly hope they're right and I'm wrong.

I don't know exactly why the world went into an 5000 year iceage 15000 years ago - though unlikely man made, is it worth pushing our luck to help bring one on?

This is an example of how a forestry commission should operate:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/scotlandstrees.pdf/$FILE/scotlandstrees.pdf

as distinct from the way others (Tasmania, Russia, Canada etc) let logging companies take care of business their own way (I could post some pictures, but I don't want them spoiling my photobucket)


Also EDIT: I just remembered Colleridge's penchant for opium, and A.C. Doyle's for cocaine (alleged) (and Aldous Huxley's for LSD, and Bukovski's for booze... ...)

[Dodo25]

De-horning actually benefits the animal. It has no need of horns and will harm itself and/or other animals through having them.

But there are alternatives without suffering, i.e. anesthesia, so it's still unnecessary suffering! You virtually can't make a profit with animal farming without compromising their well-being now and then. And if you are strict about unnecessary suffering -- and I assume you'd be if it was the suffering of human infants -- then you wouldn't want to generate demand for such practices for no good reason.



Do we "need" meat? Yes, we do. Without meat, it's incredibly hard for people to get enough iron.

Oh really? It's incredibly hard to inform yourself what products contain plant sources of iron, and how it's best absorbed (drinks with vitamin-C increase absorption rate significantly)? Or is it incredibly hard to go buy an iron supplement? Also note that males need much less iron than women do, and that still, there's a much higher percentage of female vegetarians and vegans!



I repeat: humans are not the same as other animals, and it's pointless to put a hypothesis which could not occur.

No, it's not pointless. The point of it is to show you how your own beliefs about the matter lead to unpleasant conclusions which you yourself would not swallow. I showed how the justifications you gave lead to the following dilemma: Either cause significant harm, equivalent to what we do to cows in food production, to human infants (just because one wants meat and milk), OR accept that your distinction based on DNA similarity is just as arbitrary as those of sexism or racism, and that a single base-pair could in theory decide whether you would exploit a being (Homo ergaster or some future descendants of ours) or not -- even if they have the very same mental capacities as we do. If there was a mistake in my reasoning, I'm sure you would've pointed it out. Instead, you're attacking the legitimacy of thought-experiments. Well, the reasons you give for your actions don't reflect what you would actually do in similar situations, therefore, the reasons cannot be accurate. I'm not even trying to convince you with some abstract ethical 'laws' or anything, it's your own assumptions that I'm taking for granted and then try to lead ad absurdum.



I didn't ignore it, I asked you where to draw the line. How will you know for sure which animals may suffer?

I don't have to know for sure, it's enough to estimate it probabilistically and then try to minimize the expected outcome. For instance, I think the probability that bees can suffer pain is less than 0.1%. So that's not enough for me to check every single product in the supermarket whether it contains small traces of honey and miss out on the ones that do, because I'd likely suffer more annoyance / longing from doing that than bees from producing the tiny amount of honey, if they even suffer anything. But it's enough for me to stop buying jars of pure honey, because I don't mind it, and even though odds are very low, since lots of bees were involved in the process, it would expectedly prevent some very small amount of suffering.

It's virtually impossible to live without causing pain, that's not what I'm advocating. I'm just saying that if our behavior is likely to cause significantly more pain than it would cause us to change it, then we should change it.

Also, since I don't think there's really much of a difference between act and omission, I would reason the same way when it comes to either buying an expensive car, or buying a less expensive but still decent car and donating the rest to cost-efficient charities.



If mosquitoes feel pain from insecticide poisoning, should we stop killing them?

If you are sure that mosquitos would feel more pain than you getting stung by one, then yes. But our best guess is that mosquitos are very unlikely to feel pain, and even if they do, it might not even be more than not being able to sleep due to all the itching, so certainly I'm not advocating what you're suggesting. In fact, I think we should kill as many mosquitos as possible (unless of course that somehow affects the rest of the ecosystem for the worse).



I'm not going to bother with hypotheses dependent upon time travel. We are what we are; where we came from is irrelevant since all life on earth came from a very small pool of almost-identical, single-celled organisms.

Given some creativity and time, I could certainly remodel the tought-experiment to make the same point without time travel. But that's beside the point. Haven't you ever asked yourself what you would have done if you were i.e. Winston Smith in a given situation? Or someone else in a fictional situation? Are you going to suggest that all arguments like that are pointless? That there's no 'lesson' or 'insight' or whatever in fictional writings? Or imagined situations for that matter, situations that could help us think clearly about how we should act?

And why are you still talking about where we came from? That's not the point I was making. Clearly the point of the thought experiment was that you would let a single base-pair decide whether to exploit someone, even if it's the mother of a child you'd grant maximum moral consideration. I would sort of understand your position if you said that instead of similar DNA, humans all shared an immortal soul. But even then I would wonder how that could make x amount of human suffering more painful / bad as the same amount of animal suffering. But there's not even such an obvious distinction, just more or less arbitrary percentages of shared DNA deciding between racism, species or mammalian 'classism'.



Just for factuality, I must point out mules, ligers and tigons.

I intended 'successfully' to refer to offspring being fertile.



Art has nothing to do with Auschwitz.


We we arguing about whether it would've been better if evolution had never even gotten started. His position is that art and beauty make up for all the suffering, I disagreed.

[JuniperWoolf]

Art and beauty are temporary in the same sense suffering is. And if YOU were the one suffering, you'd probably think differently.

Without divulging personal information, you'd be crazy to assume that you're the only person who has any insight into true suffering or that all people who experience tragedy are as pessimistic as you are.


That's the problem, you look at everything from a human standpoint.

That's because I am a human, and I'm sorry to call you what you seem to think is a dirty word, but so are you. I think that maybe you should face that fact and stop getting your moral superiority fix (which is what I'm pretty convinced is your motivation for your entire standpoint) by condemning our entire species and ignoring all of the good that humans do and experience.


Hahaha, that coming from the guy that thinks art outweighs all suffering on earth. I'm just doing the same thing you are, arguing.

For posterity's sake, I'm not a guy. Why does everyone think that I'm male? Isn't my screen name female enough? My avatar? Bloody hell, is it something to do with the way that I talk or something? *sigh*

Anyway, "art" isn't on some magic cosmic scale against suffering, although it is threaded throughout suffering and often results from suffering. Beauty (including art), sex, love, lust, nature, transcendence, discovery, pride, fulfillment, joy, children, intellectual pursuit, happiness, pleasant sensory experiences, ect, ect, THESE things balance out suffering. Stop being such a pessimist, you're just putting more negativity into the world by trying to convince people to be miserable and that the universe would be better off if everything was dead. I don't even know what you're arguing in favor of. The termination of the human race? EVERY species? Yeah, you're such a humanitarian. :rolleyes5:


Again, you're assuming things to be perfect (or at least very good) already.

Not perfect: balanced. And the earth's systems are defiantly that. There are a number of self-regulation methods in place to ensure that life is perpetuated, and death is supremely important in that regard. Suffering exists to inform an organism that it has a damaged body, and damage is one major cause of death. It's just a part of the system, pain and death exist and are necessary. You really can't change that (if you don't believe me, then go ahead and study bio-engineering and give it a try - maybe you can shut down the nerve endings of all living things and we can all live in self-sustaining bubbles so that nothing ever gets eaten or feels pain).


Oh really? It's incredibly hard to inform yourself what products contain plant sources of iron, and how it's best absorbed (drinks with vitamin-C increase absorption rate significantly)? Or is it incredibly hard to go buy an iron supplement?

It is if you don't have a lot of money (a third world country, or third-world conditions like the lifestyles of many people in Canada/the US/UK/ect.). I for one can't afford vitamin supplements because I’m a student and a bartender. I would go hungry without meat.


If there was a mistake in my reasoning, I'm sure you would've pointed it out.

How about this: other animals kill. If we're to hold ourselves to the same standards as other animals, then shouldn't we take into account the fact that they eat and cause suffering to each other (being life, and all life being permeated with and sustained by suffering and death which for some reason you have a complete inability to just simply ACCEPT and would rather sit here and argue about un-arguable things).

Or, how about this: every time you scratch your arm, you're killing bacteria. Bacteria are living things too! Maybe we should start a "nobody move" campaign. We must also be held accountable for our inaction, so we'd better start providing food for those hungry bacterial families. They're our equals except for a few strands of DNA, right? They're living things!


Instead, you're attacking the legitimacy of thought-experiments.


I've got lots of thought experiments to support my conclusions..


Given some creativity and time, I could certainly remodel the tought-experiment to make the same point without time travel.

:skep: *mutterjesusbloodypseudoscientistsmuttermutter* ALRIGHT. Let's have these irrefutable "experiments." Go ahead and dazzle me with some nice, hard science which are not at all hypothetical scenarios (which would be the definition of a Thought Experiment). I can't wait to see how you'll use Schrödinger's cat to convince us that all life on earth needs to be terminated.

[MarkBastable]

How about this: other animals kill. If we're to hold ourselves to the same standards as other animals, then shouldn't we take into account the fact that they eat and cause suffering to each other (being life, and all life being permeated with suffering and death which for some reason you have a complete inability to just simply ACCEPT and would rather sit here and argue about un-arguable things).


This, it seems to me, is always the central argument tp be sorted out by, for a start, vegetarians.

If humans are part of and similar to the natural scheme - just another animal - then we have as much right to kill in order to eat as any other animal.


If, on the other hand, we are somehow different from other animals, that difference undermines the idea that every other animal's life is as valuable as ours - because the way in which we're different might make us more valuable.

So, if we are part of nature, there's no reason not to act like it. And if we are apart from nature, we can make choices about what we do with it.

[Dodo25]

That's because I am a human, and I'm sorry to call you what you seem to think is a dirty word, but so are you. I think that maybe you should face that fact and stop getting your moral superiority fix (which is what I'm pretty convinced is your motivation for your entire standpoint) by condemning our entire species and ignoring all of the good that humans do and experience.

Did I make it sound that bad? This isn't my view. I don't hate humans. I'm often annoyed by people, but there's also a lot of nice stuff about humans. I'd certainly prefer them to animals, I never particularly liked animals. I just think we're far from ideal, and we should change that if we can. My view isn't something that's motivated by my emotions or intutions. I rejected it initially because it really does sound absurd at first. But I came to accept the arguments at some point, because the alternative views are either more absurd or inconsistent.



For posterity's sake, I'm not a guy. Why does everyone think that I'm male? Isn't my screen name female enough? My avatar? Bloody hell, is it something to do with the way that I talk or something? *sigh*

I'm sorry! I don't know, I just made an initial assumption the first time I saw the name and then never questioned it..



Anyway, "art" isn't on some magic cosmic scale against suffering, although it is threaded throughout suffering and often results from suffering. Beauty (including art), sex, love, lust, nature, transcendence, discovery, pride, fulfillment, joy, children, intellectual pursuit, happiness, pleasant sensory experiences, ect, ect, THESE things balance out suffering. Stop being such a pessimist, you're just putting more negativity into the world by trying to convince people to be miserable and that the universe would be better off if everything was dead. I don't even know what you're arguing in favor of. The termination of the human race? EVERY species? Yeah, you're such a humanitarian. :rolleyes5:

Yeah I get that it isn't just art, I was using it a bit unfairly to emphasize my point. I'm not putting negativity anyhwere, I want people to be as happy as possible! Having these views does not make me depressed. Anyway, if we blew up the whole planet, bacteria would survive, and evolution would probably produce sentience again in a couple of billion years, so that's not really a solution. Instead, I'm in favor of abolishing suffering as well as possible and then managing the state of affairs. Basically something along these lines: http://www.hedweb.com/



Not perfect: balanced. And the earth's systems are defiantly that. There are a number of self-regulation methods in place to ensure that life is perpetuated, and death is supremely important in that regard. Suffering exists to inform an organism that it has a damaged body, and damage is one major cause of death. It's just a part of the system, pain and death exist and are necessary. You really can't change that (if you don't believe me, then go ahead and study bio-engineering and give it a try - maybe you can shut down the nerve endings of all living things and we can all live in self-sustaining bubbles so that nothing ever gets eaten or feels pain).

I think there might be ways to get around these problems. But yeah, obviously if it turns out to make things worse or equally bad, then one should not intervene. One thing seems for sure though, there are some genes that make individuals on average more happy and more productive. As a first step, one could select those genes. Why leave it up to the lottery of reproduction if everyone could be happier, not just the lucky ones? And sure, if someone people don't want that for their children, those children would still have the right to life and should be treated as well as possible, that goes without saying.



It is if you don't have a lot of money (a third world country, or third-world conditions like the lifestyles of many people in Canada/the US/UK/ect.). I for one can't afford vitamin supplements because I’m a student and a bartender. I would go hungry without meat.

I understand it if people have a hard time imagining veganism being practical, but vegetarianism? It's really not that big of a deal. There are vegetarian products everywhere, and there are also many cheap ways to get iron. In most countries, vegetarianism is cheaper. The US subsidizes the hell out of meat, so it might be slightly more expensive. But even that is only when you don't count the average health costs associated with a diet heavy on meat and fast food.



How about this: other animals kill. If we're to hold ourselves to the same standards as other animals, then shouldn't we take into account the fact that they eat and cause suffering to each other (being life, and all life being permeated with and sustained by suffering and death which for some reason you have a complete inability to just simply ACCEPT and would rather sit here and argue about un-arguable things).

I never said we should hold ourselves to the same standards as other animals. That's the last thing we should do. We have a choice, we don't need to cause suffering. I don't get why I should accept suffering. I can't sit back, knowing that each day twenty thousand children die of hunger or easily preventable diseases like diarrhea. That's the status quo, without the drought in Somalia even. I can't accept that there are people born with genes that make them prone to severe depression, which makes their lives miserable for the most part. I don't cry about it or feel too bad about it, but I try to change it where possible.



Or, how about this: every time you scratch your arm, you're killing bacteria. Bacteria are living things too! Maybe we should start a "nobody move" campaign. We must also be held accountable for our inaction, so we'd better start providing food for those hungry bacterial families. They're our equals except for a few strands of DNA, right? They're living things!

I already said I'm not opposed to killing per se, only to the suffering it usually implies. Bacteria most likely aren't even sentient, so I don't see why you'd bring this pointless example. Maybe my point about ancestors and DNA in response to The Atheist was unclear indeed, though it's not to me. What I was trying to say is just that the term 'species' is quite an arbitrary construct that only seems 'obvious' because all the intermediates are dead.



If humans are part of and similar to the natural scheme - just another animal - then we have as much right to kill in order to eat as any other animal.

If, on the other hand, we are somehow different from other animals, that difference undermines the idea that every other animal's life is as valuable as ours - because the way in which we're different might make us more valuable.


Have you read the whole discussion I'm having with The Atheist? If not please do so. Clearly there's a difference in mental capacities between human adults and human infants. No matter your 'have the rights' theory, why treat animals differently than human infants if they have the same relevant criteria? Also, I was never talking about life being valuable. It's the suffering I'm concerned about, and if a being can suffer, I don't care whether its IQ is very high or very low.

[G L Wilson]

Luxury in the future will be forbidden and freaks will be common.

[krymsonkyng]

As childish as it may seem for me to suggest these, I would like to recommend for your consideration two recent distractions of mine that go into this topic in a thoughtful and fun manner.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Eden of the East

Deus Ex goes into human augmentation, political manipulation by an AI, intrigue and several other real world issues in a near future sci-fi tactical shooter. Great fun matched by an immersing and mind blowing world.

Eden of the East is an anime that handles like The Bourne Identity with a dash of philosophic quandries. It handles the topic of the internet like a pro, and climaxes with public opinion being amassed by software to save Japan from a missile attack.

Now I've got to try and catch up with this hefty convo y'all got going.

[The Atheist]

Like climate change denialists? They're noongs, though I honestly hope they're right and I'm wrong.

No, I didn't mean deniers - I don't believe ther's any question we're heating the planet to critical levels. I just don't agree it's irreversible yet.

[G L Wilson]

No, I didn't mean deniers - I don't believe ther's any question we're heating the planet to critical levels. I just don't agree it's irreversible yet.

We're doomed - I know it.

[JuniperWoolf]

I feel the need to explain my failure to respnd. It's just that it would take a lot of time and energy and I didn't actually see the point of this debate in the first place. So... there's that. *cough*