Hell on Earth (Vivisection)

Granted that those stimulus-response emotions are evident in animals, but what about more 'subtle intricate' ones, such as love, hope, contemplation, depression, mania. I have yet to encounter a suicidal goldfish, for example.

 

I don't see how you can assume that. That is an absolutely huge assumption that you are making. Sure, animals cannot express anything like rational thought, but we have no idea how their brains work in terms of something like a concept of being, and if they can feel pain isn't that enough not to cut them up while they're still alive?

 

I already said i agree with this statement, unless there is a valid reason for vivisection, i find it a dispicable act. (and yes we can argue over validity, but that's a gray area i don't have any real absolutes about.)

Also I feel vegetarianism / veganism should be a choice and not forced on people.

 

Statements like this are psychologically revealing, and, frankly, typical of the extreme fringe of the ' Broccoli Brigade.’ It very clearly illustrates the profound biases. Even if you’re so blind to all of human achievement, one would think you would at least be able to express some grudging respect if only because, so far, to our knowledge, we’re the ONLY lifeform to possess it. Sadly, I think this expecting too much.


Ok, guess you do think being smart is all that matters. Let's hope there no smarter species out there, eh? We be well fucked.[/quote]

First of all, a smarter species (Unlike in the movies.) almost assuredly wouldn’t have any hostile intentions. They might be ambivalent, but it’s highly unlikely they’d be malicious. However, sentience is a game-changer, and we would be obligated to accord any sentient creature the same rights we expect for ourselves. As artificial intelligence very well may be around the corner, this is something we might seriously have to contend within our lifetime.

This is almost a perfect, textbook example of how you’re ‘non-philosophical philosophy’ (A failed exercise, if ever there was.) is a total failure.

 

Human lives are given substantially greater moral weight for very legitimate, and logical reasons. Most simply, because of the survival imperative, but crucially, like I said last time...
..sentience matters because of the boundless possibilities it allows. Perception, creation, experience.. Truth, beauty, love.. Art, poetry, science. Knowledge, liberty, joy. On, and on ... Whether or not they are realized, every sentient mind has the possibility for these things. Like ... "Hamlet": "What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason? How infinite in faculty? In form and moving how express and admirable? In action, how like an angel? In apprehension, how like a God?"
This is one of the reasons death is such a tragedy, ... primarily, because it reduces the sum of all these human possibilities to zero.

 

Here we have it. A commonly used and highly simplified representation of our Earth's "Tree of life".
What do we see?
A square with humans at the top but each organism playing an equal role?
A pyramid with humans at the top and all other organisms at the base suggesting some sort human of superiority?
A wave of sorts with all organisms representing a small ripple in the pull of life but humans displacing enough water to destroy a small city (although this might be reflective of the way humans act)?
The answer to all those questions is no. What we can see is a circle with no ultimate "point" or "goal" but rather each tangent reaching its own "point". Humans have no ultimate superiority. Nature is not survival of the fittest, it is the survival of the fit enough. We are not elite, we are not the ultimate, we are not untouchable or immutable, organisms we cannot even see can evolve over the course of weeks and kill us over the course of months. What we are for lack of a better term is, the best we can be. All organisms are. Whether it be the beauty of the stomata on a plant or the beauty of a woman I see on the street, we are all the greatest organisms we can be. By saying this am I making some sort of extremist remark? I sure hope not. I'm just sick of hearing how elite humans are when we wouldn't have a chance in hell without every other branch of that pretty little tree.

 

Cheers for the reference, is that a journal I can find through Jstor?
I was talking about Llamas, not apes by the way.

 

There are a few alternatives. Where they can fill the role and provide accurate data without being prohibitively expensive, I say go for it. I think you’d find most scientists take the same view. The problem is that most of these technologies aren’t up to the task. They simply can’t give us all the information, there’s too much we can’t simulate. However, with the rate of growth in biotech and computing industries it’s very possible in the not-too-distant future we will be able to construct such sophisticated digital simulations that will render animal testing pointless, at which point, scientists will stop doing it.

Well, actually, our understanding of brain structure is growing by leaps and bounds. Most of the really impressive human capabilities are due to our unique brain structures, particularly, the prefrontal cortex. It isn’t simply an issue of smart vs. stupid (software), but hardware.

I can’t find the complete text, but I’ve found summaries and fragments. There doesn’t appear to be anything new here.

I once saw disturbing images of a monkey eating it’s dead offspring, but that’s neither here nor there. A lot of this evidence is dubious, something even Miss Dixon seems to acknowledge. However, I’m all for an honest discussion based on the facts. I would be open to extending protections for higher-functioning species; I linked a recent dolphin study, for instance. However, you might not like where that leads. Most hardcore animal rights folks just put their feet down.

Yes, but we have a greater and more complex array of emotions, and methods of expressing or dealing with them. As has been said, “liberty” for me, and “liberty” for a German Shepherd are two completely different things. For the animal it’s just a physical issue. Moreover, there’s a strong tendency to anthropomorphize animals, to ascribe human thoughts and feelings that aren’t necessarily applicable. Even extremely primitive organisms generally avoid danger, and so forth.

Also, just as a reminder, let’s clarify things here. Nobody is promoting animal abuse.Those who claim there is no distinction are being disingenuous, the distinction is a matter of the objective, and the utility.

 

I would disagree a little bit. Nature tends to function in a sort of ruthless Darwinian modality. (However, that by no means implies we should do the same.) Obviously, the purpose of evolution, adaptation, is to be a better survivor. I think humans have essentially won the prize in that there is nothing left in the natural world that threatens our existence. Now, we have to keep ourselves in check, which no other species on earth has been able to do, before. I think sentience is also sort of the ‘ultimate’ adaptation. I think it would be horrifying to have a universe without consciousness.

 

I pretty much agree with everything you just stated. And yes, of course sentience is a beautiful gift! But so is mitosis, something that both you and mushrooms can experience! What I'm saying is that I see beauty and superiority in all the Earth's organisms not just humans.

 

Ok, I essentially agree with that. I would just say that sentience is the greatest adaptation.

 

I am not blind to human achievement. What you are blind too is such achievement is only of value to our species, and really aint worth shit to other species, or to the universe as a whole. I don't think my species is the best, I don't think my race is the best, I don't think my country is the best, I don't think my town is the best, nor my street, nor myself, my planet, my family, etc. Your second point would seem to hold a contradiction, using it, given how we have treated other species, and members of our own that appear primitive, I would have to conclude that we are none too smart. Ah, still in the textbook, though quite simple, I'm surprised it passed over your head. I spend time with other species, I communicate with them and observe the way they behave. It is quite obvious that they experience complex emotions, and attempt to communicate these. Much body language is very similar to human, in fact. Reasoning, also, to some degree, and they play, and dream, but you don't even need that. Common sense will tell you that it would be impossible to train an animal that lacked such, and that stuff like adrenaline doesn't just flow around their bodies for the sake of it. For me, evidence enough, more compelling than words on a page. Common sense would tell me that, being human, it is likely that person does experience such things mentioned, although it would seem that my doggie friends have a better grasp of empathy, but whatever. Am I going to reject the obvious because of lack of proof? No, that would be irrational, I think. Unreasonable, a symptom of prejudice, perhaps. Oh, and if you must split quote, get it right, can you?

 

Sorry, mate, but Hamlet was taking the piss when he said that, go read it again. Whatever, you talking crap. An aborted fetus has the possibility of that, as does an unfertilized egg. Even an amoeba has the possibility, life can evolve. Even a pool of amino acids can do it. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. Burn that one on your brain, sure ya find it far more useful.

 

Yeah, just the same old bullshit. Master race, master species. Ignorance is no excuse.

 

I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.

That could have something to do with the fact that they can't remotely understand them.

Not necessarily. A Type 4 civilization might theoretically be able to prevent the end of our universe, such as the 'Big Freeze.' The universe might not care, per se, but it'll continue to exist. Actually, it probably would because a Type 4 civilization would probably saturate the universe with intelligence.

First of all, you'd have to define what you mean by "best." This is also not what I said, what I said was that sentience was the best adaptation to evolve on this planet.

Ridiculous.

Like Einstein said; "Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

The planet is the best FOR YOU, SO FAR.
As for the rest that's really ridiculous and in no way relates to what I was saying. The purpose of evolution is become a better survivor; the human species has evolved in such a way that no other lifeform threatens us, even if you stretch the definition to include viruses. Now, we're in the unique position of figuring out how to manage ourselves.

I specifically said species that were more advanced than we are presently. (And by "more", I don't mean days or weeks, but some significant measure.) Most likely at least a Type 2 civilization. Such a civilization would have a near infinite (More than it could ever use.) supply of clean energy, the computational, and bioengineering abilities to permenantly eradicate disease, create artificial intelligence, etc. Not only would they have no interest in treating us with malice, they would have no need to cause us any inconvenience because they would no longer have any needs they couldn't satisfy without us.

Again, this is like saying your dog is stupid because he wrote a novel, but doesn't indent his paragraphs. This has very little to do with individual intelligence. Most of what you're referring to is the cause of powerful institutions controlled by a relatively small elite minority.

"Complex" compared to simpler organisms, not to human beings. However, I already mentioned I support increased protections for animals species that meet a certain threshold of intelligence.

Spatial reasoning.

I never said animals don't have brains or nervous systems. I might have a rationalistic perspective but I don't subscribe to the Cartesian idea that animals can't feel pain.

Right. Letting countless humans die to save animals would be SO much more empathetic. There seems to be a significant paradox, here.

You're in no position to be criticizing anybody else's reason or rationality.

 

Yeah, ok, seems you drifted off on a few tangents there...

Have fun, when you get back, let me know what the 'letting countless humans die' bit is about.

 

I came into this thread expecting people to be talking about glaring lights, unnatural tremors, and suffocating heat. But alas, it is just a vivisection thread.

 

Actually, I insert a break whenever I see something that needs to be addressed, usually, because it's wrong. However, I don’t see what difference it makes. Apparently, you’re content to sit back and leave it to whatshisfuck to argue your ideas for you, badly.