Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idea that intellect should be a measure of if is okay to kill or other use a species is extremely flawed in my opinion.
What else do you want to use?
Taste.
Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
111–120 of 250 posts
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current bar is just anything not in the genus Homo and would likely extend to any 'humanoid' species. A wolf doesn't really care about the relative intelligence of the rabbits it kills, but has a natural kinship between other wolves or wolf-like creatures which more-or-less extends to, "I wont kill you for food unless I'm starving."
Wolves are irrelevant here. If we're talking about the morality of the way we treat animals, it's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own (and something I'm sure would never occur in any other discussion of morality).
it's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own
Human society tends to operate on that logical fallacy. The badness/awfulness of others is taken to justify "extreme measures" from our own side. (And I would agree that this is wrong.)
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#113It upsets me to no end that we find evidence such as this piece that cephalopods are actually (relatively speaking) remarkably more intelligent than common wisdom pertains[0], and yet the culinary abuse and harm (i.e. 'live sushi/sashimi') of these creatures continues. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence
Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (del…
Well, I'm certainly against eating all animals alive. Not a complicated issue.
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this really how you feel taken to its logical extremes? Do you think humans should be allowed to eat other humans? Other live humans? Eating is clearly a very personal thing, but it's silly to pretend that morality suddenly ceases applying.
The third one, "full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions" would include criminal charges and jail-time for the decision to eat a human as it would constitute murder. If someone said "I'm comfortable with the legal consequences of cannibalism and murder along with the possibility that the person may actually kill me before I get to them" and they actually are held to those postulation…
In that case, your first and third statements certainly seem in conflict. You don't actually believe in any practical sense that people should be able to make their own (unhindered) decision on what to eat if you're going to punish them for it and prevent them from doing it again.
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
So eating human is OK? Killing humans in order to eat them is OK? What some people are asking is if we should extend this to some other species, typically other apes (which share 90% of our genes etc...) and now animals with high intelligence (elephant, dolphin, octopus).
Our society has decided that there are a number of drastic consequences for cannibalism and murder. If someone honestly was ok with all of them including things like telling the persons' family and spending their life in jail for the cost of a meal, then that's fine. Note that my conditions make people on the hook for everything - the treatment of the workers that prepared the food, the environmental impact of delive…
In what sense is it okay? What does "okay" mean? Responding to an action with a life prison sentence doesn't scream "okay".
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (del…
Although not the OP, I have a fairly strong opinion on this. In order of importance everyone should * Make their own decisions on what to eat. * Understand the externalities, exogenous, and endogenous process and consequences of their decisions. * Take full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions. Essentially, as long as people are forthright, honest, and accountable about what they eat,…
I'm sorry, but this
>* Make their own decisions on what to eat.
is totally unacceptable when you're "making a decision" to enslave, torture, murder, and consume a sentient, feeling creature.
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you against eating all animals or is there a cut off point of intelligence after which it stops being okay? Most of what is/isn't acceptable to eat is based on history and popular socially accepted practices, not whether people think their prospective dinner is intelligent. Pigs are more intelligent than dogs yet the latter are not eaten in the western world and I wouldn't want to live in a world without the (del…
As a non-vegetarian (for now), my standpoint is that I/we should try as hard as possible to ensure that the sourcing of food is sustainable, humane and ethical for the animals involved. In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens. I agree with you that social norms (esp. in your dog/pig example) put irrational values on propensi…
So, if we're willing to grant that non-human animals are worthy of ethical consideration and accept that we don't need meat to be healthy or happy, how can slaughtering them for food be considered ethical?
>In the usual agricultural animals this is usually straightforward and easy as a consumer — think organically-fed, free-range chickens.
I'd counter that it's incredibly not straight forward for consumers. In the US (which I'm the most familiar with), organic has no bearing on the treatment of the animal and qualifiers like "free-range" are either loosely defined or undefined with no third-party oversight. Top that off with ubiquitous practices that most people are surprised by (such as chickens reaching slaughter age in just 6 weeks), I think it's incredibly difficult for people to find products that they can confirm and agree with the ethics of.
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#118Amazing. Most humans couldnt come up with an escape plan like this. It's possible he exhibiting long term goal oriented planning here. Have we considered octopi might actually be more intelligent than humans? Wouldn't it be funny if in the future we figured out how to communicate with them and they ended up solving our hardest problems or making breakthroughs in physics and math?
Well, there brains can handle 8 arms all moving independently and with many control points in each arm all acting with out pattern. Can humans do that? Before we jump on the intelligent octopus bandwagon, lets realize that intelligence in one area does not mean they are intelligent or some how superior in another. Qualification and acceptance in society transcends beyond intelligence.
Humans can tell where their appendages are without looking at them and can use this ability to form mental images of objects by touch.
The cost of being able to manipulate 8 arms is octopus arms don't provide a lot of feedback to the brain and handle a lot of things reflexively.
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#119The bit with the jailbreaking octopus from Finding Dory comes to mind.
Re: Inky the octopus breaks out of New Zealand aquarium
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
So eating human is OK? Killing humans in order to eat them is OK? What some people are asking is if we should extend this to some other species, typically other apes (which share 90% of our genes etc...) and now animals with high intelligence (elephant, dolphin, octopus).
Our society has decided that there are a number of drastic consequences for cannibalism and murder. If someone honestly was ok with all of them including things like telling the persons' family and spending their life in jail for the cost of a meal, then that's fine. Note that my conditions make people on the hook for everything - the treatment of the workers that prepared the food, the environmental impact of delive…
This is a cop out...
Would you be ok with changing legislation so that it is ok to kill humans as long as it is to eat them.
This is what people are discussing here, should we legislate against killilling animals with "high intelligence" and those who share more genes with us than with any other animal, as long as it is for food?