Live data from Hacker News

Rats free each other from cages (2011)

nature.com

111–120 of 173 posts

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I was, but people also inflict physical suffering on themselves, from fasting to literal self-flagellation and mutilation. There have been people who offered themselves up for literal torture and sacrifice gladly This behaviour you describe is usually mediated by some kind of non-biological impulse -- like the 'certain' 'knowledge' that the Hairy Thunderer/Cosmic Muffin will reward this suffering in some future-/aft…

> Is this how 'people in general work' Yes. > or is this you Othering someone? Who would be othered by that statement? > Did your interlocutor turn out to be utilizing the technique you perceived him to be? That statement is about a fact, not anyone else in the conversation, so it doesn't matter.

>> Is this how 'people in general work'

>Yes.

Well, that was a quick 'discussion'! Glad you came along! Thanks for the downvote!

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#112
post #9

I feel certain that in the near future we will discover animals are a lot smarter and more emotionally developed than we currently realize, and future generations will look back on our treatment of them with disgust.

...and then we'll all take a look at the animal kingdom and see that Chimps and Dolphins and all sorts of species treat each other - and other species - with innate brutality, and realize this planet is simply one giant cage match.

...and then we'll all realize that among self-conscious species humans have the most developed cognitive system, yet some of us still try to imply that this has nothing to do with ethicality so they can feel justified to not having to feel accountable for their actions more than how the other species do.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is this how 'people in general work' Yes. > or is this you Othering someone? Who would be othered by that statement? > Did your interlocutor turn out to be utilizing the technique you perceived him to be? That statement is about a fact, not anyone else in the conversation, so it doesn't matter.

>> Is this how 'people in general work' >Yes. Well, that was a quick 'discussion'! Glad you came along! Thanks for the downvote!

> Well, that was a quick 'discussion'! Glad you came along!

You're welcome! The discussion of how there is an impulse for people to get upset and defensive when told they're wrong, and how it impedes learning, is very well established. It's not worth wasting time on a weird side argument about it. The answer is just 'yes, that happens a lot'.

Edit:

> Thanks for the downvote!

Hey, feel free to continue with the rest of the conversation without me. I'm not going to judge. I'm only going to snip at weird unproductive semi-insulting tangents.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#114
post #9

I feel certain that in the near future we will discover animals are a lot smarter and more emotionally developed than we currently realize, and future generations will look back on our treatment of them with disgust.

...and then we'll all take a look at the animal kingdom and see that Chimps and Dolphins and all sorts of species treat each other - and other species - with innate brutality, and realize this planet is simply one giant cage match.

> one giant cage match

Sounds like we could use some rats

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and then we'll take a look at each other and realize that perhaps we humans have choice to act humanely, or to act no differently and start a cage fight on a global scale. The latter is true today anyways. The point isn't how they treat each other necessarily, but how we treat them in light of the knowledge of their "individual" characteristics, not unlike human beings. So we humans then extend the gift of life to…

Many animals kill not just for survival but for play and sport. Any cat owner has observed this behavior.

maybe because a cat can't afford to go to school and study for their future job?

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#116

>Did we ask the animals too? Maybe the pig consensus is different Most mammals react to painful stimuli (which we can provide a baseline for by testing it on other humans, whom you luckily consider to be reliable enough) with aversion and fear. We 'ask' this question of many animals quite frequently, and have throughout history. The answers are reliable and consistent. >If most people agree they do not want to pay ta…

>> Did we ask the animals too? Maybe the pig consensus is different

> Most mammals react to painful stimuli

Which didn't really address the parent's point.

Since we can't ask the animals we can't know, so perhaps the pig consensus is:

"Yeah, look, we know you're killing us and eating us, but we really don't care. In fact, we like it, prefer. Put it this way, if we were our there in the wild we'd have to fend for ourselves, and either get eaten by our predators, or die of disease or old age. At least you kill us quickly. You don't even extend that dignity to your own kind, nope, you let each other, sometimes even force each other, to suffer till the very last breath and extract as much economic value out of each other as you can via the 'health care system' and 'palliative care', and then you don't even have the dignity to eat, or otherwise recycle, the carcass, no you just bury it in cemeteries where you don't grow food, or worse yet burn them, whereby the worms can't even eat them, and worsen your carbon pollution problem."

And there ya go, absurd isn't it. I certainly think so.

I live near pasture, we walk the dogs through it, the cows that hang out there are protective of their young, and definitely appear to have something going on between their eyes, they're quite adorable, both the young and old, and recently they're no longer there. Perhaps they got moved, perhaps we've eaten them. They could very well have ended up on my plate and I wouldn't know. But at least their lives had meaning and purpose, which is more than I can say for my life at times. The only reason I won't eat my dogs is through some quirt of culture that causes me think doing so is weird.

> Or, because you're right and you know it, ignore the entirety of this post.

Absolutely. If all we have is opinion, let's go with mine, because I guarantee it's stronger than yours. I'm even willing to go to war over it. Well, not me personally, I prefer baths and hot cups of tea, but we do seem quite eager to send each others children off to war.

I'm trying to be facetious here, because I don't really understand why people bother to keep having these arguments over differences of opinion. It generally doesn't work, unless someone is almost already there but hasn't quite accepted that they agree with you.

As Amezarak suggest in the last paragraph, perhaps the best way to go about changing culture is to attempt to gradually shift the Overton window[1], because right now the idea of Vegetarian or Vegan as policy or law is very much in the 'Unthinkable' stage.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diseases are very much a moral problem relative to biology. We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave someone to die of a curable disease, and we work to cure more. Clearly we're more interested in keeping those around alive and happy than having them die so the next generation will become "stronger". That's very co…

You're confusing 'biological reality' with naturalism. I am not advocating naturalism, nor am I claiming that one or the other is moral. I am claiming that amorality is reality, and our 'morality' is whatever the fashionable social norms of the day consist of. For example: > We're keeping the "weak" a live, prolonging life, disturbing the natural order of things. In our society, we consider it pretty immoral to leave…

You haven't exactly defined what you mean by "biological reality". I don't really see how what you're proposing is any different from naturalism. Resignation to intentions of nature, i.e., statements like these:

> I am claiming that amorality is reality

Is exactly what I consider naturalism. That's what nature wants you to think. Why is that statement even significant? Morality, as I've stated earlier, is derived from a subjective experience. It starts existing the moment someone has experiences they like and don't like. It's a simple place to begin, everyone shares it, everyone agrees on the good or the bad side of it. The only difference is that there are people who are OK with the bad happening, and those who are not. But both groups are aware of the bad.

I will say there is a big difference between a civilization where the bad is OK and one where it is not. I also know which one I'd prefer to live in. Which one pretty much everyone will prefer to live in. That's not a coincidence. Those who would prefer to live in the other civilization are also those who always expect to be on top. That seems quite a condition. Again, not a coincidence.

"fashionable social norms" are an approximation, that doesn't mean the thing they're trying to approximate doesn't exist. Just like physics don't cease to exist because our conclusions about it are not always correct.

> And it couldn't be any other way. Everything we do is 'according to evolution', ergo the disenfranchised being accorded rights is 'according to evolution,' not somehow contra to it. We are animals, not gods.

Are meteors hitting dinosaurs according to evolution, too? "Everything we do is according to evolution" is a rather tautological, unfalsifiable belief. At some point, we need to start distinguishing what evolution intended and what we do. The aforementioned fashionable social norms to me don't sound like evolution had it all figured out already. Caring for the weak and our own is a thing social animals do? To a very, very limited point... we didn't do that at all for quite a few members of society for a very long time. It seems to have taken us a lot of civilized development to even start thinking about such things. Natural fear of the other is still fighting us at every turn. Desire to eat meat is fighting us in this very topic. No, I don't think evolution has anything to do with this, unless it's evolution of thought itself. There are clearly forces in opposition to each other here.

If we are not gods, someone else is.

> Maybe, but we have moved the goalposts from 'suffering is evil' to 'suffering for another's enjoyment is evil.'

I haven't moved such goalposts, I made an example, and you should stop projecting your own conclusions when they were not at all present in the post you're responding to. The purpose of the example wasn't at all to say that suffering for another's enjoyment is evil (consensual BDSM is a thing), but to say that someone suffering due to things they didn't choose is very different from suffering due to things they chose. The difference here is obvious and I'm not going to explain it again.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..and then we'll take a look at each other and realize that perhaps we humans have choice to act humanely, or to act no differently and start a cage fight on a global scale. The latter is true today anyways. The point isn't how they treat each other necessarily, but how we treat them in light of the knowledge of their "individual" characteristics, not unlike human beings. So we humans then extend the gift of life to…

Many animals kill not just for survival but for play and sport. Any cat owner has observed this behavior.

To be fair, that probably evolved to train and further facilitate survival in the long term.

But, yes, animals often produce suffering. In fact, they've been doing it for a while before we got here. But animals are largely doing it out of instinct, not because they've reasoned out and concluded that it was the "right" thing to do.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reacting to painful stimuli is not clearly the right yardstick. If I build a deep belief network which meows every time it encounters a penalty in its stimuli and wags a tail every time maximizes its reward function, does it follow that we now have to treat it as if it's human ? I'd say no. Similarly, the fact that a cow reacts to pain stimuli doesn't automatically mean that I shouldnt eat that cow

Nowhere did I claim that pigs ought to be treated as humans. For that matter, nowhere did I say you shouldn't eat that cow. Why are you trying to imply that I did? Your thought experiment ignores a lot of established facts, like the neurological structural similarities between, say, pigs and humans. Both have amygdalae, both have periaqueductal grey, both have similar pain avoidance behaviours. Why not assume that pi…

Well, since humans are conscious and are able to communicate with each other clearly, we can tell pretty well what it means for a human to feel pain. It's far less clear what it means for a pig. But if you believe that humans and pigs feel pain in a very similar or basically identical manner, then what justification can you have to eat pigs and cause them that pain that you think they feel?

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#120
post #7

If you were observing humans but couldn't interview them, could you say they were acting with empathy? There are all sorts of "acts" that appear to be empathy from the outside but end up being in both parties best interest. Even acts of heroism and selflessness end up helping to hold together our society but it's often hard to feel what the other is feeling. Even when I consciously try, I suspect my attempts at empat…

Why do you think you feel empathy to begin with? It feels good because it helps on net. Your brain is a product of evolution; when something feels nice, there's usually a pragmatic reason for it.

Because it helps the species on net. Also, you know, nipples on men. Evolution isn't that pragmatic.
Post reply on HN