Live data from Hacker News

Rats free each other from cages (2011)

nature.com

151–160 of 173 posts

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In my experience, the vast majority of human reasoning can be assigned into two categories: a) that which justifies doing as their instincts say and b) that which justifies acting in their interest as determined by their instincts. Humans are animals. We happen to possess an extraordinarily tool for abstract reasoning. That tool is mostly used for rationalization and not as an oracle of truth. We are all creatures of…

Our Laws, Moralities, Religions, and all knowledge, including scientific, is merely another ploy towards power. I honestly do not believe that there's anything ulterior other than power that motivates us as human beings.

We have all sorts of conmen that market it all sorts of bogus ideas, even the ideas of food is bogus, and entirely irrelevant to the survival of this body.

It is the attachment to the pleasure movements that motivate us, but more fundamentally the attachment to the thought structure, and demand the repetition of various kinds of thought that has produced the human being, and at a very basic sense our selves as we know it.

So it is the thought there that has demanded continuity, and in that continuity you have a plethora of varieties that add to the momentum of that thought, and this is the case with all things, from scientific, to the so called "artistic", to the religious.

What is religious thought other than the demand for ultimate pleasure without a moment of pain, to have compete happiness, bliss, without a moment of another, which is in itself a bogus idea.

So the ultimate question then isn't really a question at all it is really an answer, as then the only thing left is what we demand in thought.

So then what is it that you demand?

I personally see no reason to kill anything at all for the satisfaction of this body, nor do I see any motivation to purposefully torture animals, but if that is what you do then it is up to you, but basically it is not required, and is only demanded by that repetition of thought.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#152
post #33
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.

You're not the only one I think that all this time, human beings have been watched by creatures whose perceptions and understanding have been so far in advance of anything we have been able to accept, because of our vanity, that we would be appalled if we were able to know, would be humiliated. We have been living with them as blundering, blind, callous, cruel murderers and torturers, and they have watched and known…

Suppose that we discover tomorrow that animals are not alone in feeling pain. Are plants then deserving of such consideration? What about bacteria? Fungi?

Where would we draw the line? Should we quit eating and die of starvation? It seems like there needs to be some acknowledgement that one form of life has to die in order that we may live. What gives us the right to declare that animals are the "higher" form of life simply because they're less alien than plants?

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#153
post #150
post #73

I found the counter-argument rather strange: > At issue is the definition of empathy. “This work is not evidence of empathy — defined as the ability to mentally put oneself into another being’s emotional shoes,” says Povinelli. “It’s good evidence for emotional contagion and that animals are motivated to coordinate their behaviour so that distress is reduced, but that is nothing new.” (Emphasis mine) How could this d…

> That the captive rat was somehow causing distress to the free rat and the free rat was solely motivated to reduce that distress without any concern for the other rat. Isn't that what empathy is, though? Distress caused by the perception of another creature's distress?

I think they are arguing the difference between "that sound is annoying I'll turn that off" and "his situation is awful I don't enjoy being trapped"

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#154
post #12

Sort of off-topic but: What companies (or researchers?) [if any] are working on animal-related technologies? I.e. animal eeg, [non-decorative] animal wear, apps for animals etc. It deeply fascinates me but seems like it's somewhat unexplored in general. I only remember some company working on VR for animals.

There are games for animals, and the animals certainly seem to enjoy them.

https://youtu.be/la6vK6hI7rM

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#155
post #153
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That the captive rat was somehow causing distress to the free rat and the free rat was solely motivated to reduce that distress without any concern for the other rat. Isn't that what empathy is, though? Distress caused by the perception of another creature's distress?

I think they are arguing the difference between "that sound is annoying I'll turn that off" and "his situation is awful I don't enjoy being trapped"

But there's a whole spectrum of responses between the two, from "I don't like that noise" to "I don't like seeing that other rat in pain" to "I know if I don't do something about this, I'm going to feel bad later" or "It's wrong to let another animal suffer, therefore I should help him".

A small mammal doesn't have to have the exact same nuanced understanding as a human would in order to still be 'feeling empathy'.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#156
Everybody knows that for ages already. Rats (like other people-forming races, distinguishing themselves by odor: ants, bees, ...) are extremely social and extremely racist. They don't form a group, a pack, like wolves, where everyone knows each other, and they don't live in anonymous masses, like migratory birds, locusts or school of fish.

E.g. Konrad Lorenz in "Das sogenannte Boese" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Aggression) had a whole chapter on rats and why they developed this behavior, which is often misleadingly labelled ethically. Like here.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#157
post #19

My perception for watching the video is that the cage opener wants to mate with the rat inside once it is free. At least mount it. If there are from opposites sexes, there is certainly an egoistical reason for the rat to free the other. If they are not, rats are very sociable. They need close contact with other rats. It also looks like the opener rat is also very curious and wants to enter the cage too to know how it…

My real life must be very poor, today I learned another meaning for mount, previously I thought it was a word for installing a controlling sector in a hard disk, to sum up there is hard evidence that I should live more and use computers less, lets say that I should mount life. Context: English is not my native language.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#158
post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Evolution doesn't care about arbitrary categories like "species". Species aren't even a thing, they're an abstraction.

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#159
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its pretty moronic to assume that a feeling every animal with a nervous system avoids, is somehow not proven to be a deplorable state to put sentient life into. You can play coy semantics but its quite apparent that even primitive mammals avoid pain. You can go ahead and spout off arguments about us being biological primal carnivores but that isn't very persuasive considering that the defining aspect of intellect has…

This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. We've asked you repeatedly not to do this. Please don't do it again.

How is calling an opinion moronic uncivil?

Re: Rats free each other from cages (2011)

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its pretty moronic to assume that a feeling every animal with a nervous system avoids, is somehow not proven to be a deplorable state to put sentient life into. You can play coy semantics but its quite apparent that even primitive mammals avoid pain. You can go ahead and spout off arguments about us being biological primal carnivores but that isn't very persuasive considering that the defining aspect of intellect has…

I agree with everything you've written except, I think, this last sentence: >Death is not the enemy of moral virtue but cruel and unusual life surely is. Are you saying that it's ok to kill animals for food as long as they are not made to suffer in the process? If so, I'd argue that depriving them of subjective experience - which is what death entails - is also morally wrong.

That is a stronger opinion. I agree with you but I am offering a logical framework that will agree with more people.
Post reply on HN