151–160 of 329 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you like reading about minds that are fundamentally different from our own, you might also enjoy the science fiction novel "Blindsight" by Peter Watts. Exploring the space of possible minds in the universe is a fundamental theme of that work.
Solaris is another good novel about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pedantic mode here: linguistically it should be octopodes (but nobody who isn't speaking Greek would say that); by usage it should be octopuses; octopi or octopii are just wrong (it's not a second declension noun, despite the 'us' ending)
Octopus has three acceptable pluralizations in English. Octopuses is correct by English rules. Octopodes is correct by strict etymological Greek-origin rules. Octopi is correct by English's pseudo-Latin cognate rules. The latter means that any singular noun ending in a consonant and "-us" can be pluralized by chopping off the "-us" and appending an "-i" or "-ii", like alumnus, hippopotamus, virus, bacillus, hummus, l…
Generally speaking, octopuses is preferred by most if not all well known dictionaries in modern usage, and the pseudo-Latin cognate has fallen out of favor. I don't think it's reflective of reality to argue that all three are equivalently correct.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apart from cognitive skills, an important factor is the capacity of suffering. So even dumb animals might be able to feel intense pain. In humans, while forms of suffering like loneliness, depression can be bad, pure physical pain can itself a terrible thing. For instance severe torture for 10 minutes can be worse than months of depression. Now even if cognitive aspects are diminished in animals, the physical senses…
In her book "Animals make is human" - Temple Grandin makes the argument (among many others, this is not the main thesis of the book) that we can have a symbiotic relationship with animals, wherein we provide secure food supply, protection from predation and the associated stress, etc. and in return we eat the animal. Factory farming, by contrast has more in common with a parasitic relationship.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, I argue amorality in all things from an agnostic view. There is no such thing as a universal ethic. There is only force and its decay. For the general concept of animal herd vs people collective (effectually herd vs herd), this doesn't much matter. The best argument one can muster its that we, being rational, should preserve a reasonable food chain. The idea goes like this: A stable, sustainable food chain…
>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. A very reasonable, consistent position.
Octopuses are solitary animals, so they have little in terms of learned behavior. What they accomplish is generated by thoughts originating from themselves.
Total anecdote here, but when I volunteered at our aquarium in Charleston, SC (amazing aquarium, go check it out), we had a problem where our flounder were vanishing from their tank. We suspected theft and so put a camera up in the back room. The next time flounder disappeared we checked the feed - one of our octopi was escaping from his tank that we thought we had already anti-octopus'd, climbing over the walls, bre…
- http://belizeadventure.com/2013/08/octopus-facts/
- https://www.tonmo.com/threads/midnight-tank-escapes-fact-or-...
Edit: this is not to call you out for you story, it's very possible that this happened at CHS aquarium, I'm just wondering the origins since it's such a fascinating and strange story.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In her book "Animals make is human" - Temple Grandin makes the argument (among many others, this is not the main thesis of the book) that we can have a symbiotic relationship with animals, wherein we provide secure food supply, protection from predation and the associated stress, etc. and in return we eat the animal. Factory farming, by contrast has more in common with a parasitic relationship.
To play devil's advocate, would you accept the same trade? We've provided you with medicine, police protection, and subsidized food and shelter. Does that give me the right to presume that I should be able to eat you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Christianity (at least Catholicism) has an animal ethic that is not man-made, but comes from divine revelation. Genesis says that man is given the responsibility to care for creation, and while since the time of the flood we have permission to eat animals, the general (at least Catholic) interpretation is that doesn't mean we can be cruel to animals. In other words, if we have a reasonable need to kill an animal for…
Except we no longer need to kill animals for food. Animal products are, on the whole, deleterious to our health. So, why is it still acceptable to most Catholics?
Because this is not proven. Soy is pretty bad for us. The best diet to date is the mediterranean diet. While not having much beef, it does include ample amounts of fish with some chicken. If we focus on science, vegetarianism is not the best course. Moderation that includes taking life is so far (and this can change) the best solution.
Edit: formatting to break response from quote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well pigs are smarter than dogs, and many people eat them.
Pet pig owner here. Pigs are problem solvers. Pigs are optimizers. The following videos of my pig demonstrate this. Video 2: Pig is first learning the task. Video 3: Pig has slightly optimized the task. Video 1: Pig has mastered the task. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/37f48azh2bt4xk4/Wy3iHDMp1e?previe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If such a measure were carried out without hypocrisy, one would not eat any animals. A very reasonable, consistent position.
The trouble comes with eating plants. Do they want to be eaten? So far we pushed our desire to live onto animals. Why not push that view onto plants? At least to the core plant (seed bearing plants appear to need, and I guess therefore desire, for their fruit to be eaten to decimate their germs)? The trouble with the lauded projection is we are left with not eating anything. Perhaps after the singularity then?
Although there is a gray area the closer to the line you get (insects for example), that does not diminish the fact that we can say with high degree of certainly are sentient (cows) and are not sentient (wheat).