Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

bioone.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 269 posts

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#161

Post by gadders »

xj9 wrote: post #129
127 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that's pretty much it. I remember going fishing with my uncle as a kid and I was disturbed what I was doing to these animals but my uncle told me that fish can't feel pain. I didn't believe it then, and even less now. To combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception. Without it, you can only pick two. For evolutionary reasons, it's obvious…

combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception i'm at peace with killing animals for food. i know that they feel pain, but life is pain in general. maybe i'm a terrible person or something, but a good bbq is def worth more than the life of a pig or a cow.

The thing is though, animals die anyway. And it's not like they die peacefully in their sleep, either. They mostly either get injured or old and starve to death, or get eaten by predators.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#162

Post by soundwave106 »

zopa wrote: post #149
mschuster91 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We actually live in a symbiotic relationship with cats: we provide them with noms and warmth (and the cleaning of their litterboxes), they reward us with love. And the occasional thrown-off-the-table TV.

To be fair, many cats try very hard to reciprocate with food. It's not their fault we don't appreciate a nice fresh mouse.

But we do in a way. Keeping the vermin away from our grains was probably the reason humans tolerated having wildcats around in the first place.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#163

Post by djrogers »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #142
toyg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meh. Thanks to the technological and cultural advancements of the Afro-Euro-Asian human cluster, we could wipe 99% of these “threats” tomorrow if we wanted to. In fact, we did have comparable dangers in other continents in the past - we just had no qualms with killing every single one of them or burning their ecosystem to the ground, because we had no concept of “ecosystem”: everything in nature was a threat to be de…

>Thanks to the technological and cultural advancements of the Afro-Euro-Asian human cluster, we could wipe 99% of these “threats” tomorrow if we wanted to. We can be wiped out by some of the simplest lifeforms, and even simpler, not quite lifeforms on the planet.

> We can be wiped out by some of the simplest lifeforms, and even simpler, not quite lifeforms on the planet.

Until that actually happens, I'm gonna call that BS pessimism. Humans are waaaay more durable, persistent, clever, stubborn, and hard to kill en-masse than you are giving us credit for.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#164

Post by QAPereo »

meri_dian wrote: post #69
taneq wrote: post #7

So we're not the only: - tool-using animal - fire-using animal - language-using animal - animal which domesticates other animals - animal which builds complex structures Aha! I know! We're the only animal which continually comes up with reasons why we're special.

In each of those categories we're far and away the best. I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. I think among some people that are frustrated with the human world for whatever - either personal or abstract - reason, there's a feeling of misanthropy that colors their thinking, and so they try to belittle humanity.

https://www.haystack.mit.edu/hay/staff/jball/etiy.pdf

A good read, especially on the last page the paragraph beginning with, “The history of science contains, one after another, a series of blows to mankind’s anthropocentric ego.”

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#165

Post by padobson »

stupidcar wrote: post #150
krapp wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. To simply state that humans are best adapted at certain traits is true, but humans have tended to think of themselves as "special" in that "we're not even animals, but beings made in the image of God and given divine right to conquer Nature and do with it what we will." That anthropo…

But the opposite view could just as easily be used as a justification: I.e. "We're just animals, no different from any other. So anything we do is a part of nature, and we shouldn't second guess it, any more than any other animal would second guess its instincts." I think we need to recognise that we are, at least, unique. And that we have a unique ability to affect the world, for good or ill, that sets us apart from…

But the opposite view could just as easily be used as a justification

Agreed. Human animals will always find pseudo-rational reasons to do nefarious things.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#167

Post by indubitable »

dorfsmay wrote: post #115
rtpg wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.

Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process. Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monke…

In my opinion it's quite simple. I eat what I would be willing to personally kill and butcher myself. I think trying to justify why 'A' and not 'B' to ourselves is somewhat unproductive. Two people watch a movie, one person likes it - the other dislikes it. Both can give their reasons for such, but neither is right or wrong.

Attempting to quantify subjective matters is arguably one of the big reasons so many of the social sciences are facing replication crises. There are so many factors in play that the quantifications, or justifications, we provide to explain social phenomena like this are not very meaningful even if we think they are! The most important thing is to be aware of the facts, so much as possible, but beyond that simply to take your opinion as what it is - a subjective view based on a complex series of mental interactions that even you are not fully privy to.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#168

Post by dasil003 »

padobson wrote: post #165
stupidcar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the opposite view could just as easily be used as a justification: I.e. "We're just animals, no different from any other. So anything we do is a part of nature, and we shouldn't second guess it, any more than any other animal would second guess its instincts." I think we need to recognise that we are, at least, unique. And that we have a unique ability to affect the world, for good or ill, that sets us apart from…

But the opposite view could just as easily be used as a justification Agreed. Human animals will always find pseudo-rational reasons to do nefarious things.

...and to define things as nefarious.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#169

Post by hutzlibu »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #70
robotresearcher wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'll call that difference 'consciousness'. OK. Meanwhile, I found a great termite city where termites have put aside their differences and work towards common goals together. Also coral. Their city is a thousand kilometres long.

I'm not saying that difference is called anything in particular but I can expect wildly different results from interacting with a city than I can from a mound of coral or a termite nest. Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we'…

> Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold.

He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.

Re: Intentional Fire-Spreading by “Firehawk” Raptors in Northern Australia

#170

Post by Quarrelsome »

hutzlibu wrote: post #169
Quarrelsome wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that difference is called anything in particular but I can expect wildly different results from interacting with a city than I can from a mound of coral or a termite nest. Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we'…

> Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold. He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.

so what is the argument beyond "humans so arrogant and humdrum"? I'm trying to frame where we are by finding out what we are arguing and what we aren't, if we're not there then where are we? That's not manipulative I'm just trying to fix us to specific points so we can progress.

Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy:

> > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh.

Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.

Post reply on HN