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

171–180 of 269 posts

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

#171

Post by hnaccy »

indubitable wrote: post #167
dorfsmay wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Is justifying the wrongness of slavery unproductive?

Was it just a subjective discussion with no right or wrong answer?

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

#172

Post by InitialLastName »

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.

One could argue (as Yuval Noah Harari does in the book Sapiens) that the ability to "come up with reasons why we're special", or more generally to reason about things that don't exist in a material form (like limited-liability corporations, deities, nation-states, or the notion that we're special) is exactly what makes humans special.

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

#173

Post by CPLX »

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.

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.

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

#174

Post by vasilipupkin »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #157
vasilipupkin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphins, etc. all other animals are fair game.

So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they a…

yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example.

no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.

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

#175

Post by ieatfood »

dasil003 wrote: post #168
padobson wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, isn't it?

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

#176

Post by dorfsmay »

indubitable wrote: post #167
dorfsmay wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

So if your neighbour is willing to kill and butcher a human being, you're OK with that?

What about another ape or an elephant?

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

#177

Post by dorfsmay »

nine_k wrote: post #136
dorfsmay wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Widely eaten animals are those easy to farm. This limits them mostly to land herbivores, like cows, and water herbi/omnivores, like shrimp or tilapia. The level of intelligence plays little role, as long as the animals don't use it to actively try to fight back or escape. E.g. pigs are no less smart than dogs.

I'll argue it is more complicated. Horse meat for example is eaten in continental Europe and Asia but taboo in the UK and U.S.

And on your point about pig vs dogs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

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

#178

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

vasilipupkin wrote: post #174
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they a…

yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.

Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.

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

#179

Post by mrec »

acobster wrote: post #139

I took a basic falconry lesson with my dad last year. Besides being one of the coolest things I did all year, I got to learn all about the species we worked with: the Harris hawk. Native to the Southwest region of North America, they are of the only (the only?) raptors that strategize together and hunt in packs. Apparently if you introduce two groups who have never interacted before, they will play games and talk to…

Is the Harris hawk also known for being unusually trainable? I've seen them used in London for pigeon control, despite them not being native to the UK.

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

#180

Post by Danihan »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #100
meri_dian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point of this, I think, is that we justify our behavior towards animals on the belief that they are not "the same" as us. That is, that they aren't beings capable of the same rich experiences of the world that we are and, therefore, their suffering is less important than ours. This same sort of rationalization has been used throughout history to justify similar behavior towards other human beings. Evidence is inc…

> there are lesser classes of human being as well, the ones that aren't as good as others at whatever metric you happen to be using.

Yep, it does suggest that. Just because everyone has equal rights under a governmental system, doesn't mean everyone is actually equal by any substantive metric.

Post reply on HN