221–230 of 269 posts
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.
We're basically sorcerers, by animal standards.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet the dolphin dies whenever it encounters something it's body can't heal on it's own. The whole "whoever lives the simpler life is smarter" doesn't really hold up when science/medicine/engineering solve life threatening problems.
Most of the life-threatening problems we face today both individually and as a species are the result of our science/medicine/engineering.
And if so, why do the raptors do it?
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…
I witnessed a Harris hawk attack a mockingbird in mid-flight outside my window once. It was brutal, blood and feathers sprayed everywhere, though the mockingbird managed to fly off with the hawk in hot pursuit. At first, I was like WTF!? Then I became curious. I identified the Harris hawk based on my brief sighting, and discovered that they were native to Texas, where I was living, and one of their main sources of pr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I'm saying, why? What does it matter what species they are? Your original claim implied that you believe this is because lower IQ equates to a lack of consciousness, which as I've already described cannot be objectively determined and is therefore a poor metric. If I understand you correctly, you are now saying that it's really the species that determines consciousness, which is equally invalid. Either you are ta…
you are engaging in semantics and sophistry. It can be objectively determined that cows are significantly less intelligent than humans, or even african grey parrots, or dolphins. I do not want to eat species that, as a species, exhibit intelligence level that is similar to human intelligence. The reason i wouldn't eat a dumb human is because I don't want to perform an intelligence test on every parrot or every human.…
You are not making rational logical arguments. You have started with your preferred conclusion and are employing rationalization to justify it. Every time I show you that your philosophy allows for things you find uncomfortable, you move the goalposts.
Case in point:
>Also, discussing whether or not I would eat a human is silly because I can't go to the supermarket and buy human flesh. So, let's keep this discussion away from meaningless hypotheticals.
This is a copout that means "I am afraid of what my philosophy actually means, so let's just ignore it". You could easily acquire and consume an infant if you wanted. There'd be severe consequences for doing so, of course, but that doesn't mean you can't do it. People do do it. None of that is relevant to the question of whether or not it is morally permissible to do so, now is it?
But you, you're not interested in making sense. You're uncomfortable, so you rationalize. Oh, it's not ok to eat infants even though they're well below my IQ threshold, even though it's completely possible, because they aren't sold in the grocery store!
Please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Squirrels bury acorns they could eat that day so they can have food in the winter instead.
Squirrels don't even remember where they've buried the acorns. They just bury and dig, and with enough squirrels involved it works out. Its an instinct that happens to contribute to survival.
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…
We are animals, and everything we do is part of nature.
Nature isn't either inherently good or evil, and natural processes can be self-destructive.
And while we probably don't have qualitatively unique features we distinguish ourselves quantitatively on many axes, especially when it comes to storing and transmitting information and therefore influencing the rest of the world.
We may be more powerful than other species, but I'm afraid that on the knowledge/wisdom scale, we're only good enough to be dangerous. Seeing ourselves as a part of nature is necessary to limit the damage we do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the life-threatening problems we face today both individually and as a species are the result of our science/medicine/engineering.
Can you elaborate on this? This sounds like a Naturalistic Fallacy.
"Since side effects from prescription drugs kill an estimated 106,000 Americans a year, the sixth leading cause of death may actually be (gulp) doctors. And that’s just from adverse drug reactions. Add in medical mistakes (which the U.S. Institute of Medicine estimates kills at least 44,000) and that brings “healthcare” up to our country’s third leading cause of death. Throw in hospital-acquired infections, and we’re talking maybe 187,000 Americans dead every year (and millions injured) by medical care."
https://nutritionfacts.org/2013/07/16/dr-gregers-new-annual-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Your opening statement
> We are the only mammal with consciousness
is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar.
So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.