Anytime's a good time to go vegan.
Sure but no.
UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
131–140 of 201 posts
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#132There are often discussions about what makes humans special and things like self-awareness, humour, sarcasm, tool usage, ethics etc are brought forward. I think there are hardly any fundamental differences between humans and other animals. We've merely reached an intelligence threshold that allowed us to develop better languages and writing and that means knowledge can be collected and passed on much much better. Lau…
There’s one major distinction between humans and animals: language. Not like “me want banana” language like in apes but like fully “ideas within ideas within ideas” language, with recursion and case and noun classes and all that. It’s incredible. It’s astonishing. We are like gods compared to other animals. And ever since we have had language (not even that long — ~50k years or so) we have been using it to tell stori…
There's nothing immoral with eating things. Why would there be? The other posters' rabbit-fox example is a great point.
I also strongly reject the idea that we need 'our specialness' to 'justify eating things and how we treat them'. I don't need justification beyond: 'That thing is made of meat. I can eat meat. I'm going to kill it and eat it'. There is no moral crisis. Things die. Things get eaten.
Just 2 days ago, I caught 2 mice that had been living a nice life in my attic (because I was lazy for a few weeks). I drowned them in a bucket. Is there a moral crisis there? No. They were vermin, living where I decided they cannot (because I live in that space). There is no difference between that and a scorpion killing small spiders trying to spin webs in its burrow.
I also think you've touched on something: We created distinctions that 'separates us more and more from the rest of the world'. If what you say is true, then they're simply illusory. If humans are so like animals (indeed we simply are the apex animal), an attempt to force morality onto our natural impulses and diets is absurd. Therefore, killing and eating anything we can reasonbly digest is a natural behavior of the human animal. Returning to the rabbit-fox example... well, clearly you can see meat-moralilizing falls apart in a hurry.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s one major distinction between humans and animals: language. Not like “me want banana” language like in apes but like fully “ideas within ideas within ideas” language, with recursion and case and noun classes and all that. It’s incredible. It’s astonishing. We are like gods compared to other animals. And ever since we have had language (not even that long — ~50k years or so) we have been using it to tell stori…
I see nothing immoral in a bear eating a human. It’s just being a bear. But just like any other social animal, as humans we’re of course going to kill that bear so it stops eating us. It has nothing to do with us being superior than a bear. We just don’t want to die like any other animal! And as humans I see nothing wrong with eating other animals (outside of animal cruelty, e.g. factory farms). As animals, we natura…
A fox eats a rabbit out of necessity. In our modern economy, people don't need to eat animals; it's usually a matter of convenience, taste, and tradition. But in all reality, we can get by quite comfortably without doing so.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see nothing immoral in a bear eating a human. It’s just being a bear. But just like any other social animal, as humans we’re of course going to kill that bear so it stops eating us. It has nothing to do with us being superior than a bear. We just don’t want to die like any other animal! And as humans I see nothing wrong with eating other animals (outside of animal cruelty, e.g. factory farms). As animals, we natura…
A fox eats a rabbit out of necessity. In our modern economy, people don't need to eat animals; it's usually a matter of convenience, taste, and tradition. But in all reality, we can get by quite comfortably without doing so.
There is no moral obligation to abstain from meat, whatsoever.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s one major distinction between humans and animals: language. Not like “me want banana” language like in apes but like fully “ideas within ideas within ideas” language, with recursion and case and noun classes and all that. It’s incredible. It’s astonishing. We are like gods compared to other animals. And ever since we have had language (not even that long — ~50k years or so) we have been using it to tell stori…
I see nothing immoral in a bear eating a human. It’s just being a bear. But just like any other social animal, as humans we’re of course going to kill that bear so it stops eating us. It has nothing to do with us being superior than a bear. We just don’t want to die like any other animal! And as humans I see nothing wrong with eating other animals (outside of animal cruelty, e.g. factory farms). As animals, we natura…
Though I do agree with the general principle that humans are animals, when it comes to eating each other, it's clear that our greater flexibility (and understanding of our own biology) allows us to choose our diets to a greater degree than other animals. Given that, us eating fewer animals (for ecologocial, health, and/or ethical reasons) seems like the best approach.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#136There are often discussions about what makes humans special and things like self-awareness, humour, sarcasm, tool usage, ethics etc are brought forward. I think there are hardly any fundamental differences between humans and other animals. We've merely reached an intelligence threshold that allowed us to develop better languages and writing and that means knowledge can be collected and passed on much much better. Lau…
> We've merely reached an intelligence threshold
Depends what you mean by intelligence. Ravens and chimps are almost as good as humans at causal reasoning, ie. correlating and inferring causes and effects from observations. This seems to fall under a typical understanding of "intelligence".
Where we differ is that we can communicate such knowledge between individuals very effectively, and across generations, which seems to yield a compounding effect. I think small, compounding network effects like this are behind apparent human "superiority".
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#137Does anyone know if they found if cats laugh? I can't find it.
No way, cats play in total silence. They have keen hearing and don't need any special play signal on top of that.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
Studying AI has given me a lot of perspective of human intelligence. It's pretty incredible the way that a system that was designed as a basic input/output sensory/reflex system has gotten so complex that we still cannot model it with supercomputers. The numbers of connections and configurations of neurons is staggering, and still well beyond the neat matrix-array-based of modern AI. ...but at the core, I've come to…
You start out well with the first three paragraphs, but I don't get how you can decide it will 'probably' leave the Earth, let alone with such a high degree of confidence as saying 'probably'. Why wouldn't it make an army of bots to start converting all the matter in the solar system and beyond into more computing substrate or whatever else it finds useful?
Many sorts of intelligence are social creatures, so - especially for a hypothetical AI created by a us - I would expect it to seek out stimulus and social relationships.
In the happy sorts of sci-fi, that gives us something like the Culture from Iain Banks; it could also be a "replace the humans with other AI" situation.
I doubt we see it in our lifetimes, though.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#139This is an unpopular opinion, and should be wielded very carefully, but I think something often lost in these conversations is that the existence of a human behavior in an animal is not sufficient evidence that it's backed by the full weight of the human-like mental states. It may well be, but additional evidence must be presented. As humans, we're strongly prone to anthropomorphize–I'm capable of ascribing human fee…
> This is an unpopular opinion, and should be wielded very carefully, but I think something often lost in these conversations is that the existence of a human behavior in an animal is not sufficient evidence that it's backed by the full weight of the human-like mental states.
Here's an even less popular opinion: most human-like mental states are a fiction, so the distinction you're trying to draw probably doesn't really exist. The mental states you attribute to suffering are merely a proxy for the behaviour you see from both humans and paramecia.
Re: UCLA Study Finds Laughter in 65 Species, from Rats to Cows
#140This is one of the most beautiful ideas to have ever entered my awareness. Laughter is hard to beat in terms of sheer beauty--the more of it in the universe, the better. And on same planet what's more!
I've read, but forgot where, that grinning -- not exactly laughter, but a related act -- is also related to aggression or has its roots in it. It's hard to deny exposed teeth in a wide green -- think chimpanzee -- look at least slightly threatening.