81–90 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are elephants higher on the hierarchy than eg pigs?
They're a keystone species, have culture and language (probably older than any human one), they mourn their dead, and on and on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every being with a consciousness must have feelings. Otherwise the consciousness wouldn't know what to do.
That doesn't mean physical pain is necessarily among the feelings felt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's no intrinsic advantage to being more like nature It all depends on how you define "advantage": Being integrated into the ecosystem, instead of acting outside of it like it doesn't exist or matter at all to our survival, and thus being able to survive long-term is a rather big advantage. Otherwise, we might become victims of our own "success" [0]. Now, if you define advantage very narrowly, as in "What's in…
I think they're referring to the "appeal to nature" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
I don't see how treating animals well removes us from the ecosystem. We have already drastically changed the ecosystem of the Earth - might as well do some positive things for it.
Whales are intelligent. They should not be killed by humans who mask the activities as scientific research. Japan is a great country and a leader on many levels. I speak Japanese. I enjoy Japanese food and culture. The people are very kind and considerate. There are some who are concerned if you stop killing whales you must stop killing fish and other forms of sustenance. This is not the case. The difference is whale…
And orca are not really whales. They are big dolphins. The name "killer whale" means "killer of whales", whale killer ... blame the french for that swap. I downloaded a bbc show called "wild wales" expecting an epic doc about the sea. What i got was two guys in a camo tent feeding peanuts to squirrels. Language is hard.
Whatever it is, if your definition includes pilot whales and sperm whales, it probably has to include the dolphin family, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans presumably are seen as sentient yet [the majority of us?] are being exploited in one way or another: Capitalism has no inbuilt concept of respect. If you meant not exploited for food, that is obviously different. I'm not aware of any humans that do that anymore. Now tell me how you judge sentience?
Why can't we respect human dignity like those communists who murdered and starved tens of millions of people, ruined economies, and consigned countless people to oppression and deprivation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they're referring to the "appeal to nature" [0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
I was indeed referring to this logical fallacy. I don't see how treating animals well removes us from the ecosystem. We have already drastically changed the ecosystem of the Earth - might as well do some positive things for it.
Wouldn't you just come back to the conclusion of "What's good for nature must be natural or else it can't be part of nature?"
Imho it's that logic which most "appeals to nature" are built upon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same way about horses. They serve horse steaks in Iceland (and probably other places) which I find equally as barbaric.
The difference for me is that horses can be (and are) domesticated and raised for their meat. Nor are they necessarily endangered. If you find horsemeat barbaric, what about beef or chicken or pork? What about deer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the same way about horses. They serve horse steaks in Iceland (and probably other places) which I find equally as barbaric.
Do you feel the same way about pork or beef?
Listening to these remarkable recordings, I can't help but think that as time goes on, more and more of the artificial mental barriers we've built between us and non-human animals will fall. I hope with more research humanity stops seeing non-human animals as resources to be exploited but rather as sentient beings to be respected.
Ok, how about insects, say you don't even kill insects, what about if you accidentally step on a worm on a rainy day? Should we create "insect free zones" that keep bugs out (somehow) so that insects don't get needlessly killed on sidewalks or roads?
What about rats? Rats and house mice carry harmful diseases, and arguably, extermination is merely depriving these animals of their right to self-determination (to getting food and shelter, in your adobe.) Of course, they aren't mindful they are spreading illness and disease to you, but you're the more aware being who is in a power differential with them, and thus need to realize your responsibility in the interaction.
We can keep going down this rabbit hole. Someone already suggested not killing lobsters. Do they have significantly larger brains than mice or rats? It sounds like the answer is no[0]. In fact, their brains are the size of grasshoppers'...which means if we help respect the sentience of lobsters we probably have to respect the sentience of insects in general.
I consider myself a socialist, but some people are taking the "exploitation" talk of Marx too far and applying it to animals who are not sentient. I can understand drawing a line at Orcas, Dolphins, may be some primates or elephants, etc. But not all animals are the same and to treat them as sentient beings requires a large ignorance of reality of differences between the species.
Whales are intelligent. They should not be killed by humans who mask the activities as scientific research. Japan is a great country and a leader on many levels. I speak Japanese. I enjoy Japanese food and culture. The people are very kind and considerate. There are some who are concerned if you stop killing whales you must stop killing fish and other forms of sustenance. This is not the case. The difference is whale…
That said, that tax payer money might finance a new whaling ship might be closer to something you can pin on the government, so that's a valid concern I think.