81–90 of 201 posts
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. 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. 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also curious that we feed an animal that laughs (cows) to an animal that doesn't laugh (cats) and somehow construct logic to justify it all morally. I find myself in that weird cult, despite personally having an animal free diet for decades.
I eat animals, and probably will for the rest of my life, but I do think it's one of those aspects of daily life that we'll look back on as extremely barbaric.
I try to use the “Alt meat” Version or fish when possible though to reduce meat consumption. But I’m incapable of giving it up altogether at this point.
I do find the alt - meat to be good enough for cooked meat though; I think there is a huge market here.
There 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…
I’ve thought about this quite a lot, and always come to the same unique characteristic: man can think about thinking.
This implies at least basic theory of mind and thinking about thinking. This wasn't the only evidence btw.
Before that we had a different dog, also a mutt. He was pretty aggressive and had a separate fenced area inside our backyard. There was a cherry tree just outside that fenced area and our cat liked to sit there, but only if the dog is locked in the fenced area. That dog learnt to close the gate to look as if it's locked and sit in there waiting for the cat to climb the tree, AND wait for us to go to school/work, and only then he would leave the fenced area and bark under the tree at the cat for hours. We only knew thanks to neighbors.
In general theory of mind is very useful to any social animal and especially to predators, so I don't think it's as unique to humans as some people say.
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. 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…
Why isn’t the starting point that they do have feelings like us and we have to find evidence against it?
Really, other animals are so similar to us on every dimension except language that I wonder why people reason this way. Mammals in particular. I’ve seen Denver the guilty dog. She’s behaving like she feels guilty. It’s harder to buy an argument that we are just projecting our human notion of guilt onto her, rather than she simply feels guilt.
To put it another way, your position implies that all of these things were experience — laughter, grief, guilt, shame, deception — might have begun with humans. For me, that’s a position you need a lot of evidence for.
There 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…
It's also curious that we feed an animal that laughs (cows) to an animal that doesn't laugh (cats) and somehow construct logic to justify it all morally. I find myself in that weird cult, despite personally having an animal free diet for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I eat animals, and probably will for the rest of my life, but I do think it's one of those aspects of daily life that we'll look back on as extremely barbaric.
This is interesting! So you‘re extrapolating the reduction of babaricness that humanity expresses historically into the future and that the threshold will be so low that killing animals for food will be seen as one of the most babaric thing humans do by then. I think for this to happen we would need to shield us quite well from the inherent babaricness of nature. „Why should I not eat animals, if lions are doing it e…
That's what people do in every ethical aspect, we circumvent it and pretend it's easy to solve, and then criticize the people that can't circumvent it due to some environmental issue. When that people is on the past, there isn't even a problem with this.
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. 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…
Lately it has become vogue to attribute human intelligence to slime molds because they do complex things like solve mazes. Then that behavior gets put side by side with, say, mice trying to solve mazes.
Perhaps the most egregious, in my opinion, is the way people unreflectively attribute terms to plants. I hate being a nerd about definitions, but sometimes playing and joking around with definitions serves to embed fundamental misunderstandings about the natural world.
Here at hn and elsewhere, I've seen people insist that plants can "feel", that they "communicate" and are "conscious", very intentionally attempting to insist that it's same in the deepest sense as what humans do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is interesting! So you‘re extrapolating the reduction of babaricness that humanity expresses historically into the future and that the threshold will be so low that killing animals for food will be seen as one of the most babaric thing humans do by then. I think for this to happen we would need to shield us quite well from the inherent babaricness of nature. „Why should I not eat animals, if lions are doing it e…
As soon as we learn how to cultivate some good quality meat in-vitro, we will stop killing animals and start to pretend to be different from the barbaric previous generations. That's what people do in every ethical aspect, we circumvent it and pretend it's easy to solve, and then criticize the people that can't circumvent it due to some environmental issue. When that people is on the past, there isn't even a problem…
In the very long term maybe. But even if cheap, good quality artifixial meat becomes avaiable by tomorrow - killing animals for meat simply out of tradition - will go on a long time.