--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
<dante_feditech_at_...> wrote:
>
> Ideally, I believe, rules of ethics should similarly be as
universal as
> possible.
That is realistically impossible. All down through the ages, social
activists had to compromise their ideals in order to get results. We
have no control over reality itself. As simple as we try to make it,
we end up realizing that it is more complex that we think. That is
because we are more complex and complicated that we think. Only
animals are simple-minded.
> When was the last time a severely mentally retarded person did
these things?
> Or any of the other things you list here. If you use that standard
to define
> what is a person then you have to use exactly the same standard to
define
> what isn't a person. If your criteria produces results that *you*
don't like
> (eg: some mentally disabled humans aren't people) then you should
have the
> foresight to realise it's not valid.
A severely mentally retarded person is a human who is not supposed
to be that way. That is why we treat them with respect because we
know that they are us.
> Animals can turn ideas into malevolent acts. Many predator species
toy with
> their prey. Some might argue that they do this for educational
reasons, to
> teach their young how to live, and hence it's not evil. But then
there are
> the ones who do it when there are no kids around to teach. And the
problem
> that there are a large number of mullahs, martyrs, and knapsack
bombers
> world wide who are also trying to teach (for any given definition
of
> 'teach') the next generation how to live. Would that make their
actions
> moral?
Animals lack high level of complexity that we humans possess to make
their actions questionable.
> Yes they do. Flightless ants swarm out of their nests to flatten
the ground
> with their feet so the wings ones don't tear a wing. Wolves,
foxes, badgers
> and many other species reshape their environment from one which
doesn't have
> a den/borrow to one that does.
Do they build complex structures like hamlets, villages, towns, or
cities?
> You are arguing based upon complexity. This is the mentality
behind the
> African Slave Trade. Europeans had achieved a more complex
understand of the
> world and tool-construction than African natives - which
*obviously* gave
> them the right to enslave/conquer them.
>
> Imagine aliens coming to Earth tomorrow; ones ten thousand years
in advance
> of us. Their technology might be almost unrecognisable to us. If
they used
> *your* criteria (but from their point of view) would they judge
*you* to be
> a person, or an animal? "Why this species doesn't even have fusion
reactors!
> Fusion reactors I tell you! It's not as if a great big example
doesn't
> appear over their horizon every day! They can't possibly be
sapient!"
When our ancestors showed up in Africa and the Americas, they
immediately recognized the indigenous peoples as being human like
themselves. The only downside is that they saw them as less-than-
desirable humans. If aliens showed up, they would immediately see
that we are sapient because they would be more advanced than us. You
cannot reach even the level of advancement we are currently as
without gaining a strong sense of knowing right from wrong. The
worse that we could expect from such an alien race is that a
minority amongst them would subtly exploit us (then again, I will
only believe your arguement concerning such an alien race WHEN it
happens and NEVER before).
> You can't argue based upon potential. Any other car on the road can
> potentially hit your car and write it off. But you can't file a
claim until
> it actually happens. A blank canvas can be a beautiful picture the
next day,
> but it's not worth significantly more today before that happens.
>
> Nor does 'supposed to' have much meaning. An object is what an
object is. It
> doesn't matter if it was supposed to be something else, or if you
hoped it
> would be something else. "Hi! I wrecked your $2000 computer when I
tried to
> fix it, but it was supposed to have gone well. So pay me!" Other
species on
> the planet may one day evolve intelligence. Applying your argument
we should
> avoid harming any species because of what might become.
>
> Right and wrong are relative terms keyed to group prosperity. Most
social
> species have concepts of right and wrong.
>
> Hitler (or some other individual of our choice) was an evil man.
But would
> you say he was not sapient because of what he did?
You can make an argument based upon potential when it comes to
ethics. Ever hear of the old saying, "some things are not as they
seem to be"? As for the application of my arguement. Not every
species will evolve intelligence. About the only species that will
apply to is the great apes, especially chimpanzees and bonobos.
Right and wrong inevitably becomes much more complex with sapient
beings. In animals it remains so simple that it is virtually
negligable. In regards to Hitler, here's another old saying, "they
who do malice distorts theirself".
> There are those who once said men will never fly. They will never
land on
> the moon. That no will ever credit the world is round, or that we
evolved
> from apes, or that the world is older than ten thousand years, or
that
> society could not function without slaves. Usually these people had
> substantial flaws in their education. Usually they were religious;
though
> others were also merely politicians. All of them were wrong. And
even
> decades later, such views, and the people who held them, were not
thought of
> very highly.
>
> People want (point of note: not need, want) to eat meant, wear
leather, and
> have new cures for diseases. At present most people believe the
only way to
> obtain these things is to slaughter animals by the billions each
year.
> Therefore they believe they must keep humanity and the animal
kingdom;
> otherwise they'd feel terrible guilt, or have to go without
something they
> don't really need, but want anyway.
>
> In a hundreds of years time however, invetro meat might be cheaper
and
> healthier and less prone to health scares than the real thing.
Leather can
> be made using similar procedures, and computer or cellular
testing, and
> better surgery might end the need for animals in medical research.
At that
> point they need to keep humanity and animals ethically separate
will
> evaporate. In that situation it is possible there will be a social
change in
> how animals are viewed; and how humanity sees itself in the
animals kingdom.
> Though I'm sure there will still be plenty of back sliders who
continue to
> believe in creationism, intelligent design, or whatever they're
calling it
> by then.
>
> Compare and contrast US foreign policy regarding the middle east
when they
> thought importing oil was a necessity, to how they are acting now,
when
> there are realistic alternatives.
Potential in achievements and potential in ethics are two entirely
different expectations. About the only place they crossed paths was
on the issue of slavery. It was a system based purely on economics
and only went extinct because the Industrial Revolution made it
useless. This further strengthened the Abolitionists who had been
fighting against it for centuries. Humans have a highly complex
mentality whereas the rest of the animal kingdom have very simple
mentalities, regardless of their species. So even if though we have
artificial leather and may eventually create artificial meat, it
still would not change that fact. If anything, it will only further
intensify the differences between humans and animals mentally. About
the only time when we could have been no different that animals on
our outlook was when we were hunters and gatherers.
> People asked the same questions in the years leading up to the
American
> Civil War. "You want to free slaves? Why do you hate your own race
that
> much?" The people asking that question were really missing the
point of the
> whole exercise, and were really asking the wrong questions. Though
by
> interesting coincidence, such questions usually served to distract
from the
> shocking things such people committed in the privacy of their own
> plantations.
>
> Are you really so ashamed or insecure in your species' real
achievements
> that you need to invent mistruths just to make yourself feel
better about
> your self-proclaimed superiority? What do you really think you are
achieving
> in distorting measurable truth?
How do you know they asked those questions back then? As for the
rest of your question, I am intensively proud of how far we humans
have come. So many times, we could have wiped outselves out of
existance, but we always managed to pull back from the brink because
we want to live. For better or for worse, it all means nothing; only
that we have achieved it and no non-human sapience achieved it for
us, and THAT is all that really matters when you really think of it.
There was a time when I hated my own kind and wished that we were
all wiped out. But anthropomophism opened my eyes and made me ponder
the question: if such creatures existed, would they really be any
better than us? That made me feel embarrassed about how I felt about
my fellow humans and I got away from it (it made me more pragmatic
too).
And if I said it once, I'll say it again. It is all about power. FOR
BETTER OR FOR WORSE, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THE SHEER RAW BRAINPOWER
TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING. Be you a social activist trying to improve
society or a tyrant trying to wrap it to your will, power is what is
you need to achieve your goals. And I do not mean muscular power,
animals have an abundance of that (they are generally stronger than
us). No, I'm talking about mental power. Having the ideals, being
able to think of how to apply those ideals, and being able to
convince others who would listen to you that those ideals are right.
Animals are incapable of achieving these goals because they simply
do not possess the sapience to achieve them. Sapience means
acquiring complex knowledge. And knowledge is power.
Of course, that does not mean that you can abuse animals. I think
that torturing animals is distasteful. Only bullies try to prove
their superiority by picking on the weakest. Back then, it was
nothing to take a dog out and shoot it. Today, anyone who did that
would be in trouble with the law.
But to get back to what I was saying about power. There is more
written about expansionistic empires such as the Babylonian, Roman,
and Mongol empire than there is about the other civilizations such
as the Greek, Chinese, or even the Indus Valley civilization (who by
the way were said to have had the best sewer system of the ancient
world). Empires sound exciting (I know I feel a sense of awe when I
read about them, as do most people). We don't care about the level
of cruel they ended up unleashing in order to carve out their
empires. That was all in the past. All that really matters is that
they were awesomely powerful. Western Civilization is a much kinder
and gentler version of these empires of old (we even deny that we
are an empire).
-Brandon Payne
Received on Wed Feb 21 2007 - 07:16:31 CST