8 ms·
Idea that intellect should be a measure of if is okay to kill or other use a species is extremely flawed in my opinion.
by nxzero 11y ago
Idea that intellect should be a measure of if is okay to kill or other use a species is extremely flawed in my opinion.
- maxxxxx 11y agoWhat else do you want to use?
- nxzero 11y agoImpact, contribution, etc. to an ecosystem.
- Spivak 11y agoThe current bar is just anything not in the genus Homo and would likely extend to any 'humanoid' species. A wolf doesn't really care about the relative intelligence of the rabbits it kills, but has a natural kinship between other wolves or wolf-like creatures which more-or-less extends to, "I wont kill you for food unless I'm starving."
- nxzero 11y agoWolves are extremely opportunistic carnivores, and will, given the opportunity, eat another wolf. That aside, unclear how wolves relate to the topic. Generally speaking, most life on Earth doesn't even eat other living organisms, but the naturally left remains of living organisms.
- mjevans 11y agoWe all know what you meant to say, but plants are living organisms. This is why using selective terms for the type of dietary intake is scientifically useful. Carnivores that eat other carnivores (on a preferential basis) are rare. Typically herbivores are eaten by omnivores or carnivores. The only real moralities involved in these distinctions relate to energy efficiency and likelihood of diseases being a concern. Of course self awareness (sentience) is an additional layer of consideration on top of the evolutionary pressures.
- nxzero 11y agoJust to be clear, I'm referring to detritus as the primary source of nutrition for living organisms. Learn more about detritus here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detritus https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detritus
- thedaemon 11y agoIf by generally speaking you mean micro-organisms, then sure. I cannot think of any animals (mammals, fish, etc) that do not eat living organisms.
- Falling3 11y agoWolves are irrelevant here. If we're talking about the morality of the way we treat animals, it's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own (and something I'm sure would never occur in any other discussion of morality).
- stcredzero 11y agoit's a logical fallacy to try to use wolf behavior to justify our own Human society tends to operate on that logical fallacy. The badness/awfulness of others is taken to justify "extreme measures" from our own side. (And I would agree that this is wrong.)
- Falling3 11y agoAbsolutely. All the more reason to point it out.
- Falling3 11y agoSentience - I really don't see any other sensible qualifier for moral consideration.
- nxzero 11y agoSentience is central to the philosophy of animal rights, because sentience is necessary for the ability to suffer, and thus is held to confer certain rights. That said, in my opinion, as it relates to optimal ecosystems, sentience at best might be a consideration. Impact, contribution, etc. to an ecosystem would be a more natural measure.
- Falling3 11y agoDoes that actually matter in and of itself beyond how it affects sentient individuals?
- nxzero 11y agoYes, a health ecosystem requires non-sentient live for a number of reasons including that non-sentient is the source of genetically different sentient live. Diversity is critical for ecosystems.
- 55555 11y agoHumans have a pretty horrible impact on, and contribution to, the ecosystem. Can I kill them? /s
- maxxxxx 11y agoHow you determine something is sentient or not? That's a tough one.
- malz 11y agoThe two can be combined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience_quotient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience_quotient
- 11y ago
- VT_Drew 11y agoTaste.
- wnevets 11y agoits better than basing it on how cute the animal is.
- icebraining 11y agoSerious question: why?
- wnevets 11y agoThe higher an animal's intelligence the easier it is for us to emphasize with. Most humans don't like the idea of being eaten alive. Expanding this idea to machines is very easy. It is ok to treat a machine like a slave that is only capable of moving an object from point a to point b? How about a machine that has a self-aware AI?
- Falling3 11y agoWell self-awareness doesn't have a direct correlation with intelligence. I agree that it generally comes down to what/who we can easily empathize with, but I would argue it sentience matters more in that respect (as well as providing a more logical basis for what entities we should actually be concerned about).
- mjevans 11y agoI believe the moral fault there would be in the creation of a machine with a self-aware AI but a 'body' that is not worthy of that intelligence. To put that another way; a limited body should have a limited intelligence by design.
- icebraining 11y agoAssuming that's true, why is it better simply because it's easier to empathize?