8 ms·

The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans pulverizi

by proc0 11y ago

The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans pulverizing the animal kingdom is because we think we're superior to them. The reasons are mostly that they have stuff we want, and we just ... take it. For millions of years we've used fire to burn their tasty meat, and tools to shred them into usefulness, so it's pretty clear we're at the top at their expense. At the same time, we can see our ancestors (and still many natives around the world) held a deep connection to nature. I don't think the problem is not recognizing the complexity of the animal mind, especially mammals. The problem is that we can't stop. Nothing has stopped humans in the past, and now feeling sorry won't change anything either. We can just hope technology will outgrow the pace of our need to exploit animals, because I don't think it will stop otherwise if we're realistic. We'll quickly recognize animal minds, and eat them without a problem, unless we get some lab steak.

rntz 11y ago
> The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans pulverizing the animal kingdom is because we think we're superior to them. The article doesn't put forward the idea that we should think more of animals for their sake; it's just saying that our understanding is factually incorrect.
- voidlogic 11y ago
  > it's just saying that our understanding is factually incorrect. There are many different views on animals currently, I personally think we don't have anything they don't just more of it- more complexity and nuance. This gap exists between any two species being compared (human vs clam, human vs dog, dog vs clam). I'd like to believe that most atheists with some background knowledge in evolutionary biology would agree with me. I also think that different animals have very different levels of spatial reasoning, emotional, social intelligence, etc. Its multidimensional. In short I don't think its fair to assume all people have a one dimensional, human vs animal POV. Plenty of people consider humans to just be other animals. For example say my border collie can reason about as well as a 2 year old, perhaps he has the emotional intelligence of a 6 year old.
- proc0 11y ago
  I think it underestimates how most people are able to easily see how animals do have complicated societies and consciousness, it's just that there's a huge disconnect between our wonder of the animal kingdom and our neglect and exploitation of it. It seems it's a cognitive dissonance when people accept their dog as their family while destroying the environment of wolves, etc.
sdegutis 11y ago
But there's no need to stop. Animals kill and eat other animals without any guilt. We're doing the same thing, only more efficiently. That said, we should have stricter rules on treating food animals better, which has proven to produce better food anyway.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Some argue the moral position of "lower animals do it; why not me?" is shaky. We're supposed to have empathy and be responsible stewards and so on. We've already got rules against eating our own babies for instance. So raising a race of mammals just to eat them seems cynical and cruel to some. We never need to stop. But we probably should.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    I do think the need part comes into play when you take into consideration resource constraints. If we end up poisoning the Earth beyond its ability to support life with rising demand for meat, we might need to stop.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was the other way around, that we valued our unique human cultures with our ideas of ethics and reciprocity over our primitive instincts for survival. If it's the case that we should be emulating animals, maybe we should rethink this whole civilization thing.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    Reciprocity requires, well, reciprocity, a two-sided relationship. Only some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans. Just pointing out.
    - ewzimm 11y ago
rokhayakebe 11y ago
The reasons are mostly that they have stuff we want, and we just ... take it. We do this between ourselves. Everything we do to animals we do to humans, I guess except eating.
- proc0 11y ago
  I meant that we do so easily. Throughout history we've just decimated animal populations, like taking candy from a child.

by proc0 11y ago

rntz 11y ago

> The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans pulverizing the animal kingdom is because we think we're superior to them. The article doesn't put forward the idea that we should think more of animals for their sake; it's just saying that our understanding is factually incorrect.

voidlogic 11y ago
> it's just saying that our understanding is factually incorrect. There are many different views on animals currently, I personally think we don't have anything they don't just more of it- more complexity and nuance. This gap exists between any two species being compared (human vs clam, human vs dog, dog vs clam). I'd like to believe that most atheists with some background knowledge in evolutionary biology would agree with me. I also think that different animals have very different levels of spatial reasoning, emotional, social intelligence, etc. Its multidimensional. In short I don't think its fair to assume all people have a one dimensional, human vs animal POV. Plenty of people consider humans to just be other animals. For example say my border collie can reason about as well as a 2 year old, perhaps he has the emotional intelligence of a 6 year old.
proc0 11y ago
I think it underestimates how most people are able to easily see how animals do have complicated societies and consciousness, it's just that there's a huge disconnect between our wonder of the animal kingdom and our neglect and exploitation of it. It seems it's a cognitive dissonance when people accept their dog as their family while destroying the environment of wolves, etc.

sdegutis 11y ago

But there's no need to stop. Animals kill and eat other animals without any guilt. We're doing the same thing, only more efficiently. That said, we should have stricter rules on treating food animals better, which has proven to produce better food anyway.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Some argue the moral position of "lower animals do it; why not me?" is shaky. We're supposed to have empathy and be responsible stewards and so on. We've already got rules against eating our own babies for instance. So raising a race of mammals just to eat them seems cynical and cruel to some. We never need to stop. But we probably should.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  I do think the need part comes into play when you take into consideration resource constraints. If we end up poisoning the Earth beyond its ability to support life with rising demand for meat, we might need to stop.
ewzimm 11y ago
Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was the other way around, that we valued our unique human cultures with our ideas of ethics and reciprocity over our primitive instincts for survival. If it's the case that we should be emulating animals, maybe we should rethink this whole civilization thing.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  Reciprocity requires, well, reciprocity, a two-sided relationship. Only some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans. Just pointing out.
  - ewzimm 11y ago

rokhayakebe 11y ago

The reasons are mostly that they have stuff we want, and we just ... take it. We do this between ourselves. Everything we do to animals we do to humans, I guess except eating.

proc0 11y ago
I meant that we do so easily. Throughout history we've just decimated animal populations, like taking candy from a child.