3 ms·
And quite possibly they have some unrecognized or under(non)represented great skills. Consider how we as humans treat other non-human creatures. Do we conside
by blunte 9y ago
And quite possibly they have some unrecognized or under(non)represented great skills.
Consider how we as humans treat other non-human creatures. Do we consider the intelligence of a chicken, for example? It's inconvenient to do so, as it would suddenly thrust upon us ethical considerations to how we treat them. We (some) would rather just factory farm and eat them.
Perhaps because of our own limitations (culling less likely useful streams of thought) we tend to disregard things we don't understand. That does not mean they are lacking in value. It just means we have not made much effort to ascertain their capabilities.
Consider this perspective. If you were a stock investor, how would you value a modern Beethoven? You might try to determine the potential value of sales of his creations, but you would likely disregard the non-financial value of his music. Does that mean his music was not worth much?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- vitaminbandit 9y agoDon't romanticize what is a huge disability for a great many people. And you're not doing anyone any favors by mentioning the intelligence of chickens to make what you think is a point.
- kmonad 9y agoYes! It is a disability, not a quirk.
- blunte 9y agoI'm not romanticizing. I'm trying to illustrate that just because the greater "we" cannot ascertain the value of some person (or creature) does not mean the thing is of no value. Humans have a tendency to disregard that which they do not understand.