4 ms·
The incorrect premise here is that we won't kill and/or eat smart animals. Cute animals may (or may not) get a pass, but humans don't care about smart animals.
by mnm1 9y ago
The incorrect premise here is that we won't kill and/or eat smart animals. Cute animals may (or may not) get a pass, but humans don't care about smart animals. After a decade and a half as a vegetarian, I realized we're nowhere advanced enough to make a difference in this or most other causes and a lifetime of vegetarianism won't even make a difference. Hell, we can't even stop killing ourselves and causing mass extinction events through our actions. A human, in its natural state, is the most disgusting, cruelest, nastiest creature in the known universe. Until we can figure out how to provide tools to the majority of people to raise them up out of this state (at least levels 1-2 of Maslow's pyramid), we have no hope in hell of fixing problems like this. This is not an argument to not try. It's simply an explanation of what is. If we ever get to a point where humans are able to fix such problems and have empathy and respect for each other and other creatures, it'll be amazing indeed. I certainly won't see it in my life or any of my peers' children's lives, I'm pretty sure of that, but I think certain cultures have indeed made big strides towards this in the last 50-100 years.
- dpark 9y ago> A human, in its natural state, is the most disgusting, cruelest, nastiest creature in the known universe. Claims like this are utterly lacking perspective. Cats will happily torture smaller animals. Primates hunt each other. Dolphins rape. Humans are animals, yes. In no way are they more disgusting or cruel than others, though.
- devnonymous 9y ago> Claims like this are utterly lacking perspective Hmm, lack of perspective you say? IMHO, the ability to point at cruelty in other animals and find reasonable justification of our own actions (which in magnitude, are not even into the same ballpark of cruelty) has got to count as somewhat vile, and uniquely human, don't you think?
- dpark 9y agoNo. Awareness of the realities of the world does not count as vile. Whether or not humans should be more empathetic or less violent or whatever else, it is absurd to call humans worse than other animals simply because humans happen to be smart and aware. Or alternatively pigs are terrible animals because they're smarter than average and happy to kill other animals (including humans).
- devnonymous 9y ago> No. Awareness of the realities of the world does not count as vile. I didn't call the awareness vile. I called using that awareness (subtle difference) to justify actions that are a great many times worse, vile. But well, if you don't agree, I suppose it doesn't matter.
- dpark 9y agoI'm not justifying anything. I'm saying that awareness alone does not make humans worse. If other animals do the exact same things as humans then why are humans worse? It seems that the distinguishing factor, is that humans want to imagine that they are special, so they get an automatic "worst ever" categorization on anything they do, simply because they are humans. Not because they do anything actually different. The only thing you called out about humans being different is that they are capable of noting that other animals behave the same violent ways. So you are basically saying humans are worse because they are observant.
- mnm1 9y agoComparing cats torturing other animals to systematic genocide, using nuclear weapons on others, starving whole populations, and other atrocities committed by humans is what lacks perspective. Another big difference is that we are capable of knowing what is right and wrong and choose to still hurt and torture others en masse. We are now close to choosing to likely cause a worldwide extinction event, but somehow a cat torturing a mouse is comparable? No other creature even comes close.
- dpark 9y agoYou're complaining that I compared cats to humans, while at the same time you're drawing a connection between genocide and eating pork. I stand by my initial statement that this is utterly lacking in perspective.
- mnm1 9y agoNo, I'm comparing the torture of a few creatures to the torture and deaths of millions. I'm not drawing a connection between genocide and eating pork. I'm saying genocide is a lot worse than torturing a few creatures. You completely misunderstood.
- true_religion 9y ago> Comparing cats torturing other animals to systematic genocide, using nuclear weapons on others, starving whole populations, and other atrocities committed by humans is what lacks perspective. Are any of these things the 'natural' state of humanity? It looks like you only get to that after at least a few thousand years of cultural development as a whole, and two decades plus socialization to adulthood in a person. I feel like cats certainly would commit genocide if they had the mental capacity to plan for it. Overall, I think that it is a wrong view that morality exists as an abstract separate from the current social circumstance and any species (even humans) can be measured against that perfect ideal.
- mnm1 9y agoThere's plenty of armies that recruit young children around 8, 9 years old as they have been for thousands of years. You don't need nuclear bombs to commit genocide or kill whole populations. Blades and spears will do just fine. So, yeah, I do think this is the natural state of humanity. Even a little kid who is not even an adult human is easily coaxed into a monster and has been so for thousands of years.
- edgartaor 9y agoI can't agree more. Humans need to evolve but sometimes that seem to be an utopian idea or to far in the future. Anyway, I hope humanity reach that level sooner or later.
- edgartaor 9y agoI can't agree more. Humans need to evolve but sometimes that seem to be an utopian idea or to far in the future. Anyway, I hope humanity reach that level sooner or later.