6 ms·

Back in college I did a paper on if this was ethical or not for my bioethics class, I warn people to really take a step back from the positive possibilities wit

• tomtheengineer 9y ago
  The other aspect of this is that the crows could become reliant on this mechanism as a food source and be unable to survive on their own once it is removed from the environment (or runs out of food).
• __s 9y ago
  The crows aren't punished for not exhibiting this behavior. Positive reinforcement training is distinctively different than negative reinforcement training. Slavery is the latter
  • spaceribs 9y ago
    I really don't think it matters if it's positive or negative reinforcement. You are making their trained survival dependent on a contraption which accepts trash for their services, that doesn't sound like room and board to you?
    • diego_moita 9y ago
      > that doesn't sound like room and board to you? No, sounds like a job: do a task, get a reward. You do it, janitors do it. If the crows want...
      • spaceribs 9y ago
        If you're talking about jobs, most humans have a plethora of survival options. Once a wild animal is trained to an easy single source of food, it prevents them from naturally diversifying their diet to prevent starvation, removing that natural challenge could be deadly. This isn't just about doing a task and getting a reward, this is about addiction.
        • gicadin 9y ago
          This experiment would not be removing any existing food sources but adding another one. I doubt there will be enough cigarette buds for every single crow for it to become the dominant method of obtaining food for the whole species.
    • jpitz 9y ago
      It does matter because the crows have a choice. They are choosing the easiest way to get food.
  • dTal 9y ago
    Slavery is not 'negative reinforcement training'. Indeed, it is possible to be a slave and be rewarded for good work. Slavery is where you have no choice but to work. If the food reward is substantial enough to be worth a crow's while, then it confers a competitive advantage and crows that refrain from this behaviour will face pressure on their food sources from the offspring of the well-fed crows; essentially you've artificially raised the carrying capacity of the ecosystem, for those crows that agree to your "bargain". Effectively, for the crows, the choice becomes "pick up cigarettes or starve". I wouldn't worry about it though. If it ever gets tried on a large scale it'll be a hilarious disaster of unexpected second-order effects that will lead to the program's cancellation long before the whole crow species is subjugated.
    • spaceribs 9y ago
      > If it ever gets tried on a large scale it'll be a hilarious disaster of unexpected second-order effects that will lead to the program's cancellation long before the whole crow species is subjugated. This was kinda how I summed up the paper actually, the amount of side effects on any large scale deployment is mind boggling.
    • vortico 9y ago
      Isn't it normal for every animal for them to be required to "do work or starve"? By your definition, does nature enslave every animal except humans who for a select number don't have to work for survival? Kudos on your last point though. The overreaction on this thread needs to be brought back to that reality.
      • dTal 9y ago
        Perhaps. I think the line is drawn when you don't have a choice as to the nature of the work. Which raises the thought-provoking question of how little choice is too little - freedom to choose which section of field you pick cotton from is obviously at one end of the scale. What's at the other? What about "you can work at any job you want, as long as you never leave the country or speak ill of Glorious Leader?" How many choices do you need to be offered before it doesn't "count" anymore? Agriculture itself must have felt like slavery to hunter-gatherers - work the fields, or get killed by those who do.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• VeejayRampay 9y ago
  Also, wouldn't the crows end up suffering from nicotine/tar poisoning on the long run?
  • CamperBob2 9y ago
    More interesting, what happens when the crows realize that nicotine is a nootropic?
    • astrodust 9y ago
      What happens when they realize they can burn down our homes with a smoldering butt?
• rossdavidh 9y ago
  I think crows (and grackles, and other urban birds) have already changed their behavior in lots of equally big ways, to take advantage of where we leave food scraps, etc. The only difference in this case is there's some planning. If we don't plan it, it's not like they retain their natural behavior. Urban raccoons, possums, grackles, crows, etc. do lots of things on a daily basis they would never do if not in a city.
  • major505 9y ago
    I used to work in an office in front of a MacDonalds. The pigeons wold go in the trash and take fries to eat. There, I witnessed the fattest pigeon ever. The thing was so big, that it cold have a lifebar over his head.
  • retox 9y ago
    In the train station near where I used to live there were a couple of pigeons which learned to simply lie on their backs on those plastic deterrent spikes. They looked quite comfortable.
• fimbulvetr 9y ago
  The idea that there is a black/white side of convenience vs. survival is not reasonable. It is very much a gradient, and I’m afraid that there’s much more nuance to it. For instance, if I have a dog trained to fetch my fowl from a lake after shooting it, is that convenience or survival? Does it not depend on the circumstance? In the deep cold of winter it may spare me from a swift death, for the very same hunter in the summer it may save me from spending 30 minutes fetching it so that I can spend that 30 minutes making camp or playing cards. This trade off runs the entire gamut, all the way from extreme survival to extreme convenience, and who are you to say what is right or wrong? Further, is there not a point where cirgarette butt collection increases survival for living things? Do you wait for that inflection point before you begin calling this ethical?
  • KGIII 9y ago
    You are disappointed that they were allowed to write an opinion piece while in college? I'm assuming it wasn't a peer reviewed science paper, but an opinion piece on ethics. Being allowed to explore the boundaries is a big thing that higher learning can enable. I'd be more disappointed if they had been prohibited. I wish I still had my ranting papers about randomness and infinity. Those weren't published, or even intended to be published. Instead, they were a tool in the process of learning. Edited to add: I have a working dog. I figure he is earning his keep. He's pretty lazy but he points and retrieves and, if motivated, can follow a scent. Mostly he is a bum.
  • spaceribs 9y ago
    I just don't think we can in good conscience domesticate any more animals. We are a thriving empowered species on our own, we are starting to make our own creatures (both robotically and genetically) and we shouldn't have to subjugate more of nature for our overconsumption and shortsighted behaviors.
    • dogruck 9y ago
      You might be imparting human perceptions onto other species. Fun to think about though.
    • 9y ago
• Falling3 9y ago
  >I would definitely draw a line between this kind of domestication and the domestication of animals by our ancestors for our own survival. I don't understand why the treatment of other domesticated animals by our ancestors is the metric instead of the treatment of other domesticated animals today. Look at how our treatment of these crows compares to that of cows or chickens on any farm. Can you honestly say that training crows in the wild is the instance where we're crossing some ethical line?
• joe_the_user 9y ago
  Would you also object to training the mice that infest our houses to also engage in activities we consider useful? Perhaps say, training them to do their business outside? I mean, to describe the animals, like crows or racoons, which live in cities and consume human detritus, as "wild" seems like somethings of a misstatement - I'm not sure what the best term would be but "feral", "parasitic" or "coadapted" are seem equally good. Training animals in an environment that's otherwise untouched by humans seems bad for the "naturalness" of said environment but situation seems no more invasive than spaying feral cats. Indeed, if anyone is worried about the human domination of nature, they can take comfort that schemes like this should further raise the intelligence of crows to the point they'll have a shot at overthrowing the unjust reign of we naked apes.
  • spaceribs 9y ago
    > they can take comfort that schemes like this should further raise the intelligence of crows to the point they'll have a shot at overthrowing the unjust reign of we naked apes. Here's the thing I think you're missing with this statement though, our rise to intelligence had nothing to do with a superior species endowing us with a head start. In fact, for early man it might have hobbled us to not be challenged because we're "really good at picking up cigarette butts". Also, do you want to be the one that explains to the super-intelligent crows how we used them to pick up garbage?
    • joe_the_user 9y ago
      It would be pretty much impossible for another intelligent species to appear on earth now without relating to human beings as a context. I mean, the relationship I was groping for above is Synanthrope[1]. Basically, an entire ecosystem of animals eating and using human garbage already exists - what else do you imagine these animal eat? Giving animals some training to also pick-up said garbage seems neither better nor worse than the status quo. Plus, I don't think anyone will be doing any explaining to the crows - if the crows rise, they're be using fire and poison to exterminate them in the fashion we would use if one another species seemed to threaten our dominance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanthrope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synanthrope
• Theodores 9y ago
  So I am on first name terms with about 100 crows and jackdaws. What if I have the chat with them and tell them that from now on they have zero hours contracts employed picking up cigarette butts. So rather than hang around in the trees by the river waiting for some small child to turn up with bread, I will be expecting them to be diligently going along paths and through lawns picking up cigarette butts and then getting paid in posh bird friendly food for that. I can't see this going down well with the birds I know. Do not feed wild animals is something I know and generally believe in and honour. However I feed the ducks, crows, pigeons, seagulls, geese and others that have decided against doing fabulous things such as emigrating and have decided to exist living on bread donated to them by small children. I also take others with me to feed the ducks, as if I really need the 'help'. In fairness I do give them reasonably fresh homemade bread that is not empty calories or I give them goodies from the work fridge that need clearing out. I was horrified to see a lady giving the ducks mouldy bread recently, luckily they knew it to not be food. I go for the airborne catches of food. So that means seagulls, jackdaws and crows. The crows know where they have to be for me to throw something to them and for them to catch. The same with the seagulls. There is some need to concentrate and pay attention, correctly sized pieces have to be thrown quite accurately and on time, with the seagulls they have to do a big 50m radius turn in the air to come in again if they didn't get lucky the first time. The mid air hover is most impressive as abilities go. Despite knowing that feeding wild animals is always wrong and that bread poisons the water and has no nutritional value, I do take great pleasure in feeding the birds. For those few minutes I am not thinking of this problem or that problem, I am just in 'the zone' feeding those clever birds, as is whomever I have brought along to help. There is an art to it! But still, ethical? No, golden rule has been broken. So why break the golden rule? Well, these birds have already decided not to do things like emigrate, the river doesn't have the insect and other life it would have and much else is wrong. So I look into their cute eyes and go along with 21st century realities, humans feed birds, okay?!? What motivates others to feed the ducks interests me. The best answer yet provided is that 'birds are god's messengers' and that by feeding them that one can get 'a word in'.
• hyperpallium 9y ago
  I have mixed feelings about dogs. On the one hand, their faithfulness and loyalty is proverbial - better than human. On the other hand, we bred that subservience into them, selecting for willing, loving slaves. Like Douglas Adams' vegan cow, bred to want to be eaten.
  • dogruck 9y ago
    Domesticated dogs co-evolved with humans. They're born to be our companions.
• fleitz 9y ago
  So you are also against agriculture? It might be unethical, but I'll take unethical civilization over ethical subsistence hunter gathering (remember that even subsistence farming is unethical)
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• vortico 9y ago
  >and the human responsible should be the asshole who picks it up. You're suggesting a solution to a problem which is impossible. Crows may be a solution to the problem. Convincing all assholes to pick up their cigarettes is not a realistic solution.
  • coffeevradar 9y ago
    I think they've solved it in Singapore. Not that I'm in favor of the methods used.
• lovich 9y ago
  Isn't this more like teaching the crows commerce? If we controlled their food 100% and did not give it to them unless they did the work, I agree that would be slavery. This is just paying for a service. I feel like there would be bigger ethical problems over the proper amount to "pay" them than whether or not the act of paying them for a service is ethical
  • spaceribs 9y ago
    I think a systemic misconception in this thread is that we're teaching crows anything other than how to get food from a device we designed. They are not rational actors in this situation. They are never on the same playing field as we are. We would be taking advantage of their limited intelligence to do our bidding.
    • Mtinie 9y ago
      I find the interesting question to be the hypothetical one where they are rational actors. Crows are smart, relatively, so how does the conversation change if we apply that they are not just rational but also have agency?
    • MikeTheGreat 9y ago
      Ah. That's why it's not ethical to train a crow to do this, but it is ethical to pay a person to do this. (Yes? I was genuinely wondering about this)
      • spaceribs 9y ago
        Yeah, pretty much, although if we keep going in this direction we'll end up talking about drugs, slot machines, human slavery, and what really is willpower and choice. Bioethics is incredibly interesting and underrated for dinner conversation.
        • jaggederest 9y ago
          How do you feel about the ethics of keeping animals as pets? Despite my ethical concerns, I have a cat as a roommate, but I generally think that pet ownership is unethical for precisely the reasons you discussed in the thread above.
• danielam 9y ago
  I think your moral sentiments are misplaced. While it would be nice if people didn't litter, training animals to do something beneficial for us is not immoral as such, and especially not if no cruelty is involved. It certainly isn't slavery as slavery presumes rights, something animals do not have. To have an argument, you'd have to show that any negative effects of training surpass the positive. Even if it led to a decline in crow numbers for whatever reason, this isn't necessarily worse. The net positive could outweigh the net negative. For instance, crows are classified as a pest species in some areas and so a reduction in their numbers could be welcomed as a positive result. What is worth focusing on in this domain is the unprecedented cruelty inflicted on animals in our times where, e.g., cosmetics, fashion and agriculture are concerned.
  • KGIII 9y ago
    I think we have pretty clearly established that some animals have right. We may have established that most animals have rights, I'm not sure. Try setting fire to a horse and see the legal results. Try making a species go extinct, even pests. So, there are some rights - and arguments for even stronger rights.
    • danielam 9y ago
      I'm not sure where you get the idea that it is clearly established. It most certainly is not. It sounds to me like you are confusing rights with moral obligations in respect to animals. It is a mistake to think that an absence of rights is an absence of moral duties, not to, but in respect to animals.
      • KGIII 9y ago
        Those obligations we have are their rights. Really, go set fire to a horse and see what the courts do to you. The courts punish you because the animal had a right to not suffer and you'd have violated them. I hunt and fish, so I'm not a granola munching hippy. Yet, animals still have rights. I can hunt and kill a deer. I can't hunt and kill a deer by intentionally causing excessive pain. There are laws against that. Those laws are the animal's rights.
• adrusi 9y ago
  You're implicitly claiming that crows have second order desires (what you "want to want", as opposed to first order desires, "what you want"). If crows don't have second order desires then this doesn't matter to them, it's just another way of getting food. They're not bothered by whatever it is that's the problem with cigarette butt food, they're incapable of being bothered by that: they want to food so they want to pick up cigarette butts, and they have no capacity to reflect on whether they want to want to pick up cigarette butts, so they're not bothered. If crows do have second order desires, then it's possible they might be bothered, and then you have an ethics problem. And we actually have more reason to think crows might have second order desires than we do for other animals: crows recognize themselves in mirrors, which requires an awareness of self, therefore they have an awareness of self. An awareness of self is necessary for having second order desires. It's not enough to conclude that they have second order desires, but it's a shred of evidence. However, we usually consider young children to not have second order desires, so I'm fairly skeptical of the idea that crows have them. It's not clear that there's any ethical violation even if crows do have second order desires, but if they don't, there's no ethical question at all. Edit: no ethical violation where the crows are the victims in the sense that we're discussing.
  • FullMtlAlcoholc 9y ago
    >You're implicitly claiming that crows have second order desires (what you "want to want", as opposed to first order desires, "what you want"). I would think it's prudent to assume so unless incontrovertible evidence disproves this notion as opposed to assuming they dont until evidence presents itself.