8 ms·

In each of those categories we're far and away the best. I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as sp

In each of those categories we're far and away the best. I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. I think among some people that are frustrated with the human world for whatever - either personal or abstract - reason, there's a feeling of misanthropy that colors their thinking, and so they try to belittle humanity.

rtpg 9y ago
I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.
- jahans3 9y ago
  Wouldn't be surprised. The more we learn about the animals we eat the more we seem to learn that they're sentient, have a full range of emotions, and they most definitely experience suffering because of intensive farming and other things we put them through.
- dorfsmay 9y ago
  Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process. Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monkey? A cat? A rabbit? A cow? Where do you draw the line? I once decided that the "mirror test"[1] was my litmus test for eating or not an animal. But then as I looked more into it I realised that that test isn't as straight forward as I thought, lots of false positive, methodology issues (eg: some animal start passing the test after being exposed to mirrors for a long time). And the final blow was that most humans under 6 months fail the test and I decided not to use this test rather than starting to eat human infants. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphins, etc. all other animals are fair game.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
      So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
- 127 9y ago
  I believe that's pretty much it. I remember going fishing with my uncle as a kid and I was disturbed what I was doing to these animals but my uncle told me that fish can't feel pain. I didn't believe it then, and even less now. To combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception. Without it, you can only pick two. For evolutionary reasons, it's obvious why eating meat is very beneficial. Today, it might not even be necessary for good health.
  - xj9 9y ago
    combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception i'm at peace with killing animals for food. i know that they feel pain, but life is pain in general. maybe i'm a terrible person or something, but a good bbq is def worth more than the life of a pig or a cow.
    - mortenjorck 9y ago
      In my worldview, it is simply an immutable law of nature that more complex genera prey upon less complex ones. But as we are complex enough to empathize, we also have the moral responsibility to make the best of our predatory nature, whether that means minimizing the suffering of our prey, or minimizing the ecological impact of our predation.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
      As long as you accept then that there is no moral problem with some superior species coming along and and deciding the same about you, at least your backwards philosophy will be consistent.
      - xj9 9y ago
        oh yeah, totally fine! if i can't stop them, "moral superiority" isn't going to protect me anyway ;)
    - gadders 9y ago
      The thing is though, animals die anyway. And it's not like they die peacefully in their sleep, either. They mostly either get injured or old and starve to death, or get eaten by predators.
- Momquist 9y ago
  I think another point to add is that raising animals for food can be seen as a symbiotic relationship. If not for the development of animal husbandry, would pigs, chickens, and such be as successful (from a total population pov)? I think not. Many animals have the chance to be alive, only because they are supported by humans. This relationship is not only one-way: they are protected from predators, sheltered, and fed. Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. By the way, even animal husbandry is not specific to humans. Ants for example, have "farmed" aphids for millions of years. They milk them for honeydew and eventually eat them.
  - tspike 9y ago
    True- though it does not have to be binary. Our current levels of meat consumption are unsustainable and the levels of production required make treating the animals well a laughable proposition. I've tried to greatly reduce my meat consumption recently.
  - swombat 9y ago
    > Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It's highly arguable whether they are better off being "alive", when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life. For example, if an alien species took over Earth's biosphere and treated humans like we treat cows, raising them in overcrowded pens, feeding them food that occasionally contains human meat, forcefully inseminating the females every year and separating them from their young 24 hours after birth, then killing the females when they reach their mid-twenties because their fertility drops, and basically using a tiny proportion of males to make sperm and slaughtering the rest at a young age... would you make the argument that there's a two-way relationship there? That humans are benefitting in some way? Even if they took these domesticated humans and spread them to the stars, ensuring their survival for millions of years, and protection from other predator alien species, so long as these "humans" were treated in this way we would not consider this to be beneficial to our species in any way. At least I wouldn't: better extinction than such a "life". Obviously we can't ask the cows what they would prefer (or perhaps we can, we just don't have much interest in figuring out how to do it). If we did ask them, though, I doubt they'd see this relationship as beneficial to them in any way.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
The point of this, I think, is that we justify our behavior towards animals on the belief that they are not "the same" as us. That is, that they aren't beings capable of the same rich experiences of the world that we are and, therefore, their suffering is less important than ours. This same sort of rationalization has been used throughout history to justify similar behavior towards other human beings. Evidence is increasingly showing us that the qualities we believed differentiated us from animals, that made our lives more worthy of respect, aren't actually unique to us. If you're going to come back at that with "we're better at these things than they are", then that philosophy suggests again that there are lesser classes of human being as well, the ones that aren't as good as others at whatever metric you happen to be using. It is natural that we seek to justify behavior on which our living standards are dependent, but that doesn't make our reasoning sound.
- Danihan 9y ago
  > there are lesser classes of human being as well, the ones that aren't as good as others at whatever metric you happen to be using. Yep, it does suggest that. Just because everyone has equal rights under a governmental system, doesn't mean everyone is actually equal by any substantive metric.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
krapp 9y ago
>I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. To simply state that humans are best adapted at certain traits is true, but humans have tended to think of themselves as "special" in that "we're not even animals, but beings made in the image of God and given divine right to conquer Nature and do with it what we will." That anthropocentric bias has led to a multitude of evils and scientific falsehoods, and that's what needs to be corrected. It's got nothing to do with misanthropy.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  That's a fair point. Recognizing it as true shouldn't prevent us from recognizing how special we are, but you're right that we need to take a conscious approach to act as stewards of the world with our great power over it.
- JackFr 9y ago
  > That anthropocentric bias has led to a multitude of evils How about we're the only species which we hold to a moral standard? Unless you're going to hold other species to that standard, you have to admit that we're special.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Different != Special
    - oreo81 9y ago
      If you don't consider humans special. What is your definition of special?
      - QAPereo 9y ago
        “Special” is a human concept which may not exist objectively, empirically. Distinct, unique, etc... are probably more honest, assuming that we don’t exist in a multiverse.
stareatgoats 9y ago
It is often bad tone to assume some (more or less unethical) motives behind a contrary view. Why would you do that? is it because of <insert something bad>? The technique seldom lends itself to a balanced discussion and will tend to deteriorate into ad hominem type arguments (I know, I used to do it a lot :-/ ...) . Anyway to your point: I find it probably that all species will find themselves more special than others, and I could easily imagine a conversation between dogs find that they are the most special of all creatures: tell me who can smell as good as we? Eagles would claim to have better eyesight than most etc. Either we as humans can claim to be better than everyone else at everything (clearly false), or claim that we are best at being us, something we share with every other species. A third position, which evaluates species from species-neutral characteristics doesn't seem to exist. And so the modest attitude which you criticize could at least be said to be guided by logic, not misanthropy at all.
- meri_dian 9y ago
  I only wrote what I did from what I've seen in my own life. It's an anecdote but common enough for me that I'd imagine it applies to other people too. And you're right. If other animals were self aware enough to recognize their own exceptional qualities I'm sure they'd be proud of them. Humans have an awful sense of smell. Our vision is good, but animals have better vision. Same for hearing. But we are extremely good at thinking and cooperating with other members of our species. We're special because we form a highly dynamic super-organism like an ant colony, which amplifies our individual exceptionalism.
  - stareatgoats 9y ago
    Great, so we agree to some extent. And I agree that we are right to be proud of our special qualities. It's the assertion that humans are exceptionally special in any objective sense which I don't agree with, and which would require some super-specie value system to be logically valid. Religion or some similar belief can obviously be such a system, but I personally find such incompatible with what I can reasonably infer from established facts. I guess we can leave it at that.
QAPereo 9y ago
https://www.haystack.mit.edu/hay/staff/jball/etiy.pdf https://www.haystack.mit.edu/hay/staff/jball/etiy.pdf A good read, especially on the last page the paragraph beginning with, “The history of science contains, one after another, a series of blows to mankind’s anthropocentric ego.”
_jal 9y ago
For some reason, humans get testy about this. Acknowledging both the blindingly obvious point that we are the apex species on this planet and that we do a lot of complicated, interesting things we have yet to observe in others does not mean observing similarities to other species somehow diminishes humanity. On the contrary, telling ourselves just-so stories that appeal to our arrogance and need to be special discourages research and progress. If I "know" that we're the only species that talks (because some other human convinced me that god, some super-researcher or whoever said so), I'm not very likely to go looking for counterexamples. Drifting into aesthetic/religious/philosophical territory for a second, I personally feel that humans are deeply interesting because of what an odd mishmash of traits we have. If one is prone to anthropomorphizing evolution, one way to still appeal to human vanity is to view it as a pretty risky slow-burn strategy that, after succeeding, made us our own worst predator/environmental risk[1]. If we were just some toy made by $deity for whatever reason, it becomes a lot less interesting of a story. [1] Of course, evolution doesn't work that way, but it makes a nice story.

rtpg 9y ago

I bet a little bit of it in the modern world is rationalization for eating and generally mistreating animals.

jahans3 9y ago
Wouldn't be surprised. The more we learn about the animals we eat the more we seem to learn that they're sentient, have a full range of emotions, and they most definitely experience suffering because of intensive farming and other things we put them through.
dorfsmay 9y ago
Which animal we morally can eat is a huge and difficult concept... In some cultures eating horse meat is normal, in others vegetarianism is the honourable goal. Have you ever asked yourself why you eat or why you don't eat some animals? It is typically a product of the culture we grew up in, rarely the product of an intentional thought process. Would you eat another human? What about another ape? An elephant? A monkey? A cat? A rabbit? A cow? Where do you draw the line? I once decided that the "mirror test"[1] was my litmus test for eating or not an animal. But then as I looked more into it I realised that that test isn't as straight forward as I thought, lots of false positive, methodology issues (eg: some animal start passing the test after being exposed to mirrors for a long time). And the final blow was that most humans under 6 months fail the test and I decided not to use this test rather than starting to eat human infants. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  Why not draw the line at consciousness? don't eat animals that science has proven to have IQ that approaches human 1-3 year old IQ, like parrots, crows, dolphins, etc. all other animals are fair game.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    So we can eat humans that also do not have that IQ, right? Thing about consciousness, in the philosophical sense that you clearly mean it, is that it is completely unempirical and therefore does not exist within the scientific model. I know I have consciousness because I experience it, I assume you have consciousness because you are very like me, you assume these low IQ animals don't have consciousness because they are not like you. There exists no objective measurement of consciousness.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      yeah, but there exist objective measurements of ability. As in my parakeet objectively cannot be taught to read and understand a book, for example. no, we wouldn't eat humans who do not have IQ of 1-3 year old, because we would recognize that they are human and don't have that IQ from disease or misfortune, not because of their inherent incapability of having it.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
        Why should that matter? Your philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings that have lower IQ, the fact that they are biologically human is irrelevant.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        it's relevant. My philosophy assigns a lower worth to beings, who are not human, who have low IQ. I assign low worth to individuals who belong to low IQ species, not to low IQ individuals.
127 9y ago
I believe that's pretty much it. I remember going fishing with my uncle as a kid and I was disturbed what I was doing to these animals but my uncle told me that fish can't feel pain. I didn't believe it then, and even less now. To combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception. Without it, you can only pick two. For evolutionary reasons, it's obvious why eating meat is very beneficial. Today, it might not even be necessary for good health.
- xj9 9y ago
  combine the eating of other animals, a rational brain and a mind at peace, you need some amount of self deception i'm at peace with killing animals for food. i know that they feel pain, but life is pain in general. maybe i'm a terrible person or something, but a good bbq is def worth more than the life of a pig or a cow.
  - mortenjorck 9y ago
    In my worldview, it is simply an immutable law of nature that more complex genera prey upon less complex ones. But as we are complex enough to empathize, we also have the moral responsibility to make the best of our predatory nature, whether that means minimizing the suffering of our prey, or minimizing the ecological impact of our predation.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    As long as you accept then that there is no moral problem with some superior species coming along and and deciding the same about you, at least your backwards philosophy will be consistent.
    - xj9 9y ago
      oh yeah, totally fine! if i can't stop them, "moral superiority" isn't going to protect me anyway ;)
  - gadders 9y ago
    The thing is though, animals die anyway. And it's not like they die peacefully in their sleep, either. They mostly either get injured or old and starve to death, or get eaten by predators.
Momquist 9y ago
I think another point to add is that raising animals for food can be seen as a symbiotic relationship. If not for the development of animal husbandry, would pigs, chickens, and such be as successful (from a total population pov)? I think not. Many animals have the chance to be alive, only because they are supported by humans. This relationship is not only one-way: they are protected from predators, sheltered, and fed. Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. By the way, even animal husbandry is not specific to humans. Ants for example, have "farmed" aphids for millions of years. They milk them for honeydew and eventually eat them.
- tspike 9y ago
  True- though it does not have to be binary. Our current levels of meat consumption are unsustainable and the levels of production required make treating the animals well a laughable proposition. I've tried to greatly reduce my meat consumption recently.
- swombat 9y ago
  > Of course this doesn't justify mistreatment. But it puts in perspective the idea that turning vegetarian, and banning meat would be good for those animals in question. It wouldn't: they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It's highly arguable whether they are better off being "alive", when this "aliveness" is so far off what they are genetically programmed to enjoy as a normal life. For example, if an alien species took over Earth's biosphere and treated humans like we treat cows, raising them in overcrowded pens, feeding them food that occasionally contains human meat, forcefully inseminating the females every year and separating them from their young 24 hours after birth, then killing the females when they reach their mid-twenties because their fertility drops, and basically using a tiny proportion of males to make sperm and slaughtering the rest at a young age... would you make the argument that there's a two-way relationship there? That humans are benefitting in some way? Even if they took these domesticated humans and spread them to the stars, ensuring their survival for millions of years, and protection from other predator alien species, so long as these "humans" were treated in this way we would not consider this to be beneficial to our species in any way. At least I wouldn't: better extinction than such a "life". Obviously we can't ask the cows what they would prefer (or perhaps we can, we just don't have much interest in figuring out how to do it). If we did ask them, though, I doubt they'd see this relationship as beneficial to them in any way.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

The point of this, I think, is that we justify our behavior towards animals on the belief that they are not "the same" as us. That is, that they aren't beings capable of the same rich experiences of the world that we are and, therefore, their suffering is less important than ours. This same sort of rationalization has been used throughout history to justify similar behavior towards other human beings. Evidence is increasingly showing us that the qualities we believed differentiated us from animals, that made our lives more worthy of respect, aren't actually unique to us. If you're going to come back at that with "we're better at these things than they are", then that philosophy suggests again that there are lesser classes of human being as well, the ones that aren't as good as others at whatever metric you happen to be using. It is natural that we seek to justify behavior on which our living standards are dependent, but that doesn't make our reasoning sound.

Danihan 9y ago
> there are lesser classes of human being as well, the ones that aren't as good as others at whatever metric you happen to be using. Yep, it does suggest that. Just because everyone has equal rights under a governmental system, doesn't mean everyone is actually equal by any substantive metric.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

krapp 9y ago

>I really don't understand this feeling that humans need to be modest or that describing ourselves as special is wrong. We are special. To simply state that humans are best adapted at certain traits is true, but humans have tended to think of themselves as "special" in that "we're not even animals, but beings made in the image of God and given divine right to conquer Nature and do with it what we will." That anthropocentric bias has led to a multitude of evils and scientific falsehoods, and that's what needs to be corrected. It's got nothing to do with misanthropy.

meri_dian 9y ago
That's a fair point. Recognizing it as true shouldn't prevent us from recognizing how special we are, but you're right that we need to take a conscious approach to act as stewards of the world with our great power over it.
JackFr 9y ago
> That anthropocentric bias has led to a multitude of evils How about we're the only species which we hold to a moral standard? Unless you're going to hold other species to that standard, you have to admit that we're special.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Different != Special
  - oreo81 9y ago
    If you don't consider humans special. What is your definition of special?
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      “Special” is a human concept which may not exist objectively, empirically. Distinct, unique, etc... are probably more honest, assuming that we don’t exist in a multiverse.

stareatgoats 9y ago

It is often bad tone to assume some (more or less unethical) motives behind a contrary view. Why would you do that? is it because of <insert something bad>? The technique seldom lends itself to a balanced discussion and will tend to deteriorate into ad hominem type arguments (I know, I used to do it a lot :-/ ...) . Anyway to your point: I find it probably that all species will find themselves more special than others, and I could easily imagine a conversation between dogs find that they are the most special of all creatures: tell me who can smell as good as we? Eagles would claim to have better eyesight than most etc. Either we as humans can claim to be better than everyone else at everything (clearly false), or claim that we are best at being us, something we share with every other species. A third position, which evaluates species from species-neutral characteristics doesn't seem to exist. And so the modest attitude which you criticize could at least be said to be guided by logic, not misanthropy at all.

meri_dian 9y ago
I only wrote what I did from what I've seen in my own life. It's an anecdote but common enough for me that I'd imagine it applies to other people too. And you're right. If other animals were self aware enough to recognize their own exceptional qualities I'm sure they'd be proud of them. Humans have an awful sense of smell. Our vision is good, but animals have better vision. Same for hearing. But we are extremely good at thinking and cooperating with other members of our species. We're special because we form a highly dynamic super-organism like an ant colony, which amplifies our individual exceptionalism.
- stareatgoats 9y ago
  Great, so we agree to some extent. And I agree that we are right to be proud of our special qualities. It's the assertion that humans are exceptionally special in any objective sense which I don't agree with, and which would require some super-specie value system to be logically valid. Religion or some similar belief can obviously be such a system, but I personally find such incompatible with what I can reasonably infer from established facts. I guess we can leave it at that.

QAPereo 9y ago

https://www.haystack.mit.edu/hay/staff/jball/etiy.pdf https://www.haystack.mit.edu/hay/staff/jball/etiy.pdf A good read, especially on the last page the paragraph beginning with, “The history of science contains, one after another, a series of blows to mankind’s anthropocentric ego.”

_jal 9y ago

For some reason, humans get testy about this. Acknowledging both the blindingly obvious point that we are the apex species on this planet and that we do a lot of complicated, interesting things we have yet to observe in others does not mean observing similarities to other species somehow diminishes humanity. On the contrary, telling ourselves just-so stories that appeal to our arrogance and need to be special discourages research and progress. If I "know" that we're the only species that talks (because some other human convinced me that god, some super-researcher or whoever said so), I'm not very likely to go looking for counterexamples. Drifting into aesthetic/religious/philosophical territory for a second, I personally feel that humans are deeply interesting because of what an odd mishmash of traits we have. If one is prone to anthropomorphizing evolution, one way to still appeal to human vanity is to view it as a pretty risky slow-burn strategy that, after succeeding, made us our own worst predator/environmental risk[1]. If we were just some toy made by $deity for whatever reason, it becomes a lot less interesting of a story. [1] Of course, evolution doesn't work that way, but it makes a nice story.