17 ms·

Listening to these remarkable recordings, I can't help but think that as time goes on, more and more of the artificial mental barriers we've built between us an

Listening to these remarkable recordings, I can't help but think that as time goes on, more and more of the artificial mental barriers we've built between us and non-human animals will fall. I hope with more research humanity stops seeing non-human animals as resources to be exploited but rather as sentient beings to be respected.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago
Humans presumably are seen as sentient yet [the majority of us?] are being exploited in one way or another: Capitalism has no inbuilt concept of respect. If you meant not exploited for food, that is obviously different. I'm not aware of any humans that do that anymore. Now tell me how you judge sentience?
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Why can't we respect human dignity like those communists who murdered and starved tens of millions of people, ruined economies, and consigned countless people to oppression and deprivation?
  - joemi 9y ago
    Communism as you're referring to it is not what many supporters of communism (and/or opponents of capitalism) are advocating for.
    - announcerman 9y ago
      As a citizen of an ex Eastern Bloc country I'd rather not have any other humans co-opt me into another helping of true communism™
      - coldtea 9y ago
        Well, other members of ex Eastern Bloc countries disagree, so?
        announcerman 9y ago
        We'll decide in a democratic and respectful manner to not fall for the red plague again. If that was your point.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    How is a response about what communists did relevant to a critique of capitalism? Except if one can't think of any other alternative or starting point from which to criticize capitalism but communism (and even more so, how some specific regimes practiced it).
    - ImSkeptical 9y ago
      Communism is the typical alternative to capitalism.
      - macintux 9y ago
        Nice but irrelevant. It's like saying "But Hillary!" every time someone offers a critique of Trump.
        ben-schaaf 9y ago
        But what about... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
      - coldtea 9y ago
        There are tons of alternatives to capitalism. From anarcho-syndicalism and social democracy, to more obscure religious, environmental and so on approaches.
  - MisterBastahrd 9y ago
    Yes, human dignity like those capitalists who drilled giant oil wells in Nigeria, poisoned the land and the people, hired hit squads terrorize the native populace, then fled the country overnight when the regime changed.
    - pdx 9y ago
      I think you're talking about Shell Oil in the 1990's, and their requesting the Nigerian military to help them deal with violent protesters, and allegedly peaceful protesters as well. Yep, that sounds like a problem that needed addressed. That pales compared to the atrocities that have been done in the name of communism. It's frightening that young people have forgotten those lessons, even the oldest of which is less than 100 years ago. The ideal of sacrificing the individual to benefit the group is where communism always ends up, and from there, it's never a long slide to the disappearings, the executions and the starvation. The American ideal of protecting the individual, even at the expense of the group is much more inline with the world I want to live in. Happily, you still end up with a strong group, since it's composed of motivated individuals that feel safe.
  - dang 9y ago
    Ideological boilerplate is not welcome here. Please don't post any more of it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: this account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. As the site guidelines say, we ban accounts that do that, so I'm banning this one. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
- labster 9y ago
  Ugh not this Marxist BS again. This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Let's talk about improving animal welfare in this thread and not go into yet another tangent about human political systems.
- freeflight 9y ago
  It's really sad how any kind of critique of capitalism, no matter how minor, instantly triggers, the very same and very predictable, knee-jerk responses along the lines of "Communism killed billions!". Like the wonders of capitalism don't kill anybody or like there are only those two choices between capitalism and some Soviet-style centrally planned communism. Which begs the question: Do these people really think we've reached the end of the line in terms of economic systems? I'm asking this question in all seriousness because I'm utterly confused by this lack of imagination/curiosity behind such a mindset.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Bad economics of all stripes tends to assume some form betrayal theory as the only issue.
    - freeflight 9y ago
      > Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Agreed > Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Disagreed, capitalism ignores the finite nature of resources, while treating some of them, which are actually infinite, as finite (time). Also, I'd argue that nothing about the resource allocation, the way capitalism does it, is in any way optimal, at least in regards to our actual finite resources. Most of it boils down to hoarding "money", which isn't a finite resource (can be printed at will) nor is it an actually useful resource on its own (can't do much with it except burn it if it's paper). It's supposed to be a tool, but at this point, it feels like the tool has been declared the goal: Just hoard more of the money and you've "won" the game like it's the ultimate solution to all problems. This dynamic also influences the allocation of resources to most "profitable" of individual entities, it's a dynamic that rewards hostile competition over friendly cooperation. Which is a dangerous reward system considering we are all stuck on the same piece of rock, drifting through infinity, sharing the very same finite resources. Wasting so much energy, and resources on how to "screw each other" over for those finite resources, and increasingly bigger "profits", seems quite wasteful and ultimately a very petty way to go about our existence. I'm not saying I know the ultimate fool-proof solution, I just want to point out the flaws with what we've currently got going and imho these flaws are massive and will come bite us in the back-end sooner or later [0]. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
ikeyany 9y ago
Those barriers are certainly falling. The campaign to end the live boiling of lobsters and crabs [1] is underway due to our findings that crustaceans can feel pain. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42873644 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42873644
- kingkawn 9y ago
  Grimly hilarious that anyone ever thought they couldn’t
  - tormeh 9y ago
    Every being with a consciousness must have feelings. Otherwise the consciousness wouldn't know what to do.
    - kirkules 9y ago
      That doesn't mean physical pain is necessarily among the feelings felt.
      - 36bydesign 9y ago
        It’s damn effective, harder to believe pain is felt by most (all?) animals than that it isn’t. The default assumption should be that they feel pain, not that they don’t.
      - qw 9y ago
        I think creatures that don't feel pain would not survive long in the wild. If they don't feel pain they would not have any reason for avoiding dangerous situations.
        ikeyany 9y ago
        Viruses and bacteria avoid harm and death if they can help it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can "feel pain".
noobermin 9y ago
I think we need to draw a line somewhere. Are plants not "resources to be exploited?" How about the bacteria in our gut? Ok, how about insects, say you don't even kill insects, what about if you accidentally step on a worm on a rainy day? Should we create "insect free zones" that keep bugs out (somehow) so that insects don't get needlessly killed on sidewalks or roads? What about rats? Rats and house mice carry harmful diseases, and arguably, extermination is merely depriving these animals of their right to self-determination (to getting food and shelter, in your adobe.) Of course, they aren't mindful they are spreading illness and disease to you, but you're the more aware being who is in a power differential with them, and thus need to realize your responsibility in the interaction. We can keep going down this rabbit hole. Someone already suggested not killing lobsters. Do they have significantly larger brains than mice or rats? It sounds like the answer is no[0]. In fact, their brains are the size of grasshoppers'...which means if we help respect the sentience of lobsters we probably have to respect the sentience of insects in general. I consider myself a socialist, but some people are taking the "exploitation" talk of Marx too far and applying it to animals who are not sentient. I can understand drawing a line at Orcas, Dolphins, may be some primates or elephants, etc. But not all animals are the same and to treat them as sentient beings requires a large ignorance of reality of differences between the species. [0] http://www.gma.org/lobsters/trivia.html http://www.gma.org/lobsters/trivia.html
- sethbannon 9y ago
  Yes, we do need to draw the line somewhere. I'm glad you agree. I'm also glad you agree that we shouldn't cause suffering to Orcas, Dolphins, primates, or elephants. Why do you think we should not cause suffering to those non-human animals but think that it's ok to cause suffering to other non-human animals? My line in the sand is sentience (the ability to suffer). What's yours?
  - noobermin 9y ago
    Ok I don't think I saw that explicitly in your post; it seemed like you implied all non-human animals should be considered sentient. Anyway, the ability to suffer honestly is a little difficult for me because I don't know what definition of suffering could be defined in the first place. As humans, we are the same species, so we can empathize with each others' suffering as we can communicate with each other. Not all animals can communicate with us, so we can't know whether they suffer or what that means. From a mere "observation" stand point along the lines "behaviorism," well almost all animals including insects "suffer" and "feel pain" because they react to violent stimuli. So, that means we probably can't from your line in the sand hurt almost any mammal or insect. That seems a little extreme doesn't lead to a very pleasant life for more aware species like you and your friends. If you want to live like that, go ahead, but I don't think you have the right to impose that on other humans, who would find living like that extremely difficult. I personally don't have definite line in the sand. I love rabbits (for I raised rabbits when I was a kid) and most rodents and wouldn't want to see them get hurt, but I used to have rat issues in my apartment, I had to kill them otherwise I'd be constantly sick, and that would impact people who I love and I need to be there for. I owe love to people I know before rodents. And for humans I don't know, would I fight for children on the east side of my city getting sick due to lead in the water? Yes, and before crying for the suffering of rats, cows, chickens, etc.
hyperpallium 9y ago
Some other animals can parrot human speech.
Ntrails 9y ago
> I hope with more research humanity stops seeing non-human animals as resources to be exploited but rather as sentient beings to be respected. We, as a species, don't even see other human beings in that light. That's quite a dream you've got.

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

Humans presumably are seen as sentient yet [the majority of us?] are being exploited in one way or another: Capitalism has no inbuilt concept of respect. If you meant not exploited for food, that is obviously different. I'm not aware of any humans that do that anymore. Now tell me how you judge sentience?

ImSkeptical 9y ago
Why can't we respect human dignity like those communists who murdered and starved tens of millions of people, ruined economies, and consigned countless people to oppression and deprivation?
- joemi 9y ago
  Communism as you're referring to it is not what many supporters of communism (and/or opponents of capitalism) are advocating for.
  - announcerman 9y ago
    As a citizen of an ex Eastern Bloc country I'd rather not have any other humans co-opt me into another helping of true communism™
    - coldtea 9y ago
      Well, other members of ex Eastern Bloc countries disagree, so?
      - announcerman 9y ago
        We'll decide in a democratic and respectful manner to not fall for the red plague again. If that was your point.
- coldtea 9y ago
  How is a response about what communists did relevant to a critique of capitalism? Except if one can't think of any other alternative or starting point from which to criticize capitalism but communism (and even more so, how some specific regimes practiced it).
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    Communism is the typical alternative to capitalism.
    - macintux 9y ago
      Nice but irrelevant. It's like saying "But Hillary!" every time someone offers a critique of Trump.
      - ben-schaaf 9y ago
        But what about... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
    - coldtea 9y ago
      There are tons of alternatives to capitalism. From anarcho-syndicalism and social democracy, to more obscure religious, environmental and so on approaches.
- MisterBastahrd 9y ago
  Yes, human dignity like those capitalists who drilled giant oil wells in Nigeria, poisoned the land and the people, hired hit squads terrorize the native populace, then fled the country overnight when the regime changed.
  - pdx 9y ago
    I think you're talking about Shell Oil in the 1990's, and their requesting the Nigerian military to help them deal with violent protesters, and allegedly peaceful protesters as well. Yep, that sounds like a problem that needed addressed. That pales compared to the atrocities that have been done in the name of communism. It's frightening that young people have forgotten those lessons, even the oldest of which is less than 100 years ago. The ideal of sacrificing the individual to benefit the group is where communism always ends up, and from there, it's never a long slide to the disappearings, the executions and the starvation. The American ideal of protecting the individual, even at the expense of the group is much more inline with the world I want to live in. Happily, you still end up with a strong group, since it's composed of motivated individuals that feel safe.
- dang 9y ago
  Ideological boilerplate is not welcome here. Please don't post any more of it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: this account has been using HN primarily for ideological battle. As the site guidelines say, we ban accounts that do that, so I'm banning this one. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
labster 9y ago
Ugh not this Marxist BS again. This is completely unrelated to the topic at hand. Let's talk about improving animal welfare in this thread and not go into yet another tangent about human political systems.
freeflight 9y ago
It's really sad how any kind of critique of capitalism, no matter how minor, instantly triggers, the very same and very predictable, knee-jerk responses along the lines of "Communism killed billions!". Like the wonders of capitalism don't kill anybody or like there are only those two choices between capitalism and some Soviet-style centrally planned communism. Which begs the question: Do these people really think we've reached the end of the line in terms of economic systems? I'm asking this question in all seriousness because I'm utterly confused by this lack of imagination/curiosity behind such a mindset.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Bad economics of all stripes tends to assume some form betrayal theory as the only issue.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Agreed > Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Disagreed, capitalism ignores the finite nature of resources, while treating some of them, which are actually infinite, as finite (time). Also, I'd argue that nothing about the resource allocation, the way capitalism does it, is in any way optimal, at least in regards to our actual finite resources. Most of it boils down to hoarding "money", which isn't a finite resource (can be printed at will) nor is it an actually useful resource on its own (can't do much with it except burn it if it's paper). It's supposed to be a tool, but at this point, it feels like the tool has been declared the goal: Just hoard more of the money and you've "won" the game like it's the ultimate solution to all problems. This dynamic also influences the allocation of resources to most "profitable" of individual entities, it's a dynamic that rewards hostile competition over friendly cooperation. Which is a dangerous reward system considering we are all stuck on the same piece of rock, drifting through infinity, sharing the very same finite resources. Wasting so much energy, and resources on how to "screw each other" over for those finite resources, and increasingly bigger "profits", seems quite wasteful and ultimately a very petty way to go about our existence. I'm not saying I know the ultimate fool-proof solution, I just want to point out the flaws with what we've currently got going and imho these flaws are massive and will come bite us in the back-end sooner or later [0]. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

ikeyany 9y ago

Those barriers are certainly falling. The campaign to end the live boiling of lobsters and crabs [1] is underway due to our findings that crustaceans can feel pain. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42873644 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42873644

kingkawn 9y ago
Grimly hilarious that anyone ever thought they couldn’t
- tormeh 9y ago
  Every being with a consciousness must have feelings. Otherwise the consciousness wouldn't know what to do.
  - kirkules 9y ago
    That doesn't mean physical pain is necessarily among the feelings felt.
    - 36bydesign 9y ago
      It’s damn effective, harder to believe pain is felt by most (all?) animals than that it isn’t. The default assumption should be that they feel pain, not that they don’t.
    - qw 9y ago
      I think creatures that don't feel pain would not survive long in the wild. If they don't feel pain they would not have any reason for avoiding dangerous situations.
      - ikeyany 9y ago
        Viruses and bacteria avoid harm and death if they can help it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can "feel pain".

noobermin 9y ago

I think we need to draw a line somewhere. Are plants not "resources to be exploited?" How about the bacteria in our gut? Ok, how about insects, say you don't even kill insects, what about if you accidentally step on a worm on a rainy day? Should we create "insect free zones" that keep bugs out (somehow) so that insects don't get needlessly killed on sidewalks or roads? What about rats? Rats and house mice carry harmful diseases, and arguably, extermination is merely depriving these animals of their right to self-determination (to getting food and shelter, in your adobe.) Of course, they aren't mindful they are spreading illness and disease to you, but you're the more aware being who is in a power differential with them, and thus need to realize your responsibility in the interaction. We can keep going down this rabbit hole. Someone already suggested not killing lobsters. Do they have significantly larger brains than mice or rats? It sounds like the answer is no[0]. In fact, their brains are the size of grasshoppers'...which means if we help respect the sentience of lobsters we probably have to respect the sentience of insects in general. I consider myself a socialist, but some people are taking the "exploitation" talk of Marx too far and applying it to animals who are not sentient. I can understand drawing a line at Orcas, Dolphins, may be some primates or elephants, etc. But not all animals are the same and to treat them as sentient beings requires a large ignorance of reality of differences between the species. [0] http://www.gma.org/lobsters/trivia.html http://www.gma.org/lobsters/trivia.html

sethbannon 9y ago
Yes, we do need to draw the line somewhere. I'm glad you agree. I'm also glad you agree that we shouldn't cause suffering to Orcas, Dolphins, primates, or elephants. Why do you think we should not cause suffering to those non-human animals but think that it's ok to cause suffering to other non-human animals? My line in the sand is sentience (the ability to suffer). What's yours?
- noobermin 9y ago
  Ok I don't think I saw that explicitly in your post; it seemed like you implied all non-human animals should be considered sentient. Anyway, the ability to suffer honestly is a little difficult for me because I don't know what definition of suffering could be defined in the first place. As humans, we are the same species, so we can empathize with each others' suffering as we can communicate with each other. Not all animals can communicate with us, so we can't know whether they suffer or what that means. From a mere "observation" stand point along the lines "behaviorism," well almost all animals including insects "suffer" and "feel pain" because they react to violent stimuli. So, that means we probably can't from your line in the sand hurt almost any mammal or insect. That seems a little extreme doesn't lead to a very pleasant life for more aware species like you and your friends. If you want to live like that, go ahead, but I don't think you have the right to impose that on other humans, who would find living like that extremely difficult. I personally don't have definite line in the sand. I love rabbits (for I raised rabbits when I was a kid) and most rodents and wouldn't want to see them get hurt, but I used to have rat issues in my apartment, I had to kill them otherwise I'd be constantly sick, and that would impact people who I love and I need to be there for. I owe love to people I know before rodents. And for humans I don't know, would I fight for children on the east side of my city getting sick due to lead in the water? Yes, and before crying for the suffering of rats, cows, chickens, etc.

hyperpallium 9y ago

Some other animals can parrot human speech.

Ntrails 9y ago

> I hope with more research humanity stops seeing non-human animals as resources to be exploited but rather as sentient beings to be respected. We, as a species, don't even see other human beings in that light. That's quite a dream you've got.