4 ms·

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 eleph

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.
- sethbannon 9y ago
  A lot of what you're saying makes a lot of sense. It's certainly very difficult to know if a non-human animal is suffering without them being able to communicate it using language. We can know when another human is suffering even if we don't speak their language because we can empathize with them, but this is harder for non-human animals. I think you might be conflating "pain" with "suffering". Pain is simply a reaction to a negative stimuli. Pain response has been shown in plants and insects, for instance. But I don't place any value on pain that doesn't lead to a negative subjective experience. That's what I think is actually bad. Suffering has not been shown in plants or insects. But there has been a lot of research showing that many non-human mammalian animals do suffer. Here's some research on chickens, for instance: https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4 https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4 And I've found this to be a good resource for navigating the sentience debate: http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/ http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/
  - posterboy 9y ago
    Suffering can be rather intellectual. As far as empathy is literally intellectual, insects likely don't share that, so their opinion isn't guiding. Certainly, the purely physical empathy, i.e. emotions, fear of loss, fear of fire, etc. via mirror neurons are bounded by a few instincts and always illuminating fear for ourselves. Will it kill me? kill it with fire! Could the fire spread and kill me? Then maybe it's not such a good idea. Was that my dog run over by a car? I should have taken better care. Will aliens simply extinguish us without prior warning and so, should we try to get ahead of them in the same way? Wouldn't that just expose us? It's a 50:50 chance either way. The default is to do nothing unless stimulated to. After that, combat involves communicating intent, a lot. Likewise, the ability to communicate doesn't imply a need to. Conversely, the ability to communicate doesn't define consciousness. Precisely, the ability to refrain from communication is likewise important. So if an animal can't even shut the fuck up, that's where I draw a line. And I should take that into consideration more often when posting online. Further, action can be involuntary communication. So "A lot can be inferred from how enemies are treated". Concerning invasive surgery, the practical need for analgesics is a smooth procedure, not the suffering of the patient. Corollary: If something cannot rationalize it's suffering that's another line in the sand. E.g. children vs a society of fish missing a sibling.
posterboy 9y ago
Need - The source of suffering is desire. In an holistic approach, everything is part of me, my perception of the world. So I have to weigh the needs I can fulfill--not only my own--against the suffering I can endure. But there is no clear dividing line, only a fractal of high Hausdorff-dimension.
dotancohen 9y ago
> My line in the sand is sentience (the ability to suffer). What's yours? This is the same argument as "What's a planet", my definition ensures that we still have nine! I'll give you another one: "Which people keeps the Temple Mount", my solution says the Jews! Lines need to be drawn somewhere, and people will be upset no matter where the line is drawn. Sometimes we need to accept that we got one line drawn to far to the left for our liking, another drawn too far to the right for our liking, but the choice is to either accept imperfect lines or spend our whole lives arguing or fighting. I'll let you have eight planets, but that Temple Mount is mine!

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.

sethbannon 9y ago
A lot of what you're saying makes a lot of sense. It's certainly very difficult to know if a non-human animal is suffering without them being able to communicate it using language. We can know when another human is suffering even if we don't speak their language because we can empathize with them, but this is harder for non-human animals. I think you might be conflating "pain" with "suffering". Pain is simply a reaction to a negative stimuli. Pain response has been shown in plants and insects, for instance. But I don't place any value on pain that doesn't lead to a negative subjective experience. That's what I think is actually bad. Suffering has not been shown in plants or insects. But there has been a lot of research showing that many non-human mammalian animals do suffer. Here's some research on chickens, for instance: https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4 https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4 And I've found this to be a good resource for navigating the sentience debate: http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/ http://www.animal-ethics.org/sentience-section/
- posterboy 9y ago
  Suffering can be rather intellectual. As far as empathy is literally intellectual, insects likely don't share that, so their opinion isn't guiding. Certainly, the purely physical empathy, i.e. emotions, fear of loss, fear of fire, etc. via mirror neurons are bounded by a few instincts and always illuminating fear for ourselves. Will it kill me? kill it with fire! Could the fire spread and kill me? Then maybe it's not such a good idea. Was that my dog run over by a car? I should have taken better care. Will aliens simply extinguish us without prior warning and so, should we try to get ahead of them in the same way? Wouldn't that just expose us? It's a 50:50 chance either way. The default is to do nothing unless stimulated to. After that, combat involves communicating intent, a lot. Likewise, the ability to communicate doesn't imply a need to. Conversely, the ability to communicate doesn't define consciousness. Precisely, the ability to refrain from communication is likewise important. So if an animal can't even shut the fuck up, that's where I draw a line. And I should take that into consideration more often when posting online. Further, action can be involuntary communication. So "A lot can be inferred from how enemies are treated". Concerning invasive surgery, the practical need for analgesics is a smooth procedure, not the suffering of the patient. Corollary: If something cannot rationalize it's suffering that's another line in the sand. E.g. children vs a society of fish missing a sibling.

posterboy 9y ago

Need - The source of suffering is desire. In an holistic approach, everything is part of me, my perception of the world. So I have to weigh the needs I can fulfill--not only my own--against the suffering I can endure. But there is no clear dividing line, only a fractal of high Hausdorff-dimension.

dotancohen 9y ago

> My line in the sand is sentience (the ability to suffer). What's yours? This is the same argument as "What's a planet", my definition ensures that we still have nine! I'll give you another one: "Which people keeps the Temple Mount", my solution says the Jews! Lines need to be drawn somewhere, and people will be upset no matter where the line is drawn. Sometimes we need to accept that we got one line drawn to far to the left for our liking, another drawn too far to the right for our liking, but the choice is to either accept imperfect lines or spend our whole lives arguing or fighting. I'll let you have eight planets, but that Temple Mount is mine!