3 ms·

I don't agree that empathizing with other species is letting one's empathy run amok. I think there is a severe deficit of empathy in Western culture.

zzo38computer 7y ago
I think human and other species are both need to live and be permitted to be sufficiently free in the world, but that it is valid to attack them for self defense or for food (not to be mandatory, but only permitted, if it is not endangered species), but not for other reason. There is over population, but over population is mainly the human over population I think, so that is the first thing to solve. However, I also think that you should protect yourself too, if is necessary to do so. Human is not (currently) a endangered species and should not be over protected compared with everyone else (but that does not mean it should be disregarded, either); however, you can protect your own children if needed to be (if you have any; I prefer to don't have any children, to avoid to contribute to such problem).
- forgotmypw 7y ago
  How is it self-defense to mass-exterminate a largely harmless species that's closely related to us?
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    I did not say it is. Rather, I think that you should not mass exterminate them, and that isn't a valid self-defense. (I was perhaps being unclear.)
sieabahlpark 7y ago
You don't have to agree that's the beauty of democracy and consensus. A majority of us agree that declaring rats as pets and not a protected species is a good thing. We don't need another bubonic plague and your ideals will only bring us closer to that.
summm 7y ago
That might certainly be the case for empathy with fellow humans, but there's an almost psychopathical overabundance of empathy for pets.
shrimp_emoji 7y ago
Are you saying it's rats today, humans tomorrow? Also, >I think there is a severe deficit of empathy in Western culture. Why? I suspect most Westeners would agree with you, which to me indicates a glut of empathy (ironically higher for non-humans than for humans, usually). To the cultural norms I inherited, the idea that society should extend any protections toward non-human animals sounds comical. (And the callous kind of rationalism I've personally cultivated agrees: it seems philosophically misaligned. But there may be big differences there. I assume we value humans because they're so intelligent because that's the most legitimate value I find in them -- not because they can easily hijack my emotions. Thus, I value non-human animals far less. But from here, things get even more arbitrary and subjective and arguably extremely right-wing with what entitles an entity to personhood, whether severely intellectually-disabled humans then have personhood [and, if so, why fetuses do not], whether a non-human with superhuman intelligence would not only have personhood but whether it would be that bad if, by the same rules, decide we don't and abuse us the way we do rats, and also can't chimpanzees absolutely destroy humans in short-term memory[0]? So where does that fit in here? I'm too dumb for this.) But uh. My gut agrees with parent; it's silly to worry so much about rats. 0: https://youtu.be/zsXP8qeFF6A?t=50 https://youtu.be/zsXP8qeFF6A?t=50
golergka 7y ago
> I don't agree that empathizing with other species is letting one's empathy run amok. What's the rational reason to do it? Aside from the fact that it feels good (for a normal, non-sociopathic person). Eating a lot of sugary foods feels good, too. > I think there is a severe deficit of empathy in Western culture. I think that there's a mindless overabundance of it.

zzo38computer 7y ago

I think human and other species are both need to live and be permitted to be sufficiently free in the world, but that it is valid to attack them for self defense or for food (not to be mandatory, but only permitted, if it is not endangered species), but not for other reason. There is over population, but over population is mainly the human over population I think, so that is the first thing to solve. However, I also think that you should protect yourself too, if is necessary to do so. Human is not (currently) a endangered species and should not be over protected compared with everyone else (but that does not mean it should be disregarded, either); however, you can protect your own children if needed to be (if you have any; I prefer to don't have any children, to avoid to contribute to such problem).

forgotmypw 7y ago
How is it self-defense to mass-exterminate a largely harmless species that's closely related to us?
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  I did not say it is. Rather, I think that you should not mass exterminate them, and that isn't a valid self-defense. (I was perhaps being unclear.)

sieabahlpark 7y ago

You don't have to agree that's the beauty of democracy and consensus. A majority of us agree that declaring rats as pets and not a protected species is a good thing. We don't need another bubonic plague and your ideals will only bring us closer to that.

summm 7y ago

That might certainly be the case for empathy with fellow humans, but there's an almost psychopathical overabundance of empathy for pets.

shrimp_emoji 7y ago

Are you saying it's rats today, humans tomorrow? Also, >I think there is a severe deficit of empathy in Western culture. Why? I suspect most Westeners would agree with you, which to me indicates a glut of empathy (ironically higher for non-humans than for humans, usually). To the cultural norms I inherited, the idea that society should extend any protections toward non-human animals sounds comical. (And the callous kind of rationalism I've personally cultivated agrees: it seems philosophically misaligned. But there may be big differences there. I assume we value humans because they're so intelligent because that's the most legitimate value I find in them -- not because they can easily hijack my emotions. Thus, I value non-human animals far less. But from here, things get even more arbitrary and subjective and arguably extremely right-wing with what entitles an entity to personhood, whether severely intellectually-disabled humans then have personhood [and, if so, why fetuses do not], whether a non-human with superhuman intelligence would not only have personhood but whether it would be that bad if, by the same rules, decide we don't and abuse us the way we do rats, and also can't chimpanzees absolutely destroy humans in short-term memory[0]? So where does that fit in here? I'm too dumb for this.) But uh. My gut agrees with parent; it's silly to worry so much about rats. 0: https://youtu.be/zsXP8qeFF6A?t=50 https://youtu.be/zsXP8qeFF6A?t=50

golergka 7y ago

> I don't agree that empathizing with other species is letting one's empathy run amok. What's the rational reason to do it? Aside from the fact that it feels good (for a normal, non-sociopathic person). Eating a lot of sugary foods feels good, too. > I think there is a severe deficit of empathy in Western culture. I think that there's a mindless overabundance of it.