5 ms·

The solution to a problem is never the commercialization of sentient beings.

buscoquadnary 4y ago
It saved the Buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison#Livestock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison#Livestock Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
- Spivak 4y ago
  If you care about the species giving humans an incentive to raise/protect them is pretty effective. If you care about the individual animal this is the worst thing you could do.
Spivak 4y ago
You'll have a 90 degree uphill battle if you want to convince people of that in general -- cows, chickens, goats, lab rats, all sorts of insects, bees, all pets, harvesting various animals for medicine.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sweetheart 4y ago
  many uphill battles have been worth fighting before. this won’t be the last.
pvaldes 4y ago
> The solution to a problem is never the commercialization of sentient beings. Forbidding agriculture would not solve any of our problems. Unless you are trying to say that hum "all sentient beings are equal, but some are more equal than the other".
- sweetheart 4y ago
  agriculture !== animal agriculture
  - pvaldes 4y ago
    "Sentient" is a conveniently empty term to say "It has senses. Can detect changes in the environment". Not more, not less. The term is being abused lately as a substitute for "self-conscious" in a straw man fallacy. We can argue that <random cute animal> is not self-conscious, but suddenly what we are arguing is "has it senses?", a fact that can't be denied. Every animal known, every fungus known and of course every plant and algae known by us are sentient. This is not an honest move, in my opinion. Is just a pseudo-religious term to upgrade some organisms that we like to demigod level --and-- justify retaliation, (because the real underlying force under all this rhetoric is power acquisition; is exactly the same construction as "If you eat pork you will be punished because god says that I'm allowed to punish you").
    - sweetheart 4y ago
      While I don’t think the general scientific consensus agrees with you that every plant and fungus is sentient, we can pick a different word if you prefer. The ability to suffer is the important aspect, after all. As for the part of your comment that claims using the word “sentient” is pseudo religious and used to wield power over others… I think you’re reading far, far too much into it. I don’t think anyone is using sentience as a tool to justify punishment over anyone else. In fact, it tends to be the people that deny sentience that end up punishing others, for merely belonging to different species! TL;DR Let’s not commercialize anyone that can suffer. Historically it hasn’t gone well.
      - pvaldes 4y ago
        > I don’t think the general scientific consensus agrees with you that every plant and fungus is sentient If you find a single scientist claiming the opposite, she/he is probably a genius in some field, but I grant you that is illiterate on basic biology. The global scientific consensus is that plants and fungi react --very fast-- and accurately to any changes in the environment and take complex and strategic decisions all the time about what they perceive. There are zillions of examples that prove that. Lets take for example this tiny fish moving its tail fast toward a light spot in the sea bottom and then deciding if it likes the place or just jump and go away. It this a sentient organism? Most people would say Yes. Well, this is not a fish, in fact is a young Kelp deciding where to settle.

It saved the Buffalo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison#Livestock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison#Livestock Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Spivak 4y ago
If you care about the species giving humans an incentive to raise/protect them is pretty effective. If you care about the individual animal this is the worst thing you could do.

Spivak 4y ago

You'll have a 90 degree uphill battle if you want to convince people of that in general -- cows, chickens, goats, lab rats, all sorts of insects, bees, all pets, harvesting various animals for medicine.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sweetheart 4y ago
many uphill battles have been worth fighting before. this won’t be the last.

pvaldes 4y ago

> The solution to a problem is never the commercialization of sentient beings. Forbidding agriculture would not solve any of our problems. Unless you are trying to say that hum "all sentient beings are equal, but some are more equal than the other".

sweetheart 4y ago
agriculture !== animal agriculture
- pvaldes 4y ago
  "Sentient" is a conveniently empty term to say "It has senses. Can detect changes in the environment". Not more, not less. The term is being abused lately as a substitute for "self-conscious" in a straw man fallacy. We can argue that <random cute animal> is not self-conscious, but suddenly what we are arguing is "has it senses?", a fact that can't be denied. Every animal known, every fungus known and of course every plant and algae known by us are sentient. This is not an honest move, in my opinion. Is just a pseudo-religious term to upgrade some organisms that we like to demigod level --and-- justify retaliation, (because the real underlying force under all this rhetoric is power acquisition; is exactly the same construction as "If you eat pork you will be punished because god says that I'm allowed to punish you").
  - sweetheart 4y ago
    While I don’t think the general scientific consensus agrees with you that every plant and fungus is sentient, we can pick a different word if you prefer. The ability to suffer is the important aspect, after all. As for the part of your comment that claims using the word “sentient” is pseudo religious and used to wield power over others… I think you’re reading far, far too much into it. I don’t think anyone is using sentience as a tool to justify punishment over anyone else. In fact, it tends to be the people that deny sentience that end up punishing others, for merely belonging to different species! TL;DR Let’s not commercialize anyone that can suffer. Historically it hasn’t gone well.
    - pvaldes 4y ago
      > I don’t think the general scientific consensus agrees with you that every plant and fungus is sentient If you find a single scientist claiming the opposite, she/he is probably a genius in some field, but I grant you that is illiterate on basic biology. The global scientific consensus is that plants and fungi react --very fast-- and accurately to any changes in the environment and take complex and strategic decisions all the time about what they perceive. There are zillions of examples that prove that. Lets take for example this tiny fish moving its tail fast toward a light spot in the sea bottom and then deciding if it likes the place or just jump and go away. It this a sentient organism? Most people would say Yes. Well, this is not a fish, in fact is a young Kelp deciding where to settle.