6 ms·

Why would we fight wars over whether specific animals are sapient? We have no trouble killing, imprisoning and torturing humans. Sapience is a philosophical dis

by hnbad 4y ago

Why would we fight wars over whether specific animals are sapient? We have no trouble killing, imprisoning and torturing humans. Sapience is a philosophical distinction, not a practical one.

AlecSchueler 4y ago
Currently we tolerate the enslavement of animals but that becomes harder and harder to the point that some people might want to fight others on their behalf.
- hnbad 4y ago
  That's not a hypothetical. The Animal Liberation Front exists. But that's a small group of people that mostly attacks labs and farms. That's a very different scale and mode than a literal war. Currently we tolerate the enslavement of humans but contrary to popular narratives about the US Civil War, we haven't fought any wars specifically to end slavery of other humans. We have had successful "slave rebellions" (e.g. Haiti, which continues to pay the debt imposed by their former slave masters for "damages and economic losses" to this day) but anti-slavery sentiments among those not in the demographic directly suffering from slavery never went quite that far. The anti-colonialist coup in Portugal was fueled more by the military's resentment over the forever-war required to suppress the colonies than any sympathy for their cause of liberation. The US Civil War was a reaction to the attempted secession of its then-member states rather than specifically their stance on slavery. It's plausible that we'd see acts we'd consider terrorism in the name of animal liberation (arguably some of the ALF's past actions fit into this category) much like we have seen with other liberation movements. But as this is a struggle entirely led by those not themselves in the group of the oppressed, the dynamics are different from most civil rights struggles. Arguably even the abolition of formal slavery in most countries had less to do with zealous support from non-slaves and more with economic factors making slavery less appealing. And even then the countries only got away with slavery in their own mainland while still happily continuing to benefit from overseas slavery, much like we now mostly hide animal suffering in farms, closed trucks and meat processing factories rather than back alleys and town squares.
jacquesm 4y ago
Actually it is spot on and very practical. All of those examples you give are typically preceded by a strong 'dehumanization' phase, which allows us to overcome the inhibitions that we have ingrained against doing those things to humans.
- hnbad 4y ago
  Sure, but dehumanization is explicitly used to other specific out-groups of humans. Extending our understanding of sapience to other animals than humans would do the opposite of dehumanization. I don't think we'll see a future pan-sapientist Zimbabwe invade Botswana to liberate their zebras or anything like that. Empathy is generally easier as a tool for peace than war.

by hnbad 4y ago

Why would we fight wars over whether specific animals are sapient? We have no trouble killing, imprisoning and torturing humans. Sapience is a philosophical distinction, not a practical one.

AlecSchueler 4y ago

Currently we tolerate the enslavement of animals but that becomes harder and harder to the point that some people might want to fight others on their behalf.

hnbad 4y ago
That's not a hypothetical. The Animal Liberation Front exists. But that's a small group of people that mostly attacks labs and farms. That's a very different scale and mode than a literal war. Currently we tolerate the enslavement of humans but contrary to popular narratives about the US Civil War, we haven't fought any wars specifically to end slavery of other humans. We have had successful "slave rebellions" (e.g. Haiti, which continues to pay the debt imposed by their former slave masters for "damages and economic losses" to this day) but anti-slavery sentiments among those not in the demographic directly suffering from slavery never went quite that far. The anti-colonialist coup in Portugal was fueled more by the military's resentment over the forever-war required to suppress the colonies than any sympathy for their cause of liberation. The US Civil War was a reaction to the attempted secession of its then-member states rather than specifically their stance on slavery. It's plausible that we'd see acts we'd consider terrorism in the name of animal liberation (arguably some of the ALF's past actions fit into this category) much like we have seen with other liberation movements. But as this is a struggle entirely led by those not themselves in the group of the oppressed, the dynamics are different from most civil rights struggles. Arguably even the abolition of formal slavery in most countries had less to do with zealous support from non-slaves and more with economic factors making slavery less appealing. And even then the countries only got away with slavery in their own mainland while still happily continuing to benefit from overseas slavery, much like we now mostly hide animal suffering in farms, closed trucks and meat processing factories rather than back alleys and town squares.

jacquesm 4y ago

Actually it is spot on and very practical. All of those examples you give are typically preceded by a strong 'dehumanization' phase, which allows us to overcome the inhibitions that we have ingrained against doing those things to humans.

hnbad 4y ago
Sure, but dehumanization is explicitly used to other specific out-groups of humans. Extending our understanding of sapience to other animals than humans would do the opposite of dehumanization. I don't think we'll see a future pan-sapientist Zimbabwe invade Botswana to liberate their zebras or anything like that. Empathy is generally easier as a tool for peace than war.