3 ms·

I'm not replying in the context of the gp, but more curious about where you see a line to be drawn (or if you see no line ?). I'm personally not sure where I s

I'm not replying in the context of the gp, but more curious about where you see a line to be drawn (or if you see no line ?). I'm personally not sure where I stand, but there is a whole can of worms when we start to evaluate which animals "deserve" protection and on what grounds. For instance many of the characteristics you underline probably apply to crows, except crows are either categorized as nuisance or only tolerated in many places in the world. And it might be too much expanding the subject, but there is a chance that most animals that are living in urban or technically advanced settings are getting some boost on "inteligence" and will show traits that make them better fit for a human environment, including better display of emotions for instance. I think we're already seeing such a development in cats, and as animals crossing that threshold would be protected while other get the boot, the selection for that trait could happen pretty fast.

9dev 2y ago
The line I draw isn’t a clear one; my personal opinion is that we should try to minimise overall suffering, and that requires realising that almost all animals are capable of suffering the way we do. That doesn’t mean we should try to abdicate animal suffering altogether, because that just plain won’t work and conflicts with basic human interest. But we still can try to avoid suffering in every way possible. In a broader scope, I think we’re just now realising that continuing the human way of life is just not sustainable and makes the planet inhospitable to Sapiens: We consume too much at once, and bring a disbalance to the global ecosystem. Fixing that requires rethinking a lot of the systems we rely on, and yes, also restraining ourselves from doing things that damage the ecosystem we depend on. A practical consequence is drastically reducing meat consumption and mass farming, and that ties back in to the point of reducing suffering. I think we’re aware of an equilibrium in our environment, and if we look at the world close enough, everyone realises the status quo just won’t work much longer. Drawing the consequences is the hard part, and realising animals suffer and that that is a sign something is wrong is one of them.

9dev 2y ago

The line I draw isn’t a clear one; my personal opinion is that we should try to minimise overall suffering, and that requires realising that almost all animals are capable of suffering the way we do. That doesn’t mean we should try to abdicate animal suffering altogether, because that just plain won’t work and conflicts with basic human interest. But we still can try to avoid suffering in every way possible. In a broader scope, I think we’re just now realising that continuing the human way of life is just not sustainable and makes the planet inhospitable to Sapiens: We consume too much at once, and bring a disbalance to the global ecosystem. Fixing that requires rethinking a lot of the systems we rely on, and yes, also restraining ourselves from doing things that damage the ecosystem we depend on. A practical consequence is drastically reducing meat consumption and mass farming, and that ties back in to the point of reducing suffering. I think we’re aware of an equilibrium in our environment, and if we look at the world close enough, everyone realises the status quo just won’t work much longer. Drawing the consequences is the hard part, and realising animals suffer and that that is a sign something is wrong is one of them.