next »

[Gnarf]

free range artificial meat

That's awesome!

[Xion]

The sooner they can grow meat in vats, the better!

I would not like vat-meat. That sounds nasty.

[Derek]

Derek: "We will have to develop therapies to either treat or compensate for this lack of self-regulation that we think is there and the fact that it may be positively reinforcing every time they hurt somebody,"
In my humble opinion, bullies are the result of education and social pressures. I know some people who were like that as youths, who turned out alright, and even apologized for past behavior, decades after the fact, when they got their own children.

Yeah, that quote kind of freaked me out.  I agree with you about bullies (barring the exceptional cases where someone is genuinely a psychopath).

Childhood is such a crazy time.  It's kind of frightening to think about all the experiences from that age that make us who we are.

[Valter]

I want to talk about this.

The answer is emphatically yes! I have seen it happen!

For a while there in high school I wanted to be a marine biologist, and my parents sent me off on this incredible trip to the wilds of British Columbia to learn about marine mammals, hang out with rangers, and ultimately act as a volunteer tourguide on a whale watching boat.

On our second day out we hadn't seen any whales but we suddenly we noticed a pod of dolphins off the side of the boat. They seemed to be chasing something and after a while the captain noticed it was a porpoise they were after. They moved the boat closer and it soon became apparently clear that this pod of dolphins were attacking this poor porpoise, they had tired the poor thing out from chasing it and they were taking turns body slamming it under the water. It was a crazy sight, lots of splashing and the dolphins were actually leaping a few feet out of the water to come down hard on the porpoise. After a few minutes the porpoise stops coming up for air and the dolphins seem to lose interest and swim off. It was fucked up.

The head tour guide said she'd never seen anything like this before, and postulated that it was a group of males learning to hunt, or just blowing off aggressive hormones. Who knows why they were really doing it. Some of the tourists on the boat were pretty traumatized and it really shattered any thoughts I had that animals were instinctively peaceful and friendly. Animals kill and hurt senselesly and I don't know if it justifies people acting that, but it sorta helps explain it for me.

Does anybody else want to Call Echo the Dolphin a "Kiddy" game? Fuckers 'll cut you wide open!

[Ivan]

Animals are not inherently peaceful or friendly. They are for the most part, a link in a cruel and punishing ecosystem of survival and their actions, whether in play or hunt reflect that. These actions are partially encoded in their genes and partially taught to them by their parents and are crucial to their survival.

Us humans, inherited some of these genes from the early days, but what separates us from the animals that passed it on to us, is the concept of morality, which we've developed over the last few thousand years through the use of religion, philosophy and science. That morality is passed on purely through human contact and a young human child needs to be morally educated by his parents.

A child may not know what bringing pain to another living being means, but it is the job of those who raise him to make sure that he finds out. Those children who consistently continue to do these things are nothing more than products of parental neglect and/or ignorance of his guardians.

[Renton]

Well said, good sir.

[Lurk]

Bravo, Toastie!

[Garthy]

I'd just like to open by thanking Seth for that video. Very ontopic, and very entertaining. A more apt lesson could not have been taught that day. Clever cat.

Lurk: Small children move incredibly fast, and you often can't guess their intent before it is too late. I counted roughly two seconds from which the child's intent to throw was actually clear to the whole event being over. The child probably hadn't decided to throw the cat until the second he started, anyway. Children are like that. The child could have just as easily decided to put the cat on his head to see what happened.

As for childhood- I think everyone has done some stupid things in their early childhood. The important thing to note is that at that age you are still learning and developing your own personal sense of morality. I daresay some of the stupid things you do as a child can shape that morality in a positive way.

Anyway...

I started reading this thread thinking for a short time that there could be some argument in the whole burning cats versus squishing bugs thing. However, it really isn't that complex when you think about it. It comes down to a couple of things: Needs and suffering.

Regarding needs, consider bug-squishing. Do you go out of your way to find a bug, and squish it, or do you do so out of a competitive desire to protect your territory and health? I'd think the latter. As for burning a cat, what need is satisfied there? The cat wasn't encroaching on someone's territory, and there were far simpler means of removing it if it were. Additionally, in the former case, said bugs breed and spread very fast, and it often isn't just a simple matter of shoo-ing them out the door. This you can do to a cat. Without hurting it.

Regarding suffering, when you squish a bug, is the reason you do it to make it suffer, or to get rid of it? I'd say that it almost always the latter. Regarding burning a cat, the purpose isn't to get rid of it. The aim was to cause suffering (for amusement purposes, apparently).

If the cat was a pest (eg. wild cats attacking chickens, for example), then it could be shot. Is that more humane, and justified? I'd say so. There is a need, and the aim is not to cause it to suffer. Consider the bug squish example again, again in a different context. Suppose that you went out to a rainforest, found a spider, trapped it, and tortured it for a few hours. This would be inhumane, right? Why? No need is satisfied in harming it, and the intent is to cause suffering.

I would posit that the specific subject of the suffering (eg. cats, bugs) isn't important, it is the need satisfied and the deliberate suffering caused. Thus, when comparing the cases, consider the need, and the suffering. In the bug-squish example, it satisfies a need and is not a deliberate attempt to cause suffering. Thus, it is considered humane. In the cat burning example, there was no need to satisfy, and the suffering was inflicted deliberately. Thus it is inhumane. As such I'd say that the bugs versus cats thing is a red herring. It's the need met, and the suffering caused, that determines the morality of the action. Don't let people trick you into a argument that it is because some things are sacred and others are not.

[Lurk]

Garthy: I remember not paying attention in a french class. The teacher saw me, and asked me to explain a particular grammar rule she was talking about. I told her I knew how to apply the rule, but I could'nt explain it; I just learned it instinctively while reading books(if I want to spell check when writting in french, I usually write the two versions of the word that make the most sense to me, then I chose the one that 'looks' better). She sent me to the board and started dictating; I wrote as fast as she spoke, without making any mistakes. She sent me back to my chair and left me alone.
The 'torturing defenseless animals' rule to me is the same. I can't explain it, it's just wrong. Even squishing harmless insects seems such a waste. I now try to observe them closely, and understand what they are doing and why.
As for the video, I think someone was filming, and knew perfectly well what was going to transpire. Maybe there's a bit of 'camcorder paralysis' involved, but I would'nt bet on it. Some people see pets as living entertainment at best. That's why they abandon them when they get bored with the responsibilities that come with them.

Derek: I often look back at childhood, and consider myself lucky to have been able to reach adulthood as a whole, with both eyes intact

[Garthy]

Lurk:

I'd say there's a good chance that the person with the camcorder was just filming the child carrying around the cat because it was cute. For all we know, there was twenty minutes of footage before this bit. Notice how the child is looking at the strange water for a bit, cat in arm, and then makes a decision to "test the water" with the cat? I think the child would have been winding up beforehand if he planned to go cat tossing. Children aren't as big on the whole premeditation thing as adults. And how would you plan such a video if it was deliberate? Young children aren't always good at following instructions, especially if they can't see a potential benefit.

Of course, I do wonder where the parent is. See the other adult and child in the background? That's how you show a child a pool, because pools have hard edges and you don't need much water to drown if you've knocked your head on the way down.

Regarding your philosophy, and the uncertainty of why, does the needs and suffering argument I make resonate with you at all? Perhaps the specifics of the needs thing is different for us. Having said that, if there was a device I could place in my house and on my person that would automatically drive off bugs and stop them dropping on my head, without hurting them, I don't think I could conscionably squish them any more. There would no longer be a need.

On a side note relating to the vat meat thing- I'd do it. Besides, vat-grown meat (or meat-like substitute) could be done in such a way as to optimise deliciousness, and would very likely be a much more efficient use of resources than grazing animals. Additionally, I'd feel no guilt eating the meat. It'd probably be cheaper too (after a while).

[Lurk]

Garthy: It makes sense;I tend to kill insects(mainly mosquitoes) out an instinctive response to their sting. I don't bother spiders or ants, or any other I can't identify, but I would try to get rid of termites or other nuisances to my house.
In reality, I don't think it should've grown to such a debate. There is no comparison between someone crushing an insect, and a bunch of teenagers ganging to kick a kitten. And there's no place in the world that would view that behavior as acceptable(except maybe for those darned gray aliens ).  It's fine to argue for arguments sake, but sometimes, you just can't play the devil's advocate without sounding like an emotionless pickle...
Plus...try to find a girlfriend that will allow you to stick to these principles, Skofo

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Actually I disagree with the idea that there's no place in the world that would find that acceptable; if you believe that, you haven't studied history or anthropology enough. Torturing cats for fun was a common game in the Middle Ages, it's well-documented. Animal sacrifice is common in many primitive cultures. Public executions of people even only a few hundred years ago used to be common entertainment that parents would bring their kids to.

I think this is just a cultural thing. Plenty of things we do today and think nothing of would be considered cruel by many of those cultures. For instance, most parents in the developed world do not sleep in the same beds as their infants, they use cages (cribs) instead, and often let them cry themselves to sleep. In primitive societies that would (perhaps rightfully) be seen as torture of the baby. Same thing for circumcision (both male and female). There are other examples, many things we find acceptable are very unacceptable to other cultures, and even though this is very unacceptable to modern culture that doesn't mean it's inherently unacceptable to civilization in general.

[Garthy]

Lurk, your position is probably more noble than mine in that regard. For example, I tend to be completely unforgiving of ants who make it into my house lest they find a food source inside and mark a trail back to their nest. I cannot let it be, due to past experiences where I have done so that have not turned out so well for me.

rinkuhero, I agree. Morality is generally cultural. I think that you will also notice a degree of convergence on certain similar themes as the levels of education in a particular culture grow, but even then that's not a given. I like the crib example that you mention- this is a good example of a subject on which there are pros and cons, and a culture has settled on one particular idea at the expense of the other.

[mrfredman]

I'm gonna go on a marine biology tangent again, I hope you guys don't mind. I figure I might as well do it here instead of starting my own thread.

Have you guys seen this new show on Animal Planet? Whale Wars? it really bothers me.

I mean its damn good tv, I'm on the edge of my seat, and its very entertaining, but what the conservationists are doing and trying to attempt is ridiculous.

The premise is that there is one fleet of commercial whaling boats left in the entire world, and because 'whaling is bad' this group of conservationists lead by a guy who got kicked out of greenpeace go and harass them. While whales are cute creatures there is no longer any threat of whale extinction and whale populations around the world have been reasonably healthy and growing for at least the last 15-20 years.

They keep insisting that they are 'doing it for the whales' and yes its sad that whales die, but in this day and age there are other conservation issues that are far more pressing. They should be harrassing Chinese factories dumping in the yangtze, or fighting the destruction of the rainforest in South America. Its like the captain of this boat is stuck in his glory days with greenpeace and hes trying to relive them by making this group of idealogical and gullible young people risk their lives for no good reason. What that Japanese are doing is totally legal in every way, especially since Japan has never signed any non-whaling treaties (which is objectionable but another issue) and aren't making any significant dent in the whale population.

OK, i'm done, it was just sorta of on the topic of killing cute animals and its really been bugging me. Does anyone think these people are doing the right thing? Because it sure seems to me like they are bunch adrenaline junkies doing this for themselves and for some publicity.

[Garthy]

mrfredman:

I see a lot of bizarre avatars on the Tigsource forums that I want to ask about- and yours is one of them. If there's a story or explanation behind it, I'd love to know.

Without going into too much detail on the main topic of your post, the details of which I am simply not knowledgeable enough to respond properly to, I just wanted to address a single part of your argument regarding the relative merit of causes.

I personally believe that the presence of a greater or more noble cause does not invalidate the work on a perceived "lesser" cause. For example, earlier today I was talking with someone regarding the impact of unrestrained copyright infringement (the "p" word) on small indie developers. No doubt, during the course of my conversation, people in a far-away country that I am simply not familiar with were killed in needless fighting. Does that make my discussion on the plight of indie developers pointless, or time misspent? I'd say that it doesn't. In this case, I simply had more knowledge of this particular issue and I would argue that it may have been a better application of my time.

More directly to the point you raised, perhaps the various people involved consider it to be a more important cause, or that they are better suited to advancing that particular cause?

[Gainsworthy]

I leave for ONE day, and this happens. Big Ethical Arguments, Skofo banned. Yeesh.

I ain't gonna get into a lot of dialogue on this one. Frustrates and saddens whilst turning me into a Massive Hypocrite. "You profess to like animals, yet eat meat?" Someone will think, quite rightly. "No place in this discussion, Gainsworthy."

Uh, I kind of like Sea Shepard, though. I mean, their energy should really be targeted elsewhere, but they're still doing something. And that's more than many. Also, it's entertaining. I like whales. That's about it.

Oh yes, and bring on the Vat-Grown meat, I say.

[Garthy]

Gainsworthy:

I like animals too, they're delicious. (Please don't hurt me everyone, just trying to lighten up a potentially awkward topic). More seriously, I'm definitely a carnivore, but I'm also a strong advocate of livestock being kept in humane conditions, even if their ultimate fate is somebody's dinner plate.

As for vat meat, it'll never take off with a name like that. Perhaps something like "Designer Meat"? "Ethical Meat"? "Ultrameat"?

[Ivan]

Have you guys seen this new show on Animal Planet? Whale Wars? it really bothers me.

Dude, Animal Planet is really fucked. I get like free cable that comes with my internet cable and I get Animal Planet HD once in awhile. And it constantly shows things that are kind of upsetting to most people, but assuming their target audience are animal lovers, I can't imagine what they must feel. I guess they wanted to rebrand it as more Xtreme or something, cause every time I flick it on, its like "WATCH AS THE MOOSE SLOWLY DROWNS IN THE BROKEN ICE UNDER HIS TREMENDOUS WEIGHT" and shit like that. My girlfriend has actually burst into tears a few times just paging through it on the way to another channel.

[Matt Thorson]

Animals are not inherently peaceful or friendly. They are for the most part, a link in a cruel and punishing ecosystem of survival and their actions, whether in play or hunt reflect that. These actions are partially encoded in their genes and partially taught to them by their parents and are crucial to their survival.

Us humans, inherited some of these genes from the early days, but what separates us from the animals that passed it on to us, is the concept of morality, which we've developed over the last few thousand years through the use of religion, philosophy and science. That morality is passed on purely through human contact and a young human child needs to be morally educated by his parents.

A child may not know what bringing pain to another living being means, but it is the job of those who raise him to make sure that he finds out. Those children who consistently continue to do these things are nothing more than products of parental neglect and/or ignorance of his guardians.

Are you educated in the subject of how humans acquire morality (a sense of what is right and wrong)?  The way I understand it from my Child Psychology course, it's way more evolutionary then it is from science, philosophy or religion.

Picture this: two tribes of humans near the dawn of man.  In one tribe murder is rewarded (ex. the King's murderer becomes King), in the other it is punished (the tribe exiles the murderer).  Which tribe is more likely to survive to pass on their genes to future generations?  If our instinct was the murder everyone we compete with, we wouldn't have made much progress.  In fact, the reason we crave social interaction and want to be popular is because a lone human would have been basically dead meat at the time when our current traits evolved.

If morality came mostly from science, philosophy and religion, how did mankind survive long enough to begin practicing science, philosophy and religion?  Morality has been crucial to our success as a species.

Also, I don't have a link to this but remember reading it at some point and might be able to find it on Google, chimps have basic morality as well.  An experiment was conducted where chimps learned that if they brought 5 pebbles to a person, they could exchange them for a slice of cucumber.  Eventually, the experimenters randomly gave one monkey a grape instead of a slice of cucumber (grapes are much more valuable to chimps).  All the chimps who didn't receive the grape were furious, throwing their pebbles at the experimenters and refusing to participate further, because of the unfairness of one chimp getting more for doing the same amount of work as them.  Chimps don't have the benefit of science, philosophy or religion, but still developed morality to help them survive.

And finally - this isn't directed at anyone in particular but the topic as a whole - it is impossible to live life without destroying other life.  Success for one organism means failure for another organism somehow, somewhere.

For example: eating.  You need to eat to survive, and what do you eat?  All food comes from something that was once alive.  You can be a vegetarian if you want, but that just means you're eating things further away from us on the family tree.  Plants are just as much alive as anything else.

Who decides what is right or wrong?  Murder is wrong because it hurts the tribe.  If someone is going around killing people, everyone will suffer in the long run because the dead people can no longer contribute to society.  This is why lots of people support the death penalty: in their limited morality it doesn't matter if a criminal dies - they weren't helping the "tribe" anyways.  Is being against the death penalty any better?  If you are against it certainly you don't want that criminal to rot in prison either, you want them to be rehabilitated... so they can contribute to society.

Whoa... I rambled.

[Ivan]

YMM:
No, I'm not formally educated on the subject, but I do have a basic understanding of how humans function.

Morality for the sake of survival is not what I meant. Maybe it's not the right term to use and "compassion" may be a better one. I would argue that "compassion" not only may be, but in most cases probably IS contradictory to evolutionary survival. Compassion, for example, would be not leaving a weak member behind, even though doing so may hinder and harm the rest of the group.

I think that true compassion and humanity is granted only to the rational mind (see Humanism), a compassion that is not based in instinct, but based on the rational understanding of the things that you do.