Please log in. To create a new account, enter the name and password you want to use.
If you supplied an email address when you signed up or added a email later, you can have your password reset.
This user name doesn't exist. If you want to create a new account, just verify your password and log in.
This user name exists. If you want to create a new account, please choose a different name.
Enter the current email address you have registered in your profile. You'll get an email containing your new password.
You have no email address in your profile, so you can't have your password reset.
Password reset. Check your email in a few minutes
That account does not exist.
The email address specified is not registered with this account.
Delivery to this email address has failed.
Animal rights, if framed that way, seems a bit off. Though the more interesting question (that is directly related to all these) is at what point we should honor life of other species? So far mankind treats pretty much every other animal as if they were just there to serve us.
Is this just about respecting life? Why not all life?We have some people who have decided to act on this, and go all for animal rights (a good chunk of vegetarians fall in this clause). But if the goal is to avoid harming any other living beings, where do you draw the line? It seems a little unfair to still eat plants when they can suffer just as much as the animals we eat (they are just so different from us that we can't easily recognize such suffering).
What if we were to aliens as ants are to humans?Placing things in perspective, imagine if an alien life form where to pass by Earth, and they were to regard us as little more than ants: busy building critters who are aimlessly wandering around life wasting their time in hopeless endeavors. They wouldn't have a reason to wipe us out, but they probably couldn't care less if whatever "Grand Scheme" they have in mind would just happen to kill a few millions of us. We just got in the way, after all.
How are we different from ants, anyway?I like the comparison to our treatment of ants, because it is quite accurate. Ants can be rather intelligent beings (in the way they are organized, build colonies, and solve their food stock problems), yet we probably don't think twice about stepping on them "by accident." Is this unfair treatment merely because of the difference in physical size? Or just because we can't actually understand them enough to wonder if they ever have philosophical discussions while marching to and from their next destination?
More examples of current treatment (sentience acknowledgement and emotional attachment)In some books and games, they draw the line of respect for another species when they become sentient. Under the condition that they can somehow communicate with us, otherwise, they are dumb animals for all we care. That seems as well a pretty limited point of view. A more natural case is that people give value to other life-forms directly dependent on how emotionally attached they become to them (i.e.: pets), but again that's an emotional argument, not a reasonable one.
I think it's quite a mess. And we are only lucky that so far other species haven't tried to claim revenge on us for our lack of respect for them.
If only it were as easy as just not mingling with other species.It would be easier to just not worry about it and live apart from nature, ignoring other animals and letting them be, if it weren't because: 1, there is a bunch of them that are intertwined with our society for better or for worse (everything from pets to mosquitoes) and 2, we still need to kill animals in order to feed most of the population (if we wanted to all go vegan, I would think that we need to curb the world's population by a factor of ten first, on the very least).
Though, for the near future, I think the definition that will apply to new entities (what Gregol was hinting at) is drawing the line at sentience when communication is possible.
If you can give an order to "something", and they can reply "why should I do as you say?", then they probably deserve "human" rights and respect.
I don't understand so well the second question as to comment on it. :B
SK7000
over 11 years agoIs this just about respecting life? Why not all life?We have some people who have decided to act on this, and go all for animal rights (a good chunk of vegetarians fall in this clause). But if the goal is to avoid harming any other living beings, where do you draw the line? It seems a little unfair to still eat plants when they can suffer just as much as the animals we eat (they are just so different from us that we can't easily recognize such suffering).
What if we were to aliens as ants are to humans?Placing things in perspective, imagine if an alien life form where to pass by Earth, and they were to regard us as little more than ants: busy building critters who are aimlessly wandering around life wasting their time in hopeless endeavors. They wouldn't have a reason to wipe us out, but they probably couldn't care less if whatever "Grand Scheme" they have in mind would just happen to kill a few millions of us. We just got in the way, after all.
How are we different from ants, anyway?I like the comparison to our treatment of ants, because it is quite accurate. Ants can be rather intelligent beings (in the way they are organized, build colonies, and solve their food stock problems), yet we probably don't think twice about stepping on them "by accident." Is this unfair treatment merely because of the difference in physical size? Or just because we can't actually understand them enough to wonder if they ever have philosophical discussions while marching to and from their next destination?
More examples of current treatment (sentience acknowledgement and emotional attachment)In some books and games, they draw the line of respect for another species when they become sentient. Under the condition that they can somehow communicate with us, otherwise, they are dumb animals for all we care. That seems as well a pretty limited point of view. A more natural case is that people give value to other life-forms directly dependent on how emotionally attached they become to them (i.e.: pets), but again that's an emotional argument, not a reasonable one.
I think it's quite a mess. And we are only lucky that so far other species haven't tried to claim revenge on us for our lack of respect for them.
If only it were as easy as just not mingling with other species.It would be easier to just not worry about it and live apart from nature, ignoring other animals and letting them be, if it weren't because: 1, there is a bunch of them that are intertwined with our society for better or for worse (everything from pets to mosquitoes) and 2, we still need to kill animals in order to feed most of the population (if we wanted to all go vegan, I would think that we need to curb the world's population by a factor of ten first, on the very least).
Though, for the near future, I think the definition that will apply to new entities (what Gregol was hinting at) is drawing the line at sentience when communication is possible.
If you can give an order to "something", and they can reply "why should I do as you say?", then they probably deserve "human" rights and respect.
I don't understand so well the second question as to comment on it. :B