Jiggy said:
Oh, they can totally get Nutrients out of it, it is absolutely viable for them, but they themselves aren't really digesting ist. It Ferments in their Stomachs due to enzymes, it's a complicated process, look it up. That's why I called it a fun fact, simply because the only wrong part is using the word digest.
Ah, yes I gave it a quick look at saw something about fermenting, but I then figured that wasn't that far off digesting. They still get nutrients out of it, so that's the main thing I guess.
I never said this was simple. It's not only that I can compare them to me on the intelligence area, I pretty much have to because "I" am the Pinnacle. I can't on the other hand be compared to them in the same way when it comes to say, for instance, eating me. It's simply because I am so much more advanced that my experiences would be entirely different. The point is that you can't ask me to realistically put myself in the Cows "shoes" because I can only think the way a human does, I can't stoop down to the level of a cow, just as little as any given cow could ascend to my intelligence.
The essence is that you can't have a logical argument about why it's bad to eat cows simply because we would percieve the entire ordeal entirely differently, it's far more extreme in our case. That's why, if you want to be honest about it, you have to be open to the fact that the choice for veganism, if it is one of "won't somebody think of the animals!" is a purely emotional standpoint which revolves around humanizing the animal. Is that inherently bad? As a standpoint, no. As a argument, yes.
I'm not suggesting you stoop to the level on intellegence of a cow, I'm saying, where do you draw the line? Is it just everything below our level? Because if so, I really fear for the day we meet another species when we finally get our asses off this planet properly. The cow is fundamentally different from an insect or... A spider, mostly works on hydraulics and a central nervous system right? So that would be considered much less intellegent than a cow, no? It's basically just where do we draw the line on what's ok to eat and what's not. Each person draws it at a different place, as we put different standards of worth to different things.
Let's say in the distant future (as it doesn't seem to be in the forseeable future just yet, but unless we die off first, it's fair to assume eventually we'll spread out and find other life forms) we do find another planet containing life. If some of it is sentient on the level of... well, complex tool level. So they build homes, have tools created out of a couple of materials etc. Is it morally right to eat them, or use them for whatever purpose we like, simply because we are more evolved? Do they become a new enslaved?
If it's solely about "won't somebody think of the animals" then yes, it's only emotional. But most of the time it isn't, normally there is more than just that backing it up, be it health benefits, objection to industry standards or pollution concerns. I don't know any vegans who's only arguement is that the poor animals suffer.
You aren't giving us enough credit and you are also applying human morals to a cow. A cow can't invent atomic bombs because a cow can't invent anything at all. If the cow could and it's food or other resources it needs were scarce, we have no reason to believe that the cow wouldn't just take it.
But think about things from the human perspective for a moment. Does a cow really get along better with other members of it's species? Keep in mind that we have huge Cities in which millions of people live and yet it remains shocking when one kills another. Keep in mind that, while we do have bombs with which we could destroy the planet, we've had that ability for quite a while now and the planet is still here. We have a huge capactiy for destruction and yet, we are far more concerned with fixing things. Even if we do stupid things sometimes and the complexity of our Species makes the stupid things have far reaching consequences, most of the time we are more interested in keeping to ourselves or helping others then we are in going out of our way to hurt others. Yes, some people are murderers. But most of us aren't.
I'd still say the ratio of "humans killing humans" is far higher than that of "cows killing cows". Some people are concerned with fixing things, and very few are interested in destruction and murder yes, but the large part of humanity seems interested in neither. Keeping to themselves. They have to potential for great good, this is true, but humanity has a great record of wasting potential. I guess that's why I value potential less than you, because I see it, and say "well the potential isn't much good unless something is done with it".
Because figuring things out with limited data is something we excel at. Do you really think we can fly into space, but we can't figure out what is going on in a cows head? Our understanding isn't perfect, obviously, but we do have atleast a decent understanding. Also, grieving isn't exactly what I mean when I say "Animals do not have our concept of life and death." Animals do not ask themselves "where they go" after they die. This type of thought is simply too complex for them.
I'd say that nobody has really tried to figure out what's in a cows head because it isn't worthwhile finding out in most people's eyes. What outcomes are there? Assumptions were true and there's not much going on, or assumptions are false and they actually do have these concepts so... Now we have to change quickly. Again, I don't see why worry about what comes after death is the borderline. Particularly since huge amounts of people have stopped caring, with the recent (relatively) huge increases in atheism, but that's reaching a whole other topic.
They don't. They are absolutely worthy of consideration, just not as much as we are. We come first, then the other other animals. We have no reason to disadvantage ourselves for the sake of species that cannot accomplish even the smallest things that we can. Consider that we are fascinated by the notion that a Chimp might use a "spear" (more a pointy stick, not exactly far along in spear technology), this is what we consider a breakthrough for them. That's the kind of thing we figured out how to do hundreds of thousands of years ago and Chimps and Bonobos are our closest relatives.
Yes, but we are disadvantaging ourselves by being how we are. With meat production as it is we are going to eat ourselves to death pretty soon, unless we do change. As I've said, I'm not arguing that eating meat is inherently wrong, just that there is something inherently wrong with the way the industry is handled right now. So even from the view point of looking out for people first, it would be better for things to change.
Let me help you. Let's think about slavery for a moment. For a long time, we didn't really see much of anything wrong with owning people, now, obviously in hindsight we can say that we were wrong about that, but that isn't the point. Realise that today, nearly the world over, slavery is considered entirely terrible and reprehensable. Now take a look at just how fast this change has happend. In less then 200 years. While that may be a long time for me and you, that's a split second in the history of our planet, mere minutes in the history of our species.
My point is, we do bad stuff sometimes, but we are getting better and better at realizing it and changing it. Just because we are the pinnacle of evolution doesn't mean we can't get better and our social evolution is ridiculously fast if you take a look at the entire context. So, even if something is bad, just look at what positive aspects it had to it, it doesn't make the bad part go away, but it will give you a idea of just how fast we improve.
The only true negative I can personally name for our species is that sometimes we are too smart for our own good. But we're getting there.
I'm glad you mentioned slavery actually, because it was a point I was considering bringing up. People often argue that animals often are happier with us because we protect them from predators (though I have to wonder what that even means over here on the isles, where we have wiped out the only big predator, the wolf), but could that same arguement have not been posed about slavery 200 years ago? Or to some degree about women, before they were given equal rights?
Because in both of those, we assumed that we were "more evolved" or "more intellegent" than the counterparts under scrutiny, and so we could do whatever we wanted with them. The same arguement of we have developed so much more in the same amount of time is what let us happily enslave other human beings, and so basing arguements on just that is a pretty slippery slop.
I'm assuming you mean Jr. while I'm not a fan myself, the fact that he is a Ex-US President means he has quite a few resources at his disposal. While he personally might not be able to get you through a desert as well as I could on his own knowledge, it wouldn't be necessary when traveling with him because he'd just fly you across it, you'd probably be alot safer with him, even if you might consider him a dumbass.
True, but I assumed we were going for we woke up there one morning, kinda scenario. You get what I mean though, and I think I see you're point too.
Like I pointed out above, you can even make a case for some of the most terrible people in human history, while I hate to invoke Godwin (so let's not dwell on this person) even Hitler did some things that have lead to good stuff. The thing is, our systems are so complex that if you really only focus on what a individual does and do not consider what reactions their actions caused, you aren't giving things the scope that they need.
Most people will do at least some good in their lives. And some bad. Basically what I'm saying is, if you weigh up both the good and the bad a person does in their life, do they come out as a positive or a negative? If you want to get all Zen, what kind of karma do they have at the end of it all? I'm not saying ignore the reactions, just don't say "Well we have already invented..." and put that under every person's positive side, only give them credit for what THEY have done, or cause to be done etc.
I'll give you a hint, we have 1 Hour Time difference between us. I live in mainland Europe. I'm not going to say you are wrong, I just never have encountered such people that would take their personal disdain for eating a dog or something so far as to assume it's a reprehensible act simply because a dog is cute. In any case, I disagree with those people, so there's that.
I disagree with them too, but I have met them. I think at one point I had the same view as you, in that everything was fair game. I had a goal once in that I wanted to eat one of everything that wasn't endangered, because we are top of the food chain so why not? I guess I just changed.
EDIT: Case in point, post 374 talks of dog and dolphin eating is wrong because they are sentient, but pigs are just as sentient, if not more so, than dogs.
I'm not entirely sure what you are refering to here, at times your posts become difficult to follow because you are refering to specific parts of my post without highlighting it the way I do.
In regards to animal testing setting back medical science, I was saying it's probably a disputed statement. I switched styles, is this better?
But how do you define "close"? I don't consider that close, I consider it interesting for a Elephant (while I would still want to see more before concluding that Elephants actually understand the concept of "five"), but not in any way close to our species.
I consider it "close enough", because if an elephant can count that's an indication of a fair bit of capacity for thinking. I don't want to get into it again really, but I guess I look of it in terms of how we treat heavily retarded children/people. Looking across the board, there isn't a great deal of difference, and so why the huge difference in treatement? But as I said, don't really want to get into that arguement, as it's messy as hell.
Theoretically you could. But I'm going to be honest with you, the economic crisis is a whole other beast and while you can do something you can't fix it by yourself. The only tips I can give you are:
Don't horde your money, that hurts the Market more then anything else. You can save for your future, obviously, but saving for the sake of saving ultimately hurts industry, which hurts goverment, which hurts you.
Don't do stupid shit like buying gold, it has no inherent worth, it's pretty much a scam that preys on stupidity.
More power to you on the physics front. Not exactly my area, I personally am interested in the web, a dream of mine is to one day help in entirely ridding ourselves of communication barriers in text form as to allow us to better grow together as a global community.
Hey, I'm a student, I don't have money to hoard! Just debt and then the need to pay off debt. As soon as I start earning again, I'll get on spending money to keep it all moving around
Good luck on your goal also then, I've always thought better communication and less stringent barriers between countries would be better. Communication can never be a bad thing, as long as both sides actually listen and not just talk.
