Why do some vegetarians/Vegans think...

[Jim Kata]

This is why I only eat rocks.

[qwe)k]

I agree its about respect to. Also to have a lighter impact on the world i find vegetarianism can play more than a small role. Of course a majority would have to be vegetarian. Think of all the major fast food restaurants like the big names KFC, Mac Donald's and Burger king, if more people become vegetarian less land from the rain forest will be cut down in order to expand their company's.

 

More of toppic to the impact of vegetarianism in my block exam for GCSE's coincidently a media article preaching vegetarianism was the chosen article. It said 30 Non-human animals are slaughtered per second, that's hard to Imagen.

[lucaspa]

for example:

 

http://www.goveg.com/cancer.asp

 

You don't seriously expect me to take that as evidence, do you? They talk a lot about "scientific evidence" but nowhere do they cite a scientific study!

 

I know for a fact that the "40% of cancers are preventable" includes lung cancer, which, of course, is due to smoking, not eating meat. So I know that the data is being misrepresented.

 

Try again.

[lucaspa]

It's about 'respect' for other animals. The life a wild animal has is better than certain types of factory farming as an animal can express its natural behaviour. ... Its more to do with how the animal lives rather than how it dies. However, free-range farming is maybe a pretty good compromise.

 

This gets us back to projecting human emotions onto animals. What you are doing is projecting the human idea of "freedom" onto animals. It's invalid. Since we can't communicate with the animals, how do you know the wild animal has a "better" life? Just for starters, it goes hungry more often. It is more susceptible to weather -- being cold and wet when it rains or snows.

 

As we did in the thread "vetinary drugs", do we also project natural animal behavior onto humans -- such as rat males eating their own offspring? If animals are supposed to live how we do, shouldn't we live the way they do?

[lucaspa]

True, but there are degrees. Organic farming for example, even in your back garden, can often benefit many of the rarer wild species of inverts. We can't live and have no impact, but we can try to 'tread more gently' on the Earth.

 

But doesn't a garden adversely affect the natural plants and invertebrates that feed on them? After all, even an organic garden is weeded! Also, don't organic farmers artificially introduce some predators to eliminate "pests"?

 

So, you say "tread more gently". Now you are making a value judgement of what constitutes more. Basically, what you have done is concede that the original claim is wrong: vegan means no killing of animals. Now we are discussing the extent.

 

What we have now is the old joke by George Bernhard Shaw. At a fancy dinner party he asked the woman next to him: "Madame, would you have sex with me for a million dollars?"

She replied "Well, yes."

"Would you have sex with me for a dollar?"

"Sir, what kind of woman do you think I am?"

"We've already established that, now we are haggling over price."

 

So, you've acknowledged that vegans are killers and that a vegan lifestyle results in the deaths of animals. Vegans have lost the "moral high ground" and are also killers. We are now discussing how much killing is acceptable in order to feed humans. This becomes more a personal choice and is no longer an absolute moral issue.

 

If you wish to be vegan, then be vegan. I don't care. But please don't get on an imaginary moral high horse and tell those who are omnivores that eating meat is ethically wrong.

 

BTW, don't vegans allow the use of animal products, such as dairy products? How do you square that with the lifestyle of the cows "confined" to farms? Aren't they held in just as much confinement as cows who are killed for their meat?

[ecoli]

BTW, don't vegans allow the use of animal products, such as dairy products? How do you square that with the lifestyle of the cows "confined" to farms? Aren't they held in just as much confinement as cows who are killed for their meat?

 

no, not vegans.

[ecoli]

You don't seriously expect me to take that as evidence, do you? They talk a lot about "scientific evidence" but nowhere do they cite a scientific study!

 

I know for a fact that the "40% of cancers are preventable" includes lung cancer, which, of course, is due to smoking, not eating meat. So I know that the data is being misrepresented.

 

Try again.

 

sure thing.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4662934.stm

http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php

[bombus]

This gets us back to projecting human emotions onto animals. What you are doing is projecting the human idea of "freedom" onto animals. It's invalid. Since we can't communicate with the animals, how do you know the wild animal has a "better" life? Just for starters, it goes hungry more often. It is more susceptible to weather -- being cold and wet when it rains or snows.

 

As we did in the thread "vetinary drugs", do we also project natural animal behavior onto humans -- such as rat males eating their own offspring? If animals are supposed to live how we do, shouldn't we live the way they do?

 

Our human emotions didn't emerge from nothing, so applying emotions to certain animals seems as logical as applying emotions to other humans that are not me. Obviously they are likely to be less complex than higher primates, but are still valid, and it would be silly IMHO to ignore them.

 

Re: Better Life - well I did say 'some farming practices' or something like that. Obviously, a beef cow in a field can have a pretty good life, but an intensively raised pig lives an awful life.

 

Re: Human behaviour - it is a lot more natural than most people realise...

[lucaspa]

Our human emotions didn't emerge from nothing, so applying emotions to certain animals seems as logical as applying emotions to other humans that are not me.

 

Remember "descent with modification" What we have is not necessarily the same as the evolutionary ancestors and, since other species have continued to be modified since the common ancestor, our modifications may not correspond with theirs.

 

Let me give you an example. Both flies and mammals have the TGF-beta superfamily of genes. In flies it is a member of the family is Ubx and in mice it is BMP. In flies, transfection of Ubx into fly cells causes the formation of wings. But when Ubx is transfected into mice, it causes bone formation. Similar genes with very similar gene products, but very different result.

 

Other humans share your evolution: they are members of your species. But other species have had different evolutionary histories and their "emotions" may have evolved very differently.

 

Obviously, a beef cow in a field can have a pretty good life, but an intensively raised pig lives an awful life.

 

According to our human standards! But not necessarily according to pig standards. Again we see the projection. We value certain living conditions, partly due to our evolution. But pigs have had a separate evolution since the common ancestor. You don't know that their concept of "good life" is any longer the same as ours.

[lucaspa]

sure thing.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4662934.stm

http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php

 

Much better. The first notes a correlation with a specific type of cancer -- colon cancer. That's fine.

 

The second looks very good for you in the first paragraphs, but when you get to the "meat" of the article, it isn't as definitive as you would hope:

"In 1997, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published a review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the breast, prostate, kidney, and pancreas, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) consumption possibly increased cancer risk. For colorectal cancer, a review of the literature determined that red meat probably increased cancer risk and that processed meat, saturated/animal fat, and heavily cooked meat possibly increased risk.5"

 

Notice this isn't all cancers by any means, but just a few. And, even here, we get the term "possibly" instead of the definite "does".

 

Then there is the other side of the coin: that fats in a vegetable diet INCREASE the risks of some cancers!

 

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1998/153-03/15303-07.pdf

"polyunsaturated fats in vegetable oils seem to enhance risk [of breast cancer]"

"Because the Swedish women derived most of their monounsaturates

from dairy products and meat, Wolk says, “we can now say monounsaturates are protective—whatever their source.” Such animal products, though rich in saturates, can be major sources of monounsaturates."

 

4. Carroll K K. Dietary fats and cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 1991; 53: 1064S.

 

5. France T, Brown P. Test-tube cancers raise doubts over fats. New Scientist , 7 December 1991, p 12.

 

Even the first site you posted, where vegetarian diet reduced colon cancer, may be in question. Fruits and vegetables are high in linoleic acid. And that seems to make colon cancer worse! LOL!

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/44/4/1472

 

I can't help thinking of that old joke: eat healthy, exercise regularly, die anyway.

 

Look, if you want to be vegan, then be vegan. It's your choice and there are benefits (and risks) in it. But PLEASE stop misusing science in a crusade to get everyone to be vegan or to justify your choice..

[ecoli]

Look, if you want to be vegan, then be vegan. It's your choice and there are benefits (and risks) in it. But PLEASE stop misusing science in a crusade to get everyone to be vegan or to justify your choice..

 

I'm not a vegan, so there.

 

And sorry about the first article... didn't realize there were no cited sources.

[lucaspa]

I'm not a vegan, so there.

 

My apologies. Looking back, your original claim was that our quantity of meat consumption was unhealthy. I lost sight of that original claim. That claim can be defended, altho not by the means you tried.

[Jadey12]

So? you have still converted the natural habitat to a small farm! And displaced animals with the garden and/or directly killed them when you tilled the soil.

 

You don't change the conssequences because you have a farm to feed one person rather than a farm to feed hundreds.

 

If you think about things that way, then that would make it impossible to do almost anything. By merely walking on the ground we disturb many creatures. When we build any place to live in, such as a house or apartment complex, we destroy the environment in that immediate area and inevitably affect the lives of countless animals and plants. Not to mention the obviously big problems that humans create like pollution, over farming and cutting down too many trees.

By "in their own back yard”, I meant not only in their back yard, but in pots or other ways that don't disturb the soil. Also, I was only pointing out that some vegetarians do that, I wasn't necessarily saying that it was okay.

Even though this doesn't have much to do with my post, In my opinion, the majority of modern-day problems are caused by over population of humans.

[ecoli]

Even though this doesn't have much to do with my post, In my opinion, the majority of modern-day problems are caused by over population of humans.

 

I don't buy that... The US isn't overpopulated and has a fair share of problems.

[Jadey12]

I think that the US is way overpopulated. The number may seem small, but Earth can't handle so many poeple. And, I said the majority of problems, not every single one.

[ecoli]

I think that the US is way overpopulated. The number may seem small, but Earth can't handle so many poeple. And, I said the majority of problems, not every single one.

 

It seems to me, that even relatively lightly populated areas in the US use a hell of lot more resources than densely populated developing nations.

[lucaspa]

If you think about things that way, then that would make it impossible to do almost anything. By merely walking on the ground we disturb many creatures. When we build any place to live in, such as a house or apartment complex, we destroy the environment in that immediate area and inevitably affect the lives of countless animals and plants.

 

Not "impossible" at all, Jadey, but "impossible according to the premises that the lives of other animal species are morally equal to our own."

 

What I am saying is that, because we see no moral problem in building dwellings, or farms, or even walking the "moral" said to be true by some vegans and animal-rights people is not valid.

 

Even though this doesn't have much to do with my post, In my opinion, the majority of modern-day problems are caused by over population of humans.

 

You can make a good argument for that. It is a possible problem for any and every species: more individuals are born than the environment can support. It's a basic fact and no less true for humans.

 

It's just that human technology has allowed us to expand what the environment can support faster than the numbers of humans. Eventually that will catch up with us because the environment is finite and our potential population is not.

[Sayonara]

I don't buy that... The US isn't overpopulated and has a fair share of problems.

 

Even if you considered North America to be moderately or lightly populated, it is quite evident that overpopulation elsewhere affects matters in the US.

 

You are involved in trade and politics.

[bombus]

Remember "descent with modification" What we have is not necessarily the same as the evolutionary ancestors and, since other species have continued to be modified since the common ancestor, our modifications may not correspond with theirs.

 

Let me give you an example. Both flies and mammals have the TGF-beta superfamily of genes. In flies it is a member of the family is Ubx and in mice it is BMP. In flies, transfection of Ubx into fly cells causes the formation of wings. But when Ubx is transfected into mice, it causes bone formation. Similar genes with very similar gene products, but very different result.

 

Other humans share your evolution: they are members of your species. But other species have had different evolutionary histories and their "emotions" may have evolved very differently.

 

Yes, and other humans are very close to me genetically. Similarly, chimps are also pretty close, and so are baboons. Relative to worms, flies and bacteria, dogs and pigs are very very close too. I think in general terms its stupid NOT to see 'human' emotions in higher vertebrates. Much of science is based on hunches that are then proven. It's very hard to prove subjective issues scientifically so we use our common sense based on sound science to make judgements. Think of the way bears (for example) go mad in captivity and display repetitive behaviour. Are we going to say that becasue we can't prove in human terms that they are distressed they are fine?

 

According to our human standards! But not necessarily according to pig standards. Again we see the projection. We value certain living conditions, partly due to our evolution. But pigs have had a separate evolution since the common ancestor. You don't know that their concept of "good life" is any longer the same as ours.

 

As alluded to above, judgement based on all our accumulated knowledge of the past 100,000 years or so can help us. One could choose to ignore it, but I think that would be foolish.

[someguy]

Our human emotions didn't emerge from nothing, so applying emotions to certain animals seems as logical as applying emotions to other humans that are not me. Obviously they are likely to be less complex than higher primates, but are still valid, and it would be silly IMHO to ignore them.

 

Re: Better Life - well I did say 'some farming practices' or something like that. Obviously, a beef cow in a field can have a pretty good life, but an intensively raised pig lives an awful life.

 

Re: Human behaviour - it is a lot more natural than most people realise...

 

it doesn't matter whether or not animals have emotions. what matters is whether or not they are aware of them. and you will find that for the most part animals aren't.

 

in fact you are right about emotions coming from somewhere. they came from evolution. they are needed because animals aren't aware of things and are not smart. (most animals i'm gonna just say animals but there are some exceptions and we are one of them). an animal will not know from watching another plummeting to its death off a precipice that falling off of precipices will cause you to die. therefore since animals lack this intelligence they require another way to know not to fall off of cliffs. they develop a fear of heights. animals will not act independently from their emotions they are slaves to them. they know what to eat because some stuff smells yummy. they know to pee because they feel like peeing and the longer they wait the more they feel the desire to pee and the greater the reward when they do. that's why you can't train your dog by showing it something you need to shape it's emotions by conditioning it with a reward system like food. being able to be conditioned is a fairly advanced trait in creatures. your dog is not aware it will not develop an unconditional trust with you. if it fears something it won't trust you to hold it near that thing unless you condition its emotions to tell it otherwise. animals don't "know" they are not aware of what's going on like if they were sleep walking and never wakeup. therefore if they are mistreated, for certain animals it's not unethical really since they are as self aware as a stone. Even if they display behaviour of pain or whatnot emotions are not indications of self awareness whatsoever, they actually only exist because of a lack of it. you are right to attribute emotions to them but not to attribute their awareness of them. a venus fly trap will react from touch, but not self aware. an insect moves around and reacts to stimuli also, not self aware, and still not conditionable either. other animals developed more complex emotions and the ability for them to be molded and affected by their environment. but that doesn't then mean they are self aware.

[lucaspa]

Yes, and other humans are very close to me genetically. Similarly, chimps are also pretty close, and so are baboons.

 

Not compared to other humans! Here you are moving the goalposts of "close". They are still outside the normal curve of human genetic diversity.

 

I think in general terms its stupid NOT to see 'human' emotions in higher vertebrates.

 

Then I saw "boredom" on the rats that were being "painfully" injected into the stomach each and ever day!

 

This cuts both ways, Bombus. If we were picked up every day against our will and had a (equivalent) 8 guage needle jabbed into our abdomen, we would be pissed! We would fight and struggle. They didn't. The rats just hung there passively.

 

Much of science is based on hunches that are then proven. It's very hard to prove subjective issues scientifically so we use our common sense based on sound science to make judgements.

 

LOL! First you invoke the mantle of science, then discard it! You say that science is based on hunches that are "proven". By that you mean tested. But since in emotions you can't do the testing, then you abandon science and then reach the conclusion.

 

And, actually, Bombus, you are wrong about the "much of science is based ..." If we look at ALL "hunches"/hypotheses in science, we find that 99.9999+% of them are WRONG! So wrong that officially the odds of a new hypothesis being right is basically 0. So, on that basis, we emphatically should NOT do as you advise; it's almost certainly wrong.

 

As alluded to above, judgement based on all our accumulated knowledge of the past 100,000 years or so can help us. One could choose to ignore it, but I think that would be foolish.

 

What "judgement"? What "accumulated knowledge"? About how WE feel? That doesn't count because we don't know it applies to pigs. What do WE feel about eating our babies? Does that apply to rats? Nope. So our "accumulated knowledge" is wrong there, isn't it?

 

an animal will not know from watching another plummeting to its death off a precipice that falling off of precipices will cause you to die. therefore since animals lack this intelligence they require another way to know not to fall off of cliffs. they develop a fear of heights. animals will not act independently from their emotions they are slaves to them. they know what to eat because some stuff smells yummy. they know to pee because they feel like peeing and the longer they wait the more they feel the desire to pee and the greater the reward when they do.

 

This isn't "emotion". You are making a real hash out of evolution. Animals don't "develop" a "fear" of heights. Rather, ancestors who avoided heights were less likely to fall of cliffs. It's not an "emotion", it's a genetically wired behavior. Same with evacuating. Those ancestors that did not pee when receiving signals to do so died of toxemia.

 

I like your argument about self-aware vs behavior and that you can't reliably read emotions into behavior in other species, especially "distress". So stick to whether animals are "self-aware" and stay away from the claims they have emotions -- especially trying to attribute them to evolution.

[bombus]

Not compared to other humans! Here you are moving the goalposts of "close". They are still outside the normal curve of human genetic diversity.

 

They are close enough, or can we torture dogs because they are actually little automotons and don't REALLY feel distressed when tortured as it's just an emotionless reaction. I think not.

 

Then I saw "boredom" on the rats that were being "painfully" injected into the stomach each and ever day!

 

Maybe rats do get bored. Dogs do.

 

This cuts both ways, Bombus. If we were picked up every day against our will and had a (equivalent) 8 guage needle jabbed into our abdomen, we would be pissed! We would fight and struggle. They didn't. The rats just hung there passively.

 

Maybe it's not much of a big deal to them! It's over in a few seconds and hardly hurts. Most humans fear of injections is actually pretty irrational.

 

 

LOL! First you invoke the mantle of science, then discard it! You say that science is based on hunches that are "proven". By that you mean tested. But since in emotions you can't do the testing, then you abandon science and then reach the conclusion.

 

Not at all. In the same way that evolution cannot be tested but can be inferred by our knowledge of geology, paleontology, genetics (essentially), physics, dendrology, maths etc... we can use our accumulated knowledge to make educated guesses.

 

A

nd, actually, Bombus, you are wrong about the "much of science is based ..." If we look at ALL "hunches"/hypotheses in science, we find that 99.9999+% of them are WRONG! So wrong that officially the odds of a new hypothesis being right is basically 0. So, on that basis, we emphatically should NOT do as you advise; it's almost certainly wrong.

 

I think you are probably 98.345798765% wrong about that:-)

 

 

 

What "judgement"? What "accumulated knowledge"? About how WE feel? That doesn't count because we don't know it applies to pigs. What do WE feel about eating our babies? Does that apply to rats? Nope. So our "accumulated knowledge" is wrong there, isn't it?

 

Well, as I said, the accumulated knowledge of our past years of human existence - particularly the last 400 years. As I said above, we can make intuative leaps based on sound science from related areas (like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) without actually being able to scientifically test that which we are considering.

 

 

This isn't "emotion". You are making a real hash out of evolution. Animals don't "develop" a "fear" of heights. Rather, ancestors who avoided heights were less likely to fall of cliffs. It's not an "emotion", it's a genetically wired behavior. Same with evacuating. Those ancestors that did not pee when receiving signals to do so died of toxemia.

 

Emotional behaviours/responses evolved like this.

 

I like your argument about self-aware vs behavior and that you can't reliably read emotions into behavior in other species, especially "distress". So stick to whether animals are "self-aware" and stay away from the claims they have emotions -- especially trying to attribute them to evolution.

 

The thing is, I am sure chimps are about as 'self aware' as, say, a 2 - 3 year old human child, and this could also be applied to other great apes. This can never really be proven. Although behavioural experiments have suggested this, we still have to rely on our 'common sense' which is based on our accumulated knowledge to interpret those experimental results.

 

Dogs are probably less 'self aware' than great apes, but one can still tell when they are 'happy' or 'sad' or 'distressed' or 'scared'. These attributes are human descriptions, but I think it's reasonabe to assume that dogs have similar feelings going through them as us albeit less developed or 'fine tuned', but in the same ballpark.

 

However, an earwig defending it's young would most probably IMO be acting at a totally different level of conciousness, more akin to robotic behaviour.

 

Now just because we can't prove that animals have [lets call them] emotions doesn't mean that I should reject my 'common sense' and assume that a bear acts at a similar conscious level as an earthworm.

 

Yes, we should be careful when applying human emotions to animals, but we shouldn't just be stupid about it either.

 

it doesn't matter whether or not animals have emotions. what matters is whether or not they are aware of them. and you will find that for the most part animals aren't.

 

in fact you are right about emotions coming from somewhere. they came from evolution. they are needed because animals aren't aware of things and are not smart. (most animals i'm gonna just say animals but there are some exceptions and we are one of them). an animal will not know from watching another plummeting to its death off a precipice that falling off of precipices will cause you to die. therefore since animals lack this intelligence they require another way to know not to fall off of cliffs. they develop a fear of heights. animals will not act independently from their emotions they are slaves to them. they know what to eat because some stuff smells yummy. they know to pee because they feel like peeing and the longer they wait the more they feel the desire to pee and the greater the reward when they do. that's why you can't train your dog by showing it something you need to shape it's emotions by conditioning it with a reward system like food. being able to be conditioned is a fairly advanced trait in creatures. your dog is not aware it will not develop an unconditional trust with you. if it fears something it won't trust you to hold it near that thing unless you condition its emotions to tell it otherwise. animals don't "know" they are not aware of what's going on like if they were sleep walking and never wakeup. therefore if they are mistreated, for certain animals it's not unethical really since they are as self aware as a stone. Even if they display behaviour of pain or whatnot emotions are not indications of self awareness whatsoever, they actually only exist because of a lack of it. you are right to attribute emotions to them but not to attribute their awareness of them. a venus fly trap will react from touch, but not self aware. an insect moves around and reacts to stimuli also, not self aware, and still not conditionable either. other animals developed more complex emotions and the ability for them to be molded and affected by their environment. but that doesn't then mean they are self aware.

 

Well, I agree with most of that but I think 'self awareness' is a gradient, not a threshold.

[lucaspa]

They are close enough, or can we torture dogs because they are actually little automotons and don't REALLY feel distressed when tortured as it's just an emotionless reaction. I think not.

 

Define "torture". You are basing your objection to "torture" on an inherent quality within the animal. One you can't demonstrate. I base my objection on how the torturer would react to humans. Inflicting physical damage on either living organisms OR inanimate objects without a goal other than to inflict damage indicates a person who would do this to another person. Notice I included inanimate objects. Think about a person who goes around setting fires or explosions for goal of inflicting damage ...

 

Maybe rats do get bored. ...

Maybe it's not much of a big deal to them!

 

THANK YOU for making my argument that you can't project human emotions onto animals! Of course, you just destroyed your own argument.

 

Let's look at this again from a human pov. It's a forced injection against their will! IOW, people ultimately choose to have injections because of the health benefit to them. Here there is no choice on the part of the rat, the needle is much larger in comparison to the one used on humans (bigger needles hurt more). So the rat is having pain inflicted on it every day. Would humans be "bored"? NO! They would view this as torture. They would struggle and resist. EVERY DAY. But the rats have none of the reactions humans would have.

 

In the same way that evolution cannot be tested

 

Evolution cannot be tested??!! Oh boy. Sorry, Bombus, but in your zeal for an emotional position, you have completely abandoned science.

 

we can use our accumulated knowledge to make educated guesses.

 

I think you are probably 98.345798765% wrong about that

 

Sorry, but I'm not. It's called the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Look it up. So our "educated guesses" are more than likely to be wrong.

 

As I said above, we can make intuative leaps based on sound science from related areas (like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) without actually being able to scientifically test that which we are considering.

 

Thank you for admitting you are arguing from emotion: "intuative leaps". Making a leap from "sound science" doesn't do you any good unless you can scientifically test what we are considering. Scientists made an intuitive leap from sound science that proteins were the hereditary material.

 

Of course, you said evolution can't be tested, either! Which means you just excluded it from "sound science". If you keep digging this hole, Bombus, you are going to come out on the other side of the earth.

 

Remember, evolution is "descent with modification" You are denying the "modification". Why do you think we do clinical trials on treatments we worked out in animals? because those modifications by evolution sometimes have changed us so that we are no longer close enough for data on animal trials to work on humans. We can all think of treatments that had excellent animal data that don't work on humans. I'll contribute one: Carticell.

 

 

Emotional behaviours/responses evolved like this.

 

Behaviors/responses evolved like this. The error is attributing "emotional" to them. All science does is test the behavior/response. It is your non-scientific value judgement to say they are "emotions"

 

The thing is, I am sure chimps are about as 'self aware' as, say, a 2 - 3 year old human child, and this could also be applied to other great apes.

 

We have to distinguish between "self-aware" and cognitive abilities and the quality called "sapience". Now, why are you "sure" when you say "This can never really be proven."? Those contradict. If you can't prove it, then you have to retain some uncertainty.

 

Now, what do the behavioral experiments measure? Are identical experiments made on human children? Can you cite these studies?

 

Although behavioural experiments have suggested this, we still have to rely on our 'common sense' which is based on our accumulated knowledge to interpret those experimental results.

 

However, an earwig defending it's young would most probably IMO be acting at a totally different level of conciousness, more akin to robotic behaviour.

 

Now just because we can't prove that animals have [lets call them] emotions doesn't mean that I should reject my 'common sense' and assume that a bear acts at a similar conscious level as an earthworm.

 

We are not discussing that. We are discussing projecting HUMAN emotions onto them. I'm saying that, even IF animals have emotions, those are not the same in the same circumstances as humans have. You conceded that above with the rats. Therefore, insisting that humans behave toward animals based on their emotions being the same as ours is flawed logic.

[bombus]

Define "torture". You are basing your objection to "torture" on an inherent quality within the animal. One you can't demonstrate. I base my objection on how the torturer would react to humans. Inflicting physical damage on either living organisms OR inanimate objects without a goal other than to inflict damage indicates a person who would do this to another person. Notice I included inanimate objects. Think about a person who goes around setting fires or explosions for goal of inflicting damage ...

 

I am not going to define torture as its obvious and I don't wish to waste my time.

 

 

 

THANK YOU for making my argument that you can't project human emotions onto animals! Of course, you just destroyed your own argument.

 

Hardly! By definition you can't project HUMAN emotions on to animals. Thats no the same as saying animals have no emotions.

 

Let's look at this again from a human pov. It's a forced injection against their will! IOW, people ultimately choose to have injections because of the health benefit to them. Here there is no choice on the part of the rat, the needle is much larger in comparison to the one used on humans (bigger needles hurt more). So the rat is having pain inflicted on it every day. Would humans be "bored"? NO! They would view this as torture. They would struggle and resist. EVERY DAY. But the rats have none of the reactions humans would have.

 

What is your point? Rats have evolved to respond to significant stuff. They probably don't enjoy being injected but quickly learn that it's nothing to worry about. Humans, even those injected by force, would soon learn not to worry about it. Slaves learned stuff like this. It applies equally to humans.

 

 

Evolution cannot be tested??!! Oh boy. Sorry, Bombus, but in your zeal for an emotional position, you have completely abandoned science.

 

Evolution by natural selection takes many generations. Experiments by definition ae not natural selection and just SUGGEST what happens in 'nature'.

 

 

 

Sorry, but I'm not. It's called the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Look it up. So our "educated guesses" are more than likely to be wrong.

 

Speak for yourself

 

 

 

Thank you for admitting you are arguing from emotion: "intuative leaps". Making a leap from "sound science" doesn't do you any good unless you can scientifically test what we are considering. Scientists made an intuitive leap from sound science that proteins were the hereditary material.

 

Of course, you said evolution can't be tested, either! Which means you just excluded it from "sound science". If you keep digging this hole, Bombus, you are going to come out on the other side of the earth.

 

Remember, evolution is "descent with modification" You are denying the "modification". Why do you think we do clinical trials on treatments we worked out in animals? because those modifications by evolution sometimes have changed us so that we are no longer close enough for data on animal trials to work on humans. We can all think of treatments that had excellent animal data that don't work on humans. I'll contribute one: Carticell.

 

I do understand evolution by natural selection you know!

 

 

 

 

Behaviors/responses evolved like this. The error is attributing "emotional" to them. All science does is test the behavior/response. It is your non-scientific value judgement to say they are "emotions"

 

What do you think emotions are?

 

 

 

We have to distinguish between "self-aware" and cognitive abilities and the quality called "sapience". Now, why are you "sure" when you say "This can never really be proven."? Those contradict. If you can't prove it, then you have to retain some uncertainty.

 

I am as sure as I can be. As sure as I am that physical reality exists.

 

Now, what do the behavioral experiments measure? Are identical experiments made on human children? Can you cite these studies?

 

If I could be bothered I probably could.

 

 

 

We are not discussing that. We are discussing projecting HUMAN emotions onto them. I'm saying that, even IF animals have emotions, those are not the same in the same circumstances as humans have. You conceded that above with the rats. Therefore, insisting that humans behave toward animals based on their emotions being the same as ours is flawed logic.

 

I am discussing that. I am maybe not as aspergic as you might be, so can infer wider meanings from words. Dogs ae capable of being 'happy' in a dog type way, which IMO isn't so far removed from human 'happiness' to be treated in a different way.

[someguy]

 

 

 

This isn't "emotion". You are making a real hash out of evolution. Animals don't "develop" a "fear" of heights. Rather, ancestors who avoided heights were less likely to fall of cliffs. It's not an "emotion", it's a genetically wired behavior. Same with evacuating. Those ancestors that did not pee when receiving signals to do so died of toxemia.

 

yes and no. yes they do in a sense develop a fear of heights. how else did you get it then? it needs to be from evolution. emotion is genetically wired behaviour. it is instinct the thing that confuses you is that you are aware of that system and thus you call it emotion. if you want to talk of emotion as we perceive it then animals don't have that, since they do not perceive it. but it is emotions that tell them what to do. that's what emotions are for and that's why they exist. animals don't have the ability to act contrary to their emotions, by virtue of our awareness and our perception of emotions rather than just doing as we feel we should do we can think about it consider our emotions and what they compel us to do and do the opposite. animals don't have that extra feature. all of our characteristics are designed by evolution. all of the ones before we achieved the ability to invent at any rate.

 

 

 

 

Well, I agree with most of that but I think 'self awareness' is a gradient, not a threshold.

 

ya i agree, self awareness and knowledge are tightly linked and are basically the same thing, therefore the more you know the more aware you are which almost goes without saying. that's why i don't think it is at all a coincidence that the smarter animals are self aware and the others not. and that's why for certain animals they are in kind of a gray area where it is hard to discern if they are self aware or not because intelligence of animals is gradual. but... still some creatures are not aware of themselves... some are. i'm not sure if you can't really have "i am half aware of myself" i guess sort of since i can be in a half sleep... and there was a time as a baby where i wasn't self aware.. and then at some point i became aware.. but i don't really remember a "eureka" moment where i was suddenly self aware so "half self aware" is an interesting idea but i can't quite conceptualize it.. it seems impossible but at the same time it seems like it must exist. but once you have enough intelligence to be aware your awareness will grow as you improve your understanding of the world around you. I am more aware than i was yesterday and tomorrow i will be more than today... hopefully.