Does anyone else support animal research?

[Luminary]

Superiority?

Main Entry: su·pe·ri·or
Function: adjective
1 : situated higher up : UPPER
2 : of higher rank, quality, or importance

So, Petersko, you say we are superior.
Superior according to whom?
Important according to whom?
of higher rank according to whom?

The answer is ourselves, and only ourselves.
Humans are important only to humans, humans are superior according only to humans. And since we can't get a second opinion from anything else, we are seduced by the apparent and unchallenged infallibility of our own importance and thus assume we are superior to everything else.

This is neither right nor wrong to believe, it is simply practical, practical to humans. It is a human impulse -- comprised of equal parts arrogance and instinct -- to believe we can rank everything in our environment.

The concepts of 'superiority' and 'importance' are human ones born out of our need to make choices for survival. Importance is not an intrinsic quality of the universe. It exists only in our delusion-filled minds.

The human brain is a delusion-generator. The delusions are fueled by
arrogance -- the arrogance that humans are the center of the world, that
we alone are endowed with the magical properties of souls and
morality and free will and love.

Petersko, you say that our technology is what makes us superior to everything else. As if somehow our technology is a part of us.
You forget that humans are not technology, we are animals, that is all humans are, animals. What makes us the dominant species on earth is that we are animals plus technology. Without the metal, wood, stone, etc. around us we would just be animals, and nothing more.
To illustrate my point better, I'd like to ask you a question:

What is more important for our superiority?
our brains?
or
our environmental resources?

How can something be more important than the other if both are necessary?

You say humans are superior, but you forget to mention that this superiority is entirely dependent on everything else around us.


Super Perfundo on the early eve of your day.
-Luminary

 

[Petersko]

Petersko, you say that our technology is what makes us superior to everything else. As if somehow our technology is a part of us.

Why do you fixate on that one little statement of agreement? I should have qualified it.

I said, point blank, that we are the all-purpose animal and THAT is why we are superior. Our BRAINS are what make us superior.

You forget that humans are not technology, we are animals, that is all humans are, animals. What makes us the dominant species on earth is that we are animals plus technology. Without the metal, wood, stone, etc. around us we would just be animals, and nothing more. To illustrate my point better, I'd like to ask you a question: What is more important for our superiority? our brains? or our environmental resources?

Our brains - because no matter what we have around us, our brains will turn it INTO resources. Have I failed to make this point? I really tried.

You say humans are superior, but you forget to mention that this superiority is entirely dependent on everything else around us.

But we AREN'T dependent on everything around us. I'll try this one more time.

Take mankind, or even a single human (preferably a group, though - it IS our natural state to exist in groups), and transplant them to some place where the resources are different than any they've known before. No wood... no stone... no metal.

What happens? I guarantee that quickly those people would be examining what new, exotic materials are available, and figuring out how they could be used.

We aren't dependent on any one resource, really - we're just dependent on not living in a vaccuum.

That adaptability, fundamentally, is why we are superior.

During low-growth summers ad bleak harsh winters, many animals simply die. How many build greenhouses to capture heat and grow vegetables all year round?

Only one. The superior one.

 

[justsomeguy]

does being superior make you feel better about yourself Petersko?

 

[Razzie]

I've got to come to Petersko's defense here because I do see the point that he is trying to make.

The feeling of being "superior" is a good feeling to most. It's more a sense of accomplishment. We have all felt good when we have won in a competition. Being able to survive and create with limited resources will result in this sense of accomplishment, or superiority. By possessing a complex neuro system, we are able to increase the complexity of our creations.

I know that I'm not explaining myself very well but I do understand what Petersko is getting at.

 

[Petersko]

does being superior make you feel better about yourself Petersko?

Well, naturally!

 

[vegan]

Sure, a mindless husk of a man alone in the woods isn't much on the grand scheme of things. But really, what's your point? What makes a man different is the brain, and the incredible complexity of our society

i'm not talking about a mindless husk.
i'm saying that even einstein for instance, if he hadn't been educated, wouldn't have found much.
einstein, with the same brain 10,000 ago would only have thought about the wheel maybe.
he used all humans' accumulated experience in his research. it's not einstein alone who found what he found. it's einstein and the help of humanity's experience.

and yes, i know our brain makes us different, not superior.

But I CAN construct decent bows and arrows, hunt, navigate using natural signs, build an igloo, butcher an animal (not well, but well enough), build a very simple house, fix an older car (pre-injection engine), play 5 different instruments, write music, fashion a rope, make a spear, identify edible plants, and plant and tend a garden.

because you received an education. you wouldn't be able to do most of this if you hadn't be taught to.
whereas the taught part of animal behaviour is much less important.
leave a 3 years old child in the wilderness, it will probably not survive.
leave a 6 months old cat in the wilderness, i stands its chances
this is just to answer, not to make any human versus animal point, because the superiority argument works neither way.

As I said before, you have to take the good with the bad

and why should we take your word as the word of god?
obviously there are several ones on this board who think we should try to take the good without the bad.
meaning that when the good and bad actually come together, it's worth waiting or looking some more to get the good alone.

If you choose to believe that the definition of what is good is when a species knows their place, deviates not a whit from a very specific path that fits with the ecosystem, and aspires to nothing beyond eating, sleeping, mating and surviving, then we are rampant failures.

i don't believe in good or bad, i believe in not hurting. you can go as far in the stars as you want. do it without hurting others.

Well, certainly not from OUR point of view. But from theirs, I could see it being justified … we'd probably lose a few people to experimentation

and i expect you, as a proud supporter of this theory, to volunteer.
we'll see then if you still consider you inferior intelligence a good reason to keep torturing you.

humanely treated animals

being locked in a cage all your life – experimented on – and killed… is never a humane treatment.

During low-growth summers ad bleak harsh winters, many animals simply die. How many build greenhouses to capture heat and grow vegetables all year round?
Only one. The superior one.

During low-growth summers ad bleak harsh winters, many animals simply survive by hibernating.
by being able to hibernate and not die they must be the superior ones, right?

The feeling of being "superior" is a good feeling to most.

thanks, i had been wondering for a while why stupid men like to beat up defenceless women : it makes them feel superior, which makes them feel good.

does being superior make you feel better about yourself?

belonging to a species that considers itself superior makes me feel sick!

 

[Razzie]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The feeling of being "superior" is a good feeling to most.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

thanks, i had been wondering for a while why stupid men like to beat up defenceless women : it makes them feel superior, which makes them feel good.
-------------------

You are absolutely correct. Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Petersko]

During low-growth summers ad bleak harsh winters, many animals simply survive by hibernating.
by being able to hibernate and not die they must be the superior ones, right?

I find it frustrating to have to spell out everything.

Most animals do not hibernate. During low-growth summers, foraging animals that do hibernate often do not gain enough weight to sustain them through the winter months and find themselves in a bad way. You quoted me, and STILL didn't get it.

And as for comparing a 6 month old cat to a 3 year old child, I just hope you realize how hopelessly flawed that comparison is. It takes a good 15 years for a child to reach the physical development stage that is equivalent to a 6 month old cat - but while the cat is dead in 12 years, we live to 75 or 80.

You have some kind of mad hate on for mankind, and you've decided that you're somehow morally "right" on this issue. That's fine.

You win.

If we raise a man in a sealed room with no social interaction, no education, no chance to acquire so much as the basics of language (lest somebody inadvertently pass along knowledge to him), and then drop him unaided in the woods, he is officially not superior to the creatures around him.

However, that poor individual is not man as he exists in reality. I really don't know why you hold education and our ability to learn and pass along knowledge as something that should be disqualified.

and i expect you, as a proud supporter of this theory, to volunteer. ...(for experimentation)...

Hell no. I'd fight to my bitter end. However, unlike you, I can at least conceive of the situation from both viewpoints.

 

[justsomeguy]

You have some kind of mad hate on for mankind, and you've decided that you're somehow morally "right" on this issue. That's fine.

You win.

OMGOMGWTFfWTFomGOGmm!!!!!11

we've never had anyone win a T&A thread before!!!

 

[Luminary]

originally posted by Luminary:
What is more important for our superiority? our brains? or our
environmental resources?

How can something be more important than the other if both are
necessary?

originally posted by Petersko:
Our brains - because no matter what we have around us, our brains
will turn it INTO resources.
Have I failed to make this point? I really tried.

You have made this point very clear, I know that a human can make use
of and adapt to his/her surroundings. However, my final and primary question, which you did not answer, was:

How can something be more important than the other if both are
necessary?

In other words:

How can the human brain be more important than environmental resources if both are necessary for human superiority?

originally posted by Petersko:
But we AREN'T dependent on everything around us. I'll try this one more time.

Take mankind, or even a single human (preferably a group, though - it
IS our natural state to exist
in groups), and transplant them to some place where the resources are
different than any they've
known before. No wood... no stone... no metal.

What happens? I guarantee that quickly those people would be
examining what new, exotic
materials are available, and figuring out how they could be used.

I agree, I would also guarantee that "those people would be examining what new, exotic materials are available, and figuring out how they could be used." However, this scenario you have proposed does not refute that humans depend on the resources in their environment in order to advance themselves, and thus, be considered superior. All your scenario explains is that humans can adapt to and utilize their evironment, no matter what the environment is. I am not arguing against that, I am arguing against your idea that humans are superior all because of themselves and nothing else.

originally posted by Petersko:
We aren't dependent on any one resource, really - we're just
dependent on not living in a vaccuum.

A resource is a physical source of supply or support.
Therefore, what you are implying in the above statement is that humans do not depend on any physical sources of supply and support.

I'm not sure that you meant this, so I won't respond just yet and instead give you the benefit of the doubt by asking you this:

Is that what you honestly believe? Or would you care to rephrase?

originally posted by Petersko:
That adaptability, fundamentally, is why we are superior.

Yes, and the reason why better adaptability equates superiority is because it means we are able to live longer and develop more than anything else, is it not?

But what, may I ask, is that important to, besides humans?
Is our lifespan and technology important to anything else, besides us?
Is our survival important to anything else, besides us?

You are assuming that since we are able to fulfill and sustain the most important thing to ourselves, which is ourselves, that this is direct evidence that we are also the most important thing on earth. I do not see the logic in that.

Importance is not an intrinsic quality of the universe my friend, it is an intrinsic concept of humans.


***********************


Super Perfundo on the early eve of your day.
-Luminary

 

[justsomeguy]

while i agree with the sentiment of Luminary's post, i disagree with his division between universal, "objective" reality, and human reality, or rather, i dont' recognize the distinction between a non-human and a human reality.

 

[Petersko]

A resource is a physical source of supply or support.
Therefore, what you are implying in the above statement is that humans do not depend on any physical sources of supply and support.

Allow me to quote myself.

We aren't dependent on any one resource, really - we're just
dependent on not living in a vaccuum.

There is not one single species of any kind anywhere on the planet that is not dependent on resources of some kind. I hardly think that's a universal equalizer.

The key is that whatever is available will become a resource for us.

But what, may I ask, is that important to, besides humans?
Is our lifespan and technology important to anything else, besides us?
Is our survival important to anything else, besides us?

Importance isn't really the question. Superiority is. Our gulf in this conversation appears to be in defining what makes one species superior to another, or whether such a distinction can be made.

I maintain that our ability to adapt to nearly any environment, make use of any kind of resource, triumph over any predator as a species, perpetuate our knowledge through teaching of our young, etc. make us superior.

Even if we make mistakes along the way.

Due partly to mankinds activities, quite a number of species face extinction. Why? Because they are not capable of adapting to changing situations. They are not flexible problem solvers. As a result, they are dying out.

Perhaps we made bad decisions that placed those animals at risk - but it seems pretty clear that one group is more poorly equipped to survive. I would call that "inferior".

 

[JerryBlunted]

technological superiority as superiority sui generas is a terribley androcentric perspective, and in my opinion, a perspective suffering from an extreme masculine bias.

androcentric = masculine bias no need to restate yourself

but i've always wondered what exactly is it about science that makes it so terribly masculine? plenty of females are involved in the pursuit, it is stereotypical to think of science as an all boys club.

just because a man comes up with something doesn't make it "androcentric" and a huge scam to keep everyone else down.

technological superiority allows what i would call de facto superiority. maybe we aren't ACTUALLY superior, but from an external point of view it seems like we are the ones calling the shots.

 

[JerryBlunted]

Anyway, the belief that man is surperior is just the last tattered remnants of the Christian story of creation. Darwin blew a gigantic blow to that system of thought with the evolution theory, but to appease people who couldn't bear to think that man is just a product of contingency he said they should take comfort in the thought that we had been so great as to evolve into what we are now.

When it comes down to it though, our survival through the ages is really a very small achievment (we haven't been around THAT long) and our evolution into the conscious creator/thinkers that we are was just a matter of chance, not choice. It could have been any other species just as well as us. We really aren't so special or superior, just lucky.

Not to mention the fact that we still haven't figured out its a bad idea to poison our water. Not even my dog does that.

People have been subjugating their environment since long before Christianity. Domestication of plants and animals occurred in the late Neolithic Period.... Christianity arose 2000 years ago, we already had a long standing tradition of domination over nature by this point. Materialist philosophy, which is the backbone of most western philosophy, and especially Decartes helped to further this viewpoint.

I go to an extremely liberal college so I am used to hearing all the post modern, feminist, anti-Christian views on why the world is so messed up. And it is messed up, but I think many people just like to tear down what others build up without providing a viable alternative. It is a lot easier to be critical than it is to be constructive. It comes down to pragmatists versus idealists in many cases, though with pragmatists you need to wonder what their motives and goals are, idealists make it obvious.

Specifically relating to this debate I was interested to hear about the progress on computer simulations of living organisms. I would like to see this technology developed further, because at least in my understanding at this point it cannot really be used for anything but a crude simulation in a teaching situation. In the future it may be possible to conduct research (though likely not for all uses, but at least to minimize the use of animals) using this method, but at the moment I don't think it is sophisticated enough.

 

[Cimora]

If the possession of opposable thumbs is all that makes us humans better, i have to admit that doesnt make me feel all that superior or more intelligent.

We lucked into an evolutionary trick that allowed us to learn maths and make tools.

Does that make us happier?
More in tune with our eviroment or context?

You say tool making is the ultimate skill. I say it is the ultimate weakness

Why? A tiger doesnt need to build a three story home to feel sheltered, warm or okay. It can lie in the rain and still sleep. A bird doesnt give up when its wing is broken and its stranded in the desert, it keeps fighting. A tiger doesnt NEED a gun to defend itself, no ammo, not the skill to shoot and aim, only instint.

- In short, we build because we NEED to, because we are physically weak, poor combatants, hairless and generally a bunch of pussies who cant handle the dish they are served. Other animals would prolly tell us this if they could -

"hey why do you bother making all this shit, isnt the world fun, rich/plentiful and interesting enough already?"

In fact i gaurantee that if we ever speak to say, dolphins they will tell us exactly that -

"why do you waste your time, you could be enjoying yourself but instead you spead all day building rockets, TVs, spacesuits and microwaves leaving you no time to even really enjoy them - and all the while the world is brilliant as it is"

Your would say it gives a survival advantage perhaps? And yes that it does. But we have more stress related, toxin relate illness today than ever. We have more suicide, more murder - more general dislike of being alive. What a price to pay for a survival advantage. And for all our ability to make tools, we lack to foresight and wisdom to work towards long-term goals, such as the long-term survival or our species (getting into space, tracking near earth objects, watchgaurding new sciences like nuclear energey or GE) - we are still so short-sighted we are no more gauranteed survival than a mouse or ant is.

Humans beings are just like other higher mammals +plus thumbs, minus some social behaviours. Excepting perhaps dolphins who may have even better abstraction and language capabilities than us, as well as a more socially oriented existance. (They also have next to no predators and nearly 100% free time for haning out with the other dolphins, having sex and play etc).

The crux of this debate is this. What is better? Evolution has its own defination, one which already places humans pretty much as equals to other higher mammals like elephants, whales, dolphins, primates etc.

Of course - "better" really means "better for x". There are different kinds of better, not matter which way you slice it, someone else can always disagree.

And thats why the statement "humans are superior" is silly. Superior for what?

We break up our world into lines, and we forget the lines are arbitrary, subjective - there is no better, no worse, no hear, no there, outside of our human understanding. Ask a rock
They wont have much to say about whats better and whats worse

And jerryblunted - in a post a while back in this thread ive posted a few links related to simulation. The human heart simulation is the most sophisticated yet, its a bio-chemical-electic model of the heart, and its been used in arrymthmia studies and for testing new medications (as well as i heard testing a new surgery, but i cant verify that). Theyres a private commercial project to simulate the whole body, the next are to work on is the immune system. The models just recently possible (within 5 years at the most), are capable of _alot_ more than teaching, and the functions they are used for give much more accurate simulations than animal testing - just money and a lot of leg work is all that stands in the way really, of a complete human body model.

 

[justsomeguy]

androcentric = masculine bias no need to restate yourself

you mean you guys don't like being redundant and repeating the same thing twice?

 

[nads]

vegan

and i think that damage/chemical reaction-suffering has nothing to do with my argument which is about pain/consciousness-suffering.
it's pain-suffering that i've been talking about to justify why we should at least spare animals.

I won't as long as you deny that pain is nothing but a chemical reaction anyway. Why does it have nothing to do with it? If I argued by your rules I wouldn't have a case, this is obvious, I would even agree with you based solely on pain as a reason. But the fact of the matter is that pain is inadequate as a sole reason to make an ethical decision of this magnitude.

we know it is for humans because we feel this pain-suffering through our central nervous system.
we're not sure about plant because they don't have such a NCS

Ok, you're demonstrating your denial of my POV here so I can't really reply.

you said "The plant's growing behaviour is proof enough of its interest in survival." (post 1307498 )
to me, if there's no consciousness at some point, there's no interest. reactions just happen, they are not wished. the rock that resists the hit of the hammer doesn't do it on purpose, it does it by nature. it doesn't have an interest in not breaking.
that's why i interpreted "plants have interests" as "plants have some consciousness".

Fair enough. I still contend that consciousness is a byproduct of significantly similar bioreactions. For example, are we conscious at birth? Or before, in the womb? At what point do we become conscious? It can't be when we have a CNS because that develops early in the second trimester and nobody has claimed to be conscious at that early stage in life. Consciousness is dependent on language, it comprises of thoughts - thoughts about feelings & sensations, other thoughts, and the abstract. Language is the tool of learning therefore consciousness is also a tool of learning. Learning is a tool for survival therefore consciousness is a tool for survival. What else is consciousness? What else does it do?

because it's not the one i'm talking about.

So does that mean you don't listen to anyone who doesn't talk about what you talk about?

i've used the pain-suffering argument to differentiate plants and animals
and you went on by saying "no, suffering is not such a good argument to differentiate them". but you're talking about the damage/no pain kind of suffering, you're twisting my argument.
if you want to answer to this argument, answer to the one i used, not another one.

There is no rule, written or unwritten, that states nobody should expand on arguments to include other angles. In fact, I'm not trying to differentiate here, I'm doing the opposite by trying to integrate them as one ethical class - life. Another case of you missing the meaning of what I say...

i enlarged to include minerals in the debate.

On what basis? I included the cellular POV with backing premises relating it to the current argument. Please justify this so I can take it seriously.

it takes talent to try to twist my own argument against me.
especially from someone who considers that not having fur or feathers gives us extra merit justifying the exploitation of those who have.
should i remind you that i am the one asking for the respect of other species?

Nice try at a twist, but I don't believe I am better in not having fur or feathers, only different. I exploit other lifeforms to survive and maintain a living standard, and I expect all other life does the same. It's what we do. Saying it is wrong is overly moralistic, unrealistic, and a major denial of the self.

You can't take the moral highroad here anyway, you're saying its ok to exploit plants!

here again i think you're trying to refute an argument that you would have used in another case : if i had said "we shouldn't hurt rocks". wouldn't you have laughed at me and said "but we are conscious whereas rocks are not! so it matters that we don't hurt humans, but not rocks"?

I think you're getting ahead of yourself here.

what i was saying is not that consciousness has anything to do with merit (there's no merit in being born this or that way), but that it changes our interest in not suffering.

Ok, we have a conscious interest in not suffering. Ever burned yourself on a hotplate? Your reflex action confirms you have a non-conscious interest in not suffering aswell. Natural selection has ensured most lifeforms have similar reflexes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, I'm making an acronym out of it now - WDYGTIF
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i can't read thoughts

Wherever did you get that idea from.

so let's repeat : "if you care about plants… because you think they suffer or have an interest in living"… although it's not obvious that they do. since it's more obvious that animals suffer, then you should be more preoccupied about the ones who are more obviously suffering.
i didn't mean "you should care more about animals than plants" but that your attention should be more easily drawn to those who more obviously suffer.

Exactly. As a biochem major, it is more obvious to me that suffering occurs on the cellular level and that sometimes it is more serious than pain-based suffering. It is also something all life has in common, so is useful as an ethical rule-of-thumb. Since knowing this, it has become impossible to ignore.

this is ridiculous, you are discriminating against both plants and animals.

Yes, and doing it equally. In my first post on this debate I stated that you either take full responsability for all life or you look out for yourself. Obviously I do the latter, but only because I know I don't have a big enough heart to take all life's suffering onboard. I can't lie to myself, so I do what I can and be happy with that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
the criteria set out (consciousness) automatically exclude plants from any equality with animals
------------------------------------------------------------------------

so? if the criteria is good when it comes to the problem (the "right" to experiment)?

Well, the criteria for hunting Aboriginal people was the fact that they had no establishments (they are a nomadic people), so therefore are animals and worthy of no human rights. Both these criteria are only accepted within a defined historical period. The current period has been ending since Karl Marx postulated the non-existance of originality and self, and science peeling away the layers of us humans discovering no evidence (yet) of the divine.

and you pretend i "miss the meaning of everything 'you' say".
what i've been saying this the beginning :
from what we know, animals have an interest in not being killed because of their consciousness
it's less than obvious than plants do.

I acknowledged that, along with everything you've said, and listened to corrections you've made. Can you say the same? I've replied to this point twice before already...

i don't exploit animals and i barely exploit plants. what about you?

See above.

This debate is hinged on the POV I've put forward, all else has been beat to death. If you still deny it entirely without premise, then there is no worth in discussing it further.

It is also becoming clear to me that rather than gaining an awareness of others' thoughts & beliefs and why they have them, you would rather spend your time arguing and trying to be 'right' to satisfy your ego's needs. Please take another look at the guidelines to remind yourself about the general ethos of this forum before posting again.

 

[Luminary]

Petersko,

I would like to respond to your last post, but I would really like an answer to the question I keep asking you before I continue.

That question is:

How can the human brain be more important than environmental resources if both are necessary for human superiority?

Super Perfundo on the early eve of your day.
-Luminary

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

MynameisnotDeja, just out of curiosity would you provide your children with vaccination shots?

Hmm..good question. I would have to think about it and talk it over with their father (I don't have kids now). I think we will most likely take the natural approach as I do not like the idea of vaccinations. My children will eat right, exciercize and take anti-oxidants from a young age, so I think our path will probably be to strengthen their immune system.

The only thing would be enrolling them in school. I think you have to get them shots for them to go to Kindergarten.

 

[JerryBlunted]

you mean you guys don't like being redundant and repeating the same thing twice?

i mean it is a common trait of your particular type of critique to use many oblique (aah, ya like the GRE word there) words to say the same thing that has much simpler ways of being said.

thats not anything personal about you, but i've noticed you arguing from a liberal post-modernist/feminist perspective, and this is something i have spent a lot of time thinking about... where i go to school 90% of our classes are based on this perspective and it gets a bit repetitive, so i tend to react negatively to hearing it, (edit: my reaction is) nothing about you; and your analysis does certainly have some merit.... (edit: i just tend to be a little on the wary side of any argument that needs to develop its own separate terminology to address issues that are addressable within the realm of "regular" language).